debate_junkie
Worst Nightmare
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 919
- Reaction score
- 19
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
jakurus said:Terroristic is a made-up word. Terrorist is already an adjective.
What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
jakurus said:Terroristic is a made-up word. Terrorist is already an adjective.
What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
debate_junkie said:Better consult your dictionary. Terrorist is a noun... terroristic is the adjective.. remember adjective's describe.
ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism
terror·istic adj.
I do not understand this post? Maybe it's Rove who doesn't understand what terrorism is since he stopped chasing after terrorists to start a useless war in Iraq?The American said:I was just wondering how many of these barbaric acts must rock the world before liberals will realize what IS terrorism...?!
jakurus said:What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
FiremanRyan said:im not seeing the point your're trying to make. thats like saying, whats the difference between killing someone or shooting a person in the head, resulting in their death? its just another way of a calling one thing something else. if we said Al Quaeda is a group that makes unprovoked attacks on another country and kills civilians, would it make you feel better? the problem is that its almost the exact definition of terrorism.
jakurus said:What IS the difference between terrorism and FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE a totally unprovoked attack on another country that kills lots of civilians?
Zyphlin said:Terrosim. Publicly undeclared attacks against a non military, non governmental target, that targets civilian's with the purpose OF targeting civilians in hopes of inspiring terror and loss within a country or a community hoping to break thier spirits and thier hopes.
Attacks on another country that kill civilians. Attacks against military, governmental, or infastructure ((power/water/etc)) facilities done during war time or a declared military action with the hope of crippling the military of governments ability to control its troops. Civilian casualities generally come due to errors in targetting, or collateral damage. While they are still a horrible horrible loss, it is not the purpose of these attacks to kill civilians.
That is the main difference. We did not just decide one day to go to iraq, sent planes without stating our intention, and then started bombing houses or places of gathering with the explicite purpose of killing civilians to scare the government.
Civilian life is a horrible thing to lose, in any way shape or form. But civilian lives lost during a war time action that is expressed well in advanced and is attempted to be prevented is in no way equivilent to terrorist attacks made explicitatly against citizens. Please tell me what military target were those hotels in Egypt. What military target was the world trade center? What announcements of war by a country was made against those things?
Also, please check facts on the amount of civilian deaths in Iraq. Likely someone will quote the 100,000 range that was posted by a british paper. With proper research ((i will have to find the link again)) and looking at that as a whole, there was a parenthese after the number with statistical terms within. The statistical terms stated that that number could be off by 92,000 in either direction, with 100,000 being the rounded off "middle." Think on that a moment...tell me that wasn't put in there to spin or what kind of statistics they were using to have a range of error that is nearly as LARGE as the number they quoted. That is insanity, and the number can not be taken seriously. Yes, many civilians have died in iraq, but many of the places giving the numbers of civilians are doing a horrible job either skewing the statistics, or including insurgents/terrorist citizens that attack our troops into the numbers of "civilians" killed....not to mention a large number of civilians killed have been by those very same iraqi "insurgents"
That is the one thing that the appeasers & apologists will never understand.Zyphlin said:Civilian life is a horrible thing to lose, in any way shape or form. But civilian lives lost during a war time action that is expressed well in advanced and is attempted to be prevented is in no way equivilent to terrorist attacks made explicitatly against citizens. Please tell me what military target were those hotels in Egypt. What military target was the world trade center? What announcements of war by a country was made against those things?
jakurus said:But let me ask you: if we were living in a fascist military state and we could cripple the power of the state by destroying its finanicial center, would you do it?
teacher said:What I want to know is: for all the rhetoric about us being the "great Satan". the Arabs sure spend a lot of time and energy blowing their own "brothers" up. We haven't done that since the civil war. We have progressed. What's their excuse. I'll say it. Savages. They beat their women with sticks. I've seen the video from Saudi Arabia. For all of everyones rhetoric. They TARGET CHILDREN and beat their women with sticks in the street while all around turn a blind eye. Yea, I'll say it. Fuc*k PC. Those that act so need the United States of America to come straighten them out. Fuc*k borders and sovereign nations rights. It is the moral thing to do. With great power comes great responsibility. Our sons and daughters that today VOLUNTEER know exactly what harm they put themselves in front of. They are true hero's. You that claim Bush has no right because of the military deaths don't consider that those that fight do so freely. Makes that argument moot, don't you think? This is the gazillioneth time I've said this on this site and not once has there been a reply to debate it. You libs just ignore it and carry on with "Bush lied". Grow up. Grow a pair. It's none of your concern until the next election. The last election said what it said.
Class dismissed.
cnredd said:Testify, teach!
The Liberal Borg doesn't understand "tough love"...These are the same people that don't keep score at baseball games because it might make somebody feel bad.
debate_junkie said:Hey, I don't keep score at baseball games, cept when my team is winning. Does that make me a lib?JUST KIDDING (before panties get bunched this early in the am)
jakurus said:I am not saying that, I'm just asking what makes terrorism against civilians bad? Would it be more honorable if they had a bigger and better army and killed our military and then us?
Civilians are, by definition... 'non-combatants'.jakurus said:I'm just asking what makes terrorism against civilians bad?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?