No.
(10 characters)
Your own source defeats you.
Sabotage is not in any way necessarily terrorism.
I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that acts of sabotage are not at all necessarily acts of terrorism.This is a lost cause...
I'm sorry that you do not like the fact that acts of sabotage are not at all necessarily acts of terrorism.
But, it is a fact.
Were the civilians the intended target? No. End of story.why, it fits with the definition you gave: killing civilians* (140,000) to reach a political goal (end of the WWII)
Were the civilians the intended target? No. End of story.
Killing civilians in wartime while attacking a military target isn't terrorism.We knew that when we dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima that we were going to kill many innocents. That successfully fulfills the premeditated part.
There you go, you proved my point: The definition of terrorism is stupid.Killing civilians in wartime while attacking a military target isn't terrorism.
If it were, then you'd not need to revert to such hyperbole to make your point, as every 500lb HE bomb that missed a Maybach factory and hit a German school would be terrorism.
Seems to me your point was that the US was a terrorist state.There you go, you proved my point: The definition of terrorism is stupid.
Under the definition, they are. Thanks for making my case.Seems to me your point was that the US was a terrorist state.
Your case isn't even close to being made, given the examples you've provided.Under the definition, they are. Thanks for making my case.
Let me spell this out for you, so that there is no way you can fail to grasp it:Your case isn't even close to being made, given the examples you've provided.
This obnoxiously stupid intellectual dishonesty shouldn't even be acknowledged.
Yet you acknowledged it.
Funny.
What a devastating comeback. :lol:
Congratulations there, Sparky. You've just managed to comprehend that, in order to address the irrelevance of an issue, one must actually mention that issue.
Way to think it through. :applaud
Let me spell this out for you, so that there is no way you can fail to grasp it:
the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents
Since when has it meant this? 9/11?
States are as able, and historically more likely, to use terror as any of these groups. The very term comes from the Jacobin "Terrorists" who murdered tens of thousands of innocents.
the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
Let me spell this out for you, so that there is no way you can fail to grasp it:
the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents
Okay. So premeditated means that one knows what they are doing an has planned an action before hand. The US government knew that they would kill plenty of innocents. A noncombatant is someone not in combat. That would make civilians and noncombatants synonymous.
What are you having trouble with, again?
Terrorism is a set of actions that meet a given critera.
That criteria usually involves deliberately attacking non-combatants in order to use fear as a means to a political end.
Unless someones' action meet that criteria, it doesnt matter who -calls- them a terrorist -- they are not.
Nothing better demonstrates the grade school intellectual level liberals operate on than this "moral equivalence" blather that leaves them treating it as some baffling "eye of the beholder" mystery whether Osama bin Laden is any different from George Washington.
--snip-- the lynching --snip--
PHILOSOPHY AND TACTICS
The Sons of Liberty were responsible for many acts of mob violence. They typically tarred and feathered tax collectors. Contrary to popular conceptions and British propaganda, being tarred and feathered did not kill anyone. A tax collector would be roused out of his home, painted with warm tar, and then covered with chicken feathers. The stamp agent was not stripped of his clothing and the tar was never hot enough to burn his skin. However, he was covered with chicken feathers, which, unlike duck or goose down, are scratchy and uncomfortable. The tax collector was then placed on a wooden rail and carried out of town. As he was carried, the Sons of Liberty and other townspeople would shout abuse at him. The process was frightening and humiliating. The taxman would be left with bruises, scratches, ruined clothes, as well as emotional trauma.
The Sons of Liberty never deliberately killed anyone. They sought to scare tax collectors into quitting their job.
Not yet brother not yet, Bush made things in Iraq so difficult, there is not a clear way out of the quagmire.Well it's a good thing Obama came along and ended the Iraq war. Oh wait. :roll:
Not yet brother not yet, Bush made things in Iraq so difficult, there is not a clear way out of the quagmire.
I wondered how long it would be before someone argued that 'Bush screwed up Iraq so bad that Obama can't bring the troops home like he promised'.Not yet brother not yet, Bush made things in Iraq so difficult, there is not a clear way out of the quagmire.
Again:Let me spell this out for you, so that there is no way you can fail to grasp it:
the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents
Okay. So premeditated means that one knows what they are doing an has planned an action before hand. The US government knew that they would kill plenty of innocents. A noncombatant is someone not in combat. That would make civilians and noncombatants synonymous.
What are you having trouble with, again?
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?