Really? Japanese religious sects, unrelated nationalist groups like the Irish Republican Army, the Tamil Tigers, and Basques, as well as various Communist/Maoist armies like the FARC and the Shining Path are fighting in Iraq? Are you sure you really mean that?
I just grabbed the U.S. terrorist list -- I included all for good measure. If they kill innocent people, they are terrorists. That includes the IRA and the Basques and Shining Path -- and I did say here, Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever."
Foreign Policy mag had an article about how the newest wave of recruits are young internet surfers looking for thrill seeking and some purpose to their twisted lives while having less adherence to extremist ideological principles and organization. They draw allegories to some video game adventure with the CIA/FBI bounty lists and the full fledged might of the American military against the "lone insurgent". You win by making it to martyrdom.
Riiight. This reminds me of a Cedric the Entertainer skit. He's imitating Bush saying they have weapons of mass destruction. But the people aren't convinced so he says "Plus, they're trying to kill Tom Cruise! Yeah! They're trying to kill him!" Come on. There are no more terrorists in Iraq than there are in any random European country.
Oh, I see what you did here. Just FYI, you quoted me saying there are none in IRAQ. If they kill innocent people they are terrorists. That's very simplistic. In that case, there are tons of these in America, right?
Murderers are murderers. U.S. law prevents quick execution, but we do need some fair way of considerably speeding the process. I have no problem with changing the law to prohibit execution, but if we are going to have execution as a legal punishment, let's get it done and over with to give space to the next deserving, lawfully convicted inmate. BTW, in Post #34 you did say there are no terrorists in Iraq.
That seems like an overly broad definition. Were Bomber Harris or James Doolittle terrorists? They not only killed innocent civilians, but very clearly targeted innocent civilians. If you don't develop a more nuanced definition, they have to be terrorists. You can't just say, "well they aren't because I said so" if they fit the definition.
Two words: Declared War. Both sides declared it, so civilian/soldier casualties were inevitable. Both sides had uniformed soldiers, sailors and airmen. Only a small sect of crazies have declared jihad. When we fought Saddam, it was military against military. Collateral damage occurred, but we tried to limit it. Terrorists go after anyone, including their own people in market places. They don't care as long as others are terrorized. If you can't see the difference between that and the Doolittle Raid, I feel for you.
See, now you are adding qualifiers. So it is more than kill innocent civilians = terrorist. Any more undeclared qualifiers? BTW, if you look at someone like the FARC and Colombia, both sides have declared war on each other. So by your stated definition of declared war they can't be terrorists. Come to think of it, since we've reciprocated and declared a war on terror, and al Qaeda declared war on the USA many years ago, doesn't that make it declared war by both sides in the conflict?
You can take your shades of gray to infinity where there is no black or white, right or wrong, good or bad.
Why don't you answer his questions first. Then why don't you provide some examples for this charge. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that a few moments from now I will be illustrating how you don't comprehend the meaning of the term.
For years I have read your pontifications and recriminations (oops, I'm not smart enough for words like that) -- enough to know to always answer your questions with another question because the argument ultimately becomes moot anyway.
Maybe it's because you have a propensity to make crappy, disingenuous arguments without a sound logical basis that can be easily picked apart, to which you respond by simply repeating your original assertion again - see e.g.the way you are evading Ottomaton right now. Why don't you answer his questions instead of citing a meaningless ambiguity.
Not really, he has done a great job pointing out the underlying weakness of your overly inclusive position - which you have yet to respond to. Rather than go on into infinity, it seems like the argument has been finite.
Well, this can be resolved easily. thumbs, Why don't you create a test with tick-boxes, and whenever you tick all for a person, they are a terrorist. Then we'll play the fun follow-up game.
SamFisher: for God's sake this is a message board. You know and thumbs knows and I know that a more complete definition can be created but to trip up the discussion and cast aspersions upon thumbs until you are "satisfied" is disingenuous. Thumbs is not defending his dissertation for a doctorate. It would be helpful to carve out a better definition but your methodologies are only obstructive and not very helpful. You seem more interested in jerking people around than in furthering any discussion. Oh yeah, you did post that poll and I remember your answers...
