 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Kerry really ****ed up this time. Sadr's militia killed more than 30 troops. |
Fez, that doesn't define a terrorist movement, or even necessarily a criminal movement. Hell, if Sadr and the rest of the terrorists simply went after the military and occupying forces, and did their best to avoid civilians, none of them would be terrorists, and they would probably receive a lot more international support. Trying to shoot soldiers who are occupying your country isn't necessarily wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sovereign
|
|
This is sad.
Feed votes to greedy millionaires that know NOTHING of what they do.
I say, go for a Technocracy! Government by skilled technicians, not wealthy fops.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
Hmm, let's look at this conversation:
First, you say "Kerry really ****ed up this time. Sadr's militia killed more than 30 troops."
Then, Floyd goes "Fez, [killing more than thirty troops] doesn't define a terrorist movement." That's completely true.
Then, you respond with a line of  's and "Sadr not a terrorist? What are you on? Sadr is a terrorist and his movement is a terrorist gropu. They killed civilians, they used human shields in cities and they took up positions in cities." Admirably, you avoided your earlier mistake in this explanation of your claim that Sadr is a terrorist, but you missed that Floyd was just pointing out your earlier claim.
(Additionally he claimed that Sadr is not necessarily a terrorist, if his actions were within certain bounds. He was also correct in this, because he never actually stated that Sadr was not a terrorist.)
Then I point out that you didn't address Floyd's point, and you again justify your position that Sadr was a terrorist, again using a correct justification. However, you still miss the point that we are criticising your earlier argument, that Sadr was a terrorist merely because he killed 30 American soldiers. We never disputed your conclusion, just your original justification.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
Hmm, let's look at this conversation:
First, you say "Kerry really ****ed up this time. Sadr's militia killed more than 30 troops."
Then, Floyd goes "Fez, [killing more than thirty troops] doesn't define a terrorist movement." That's completely true. |
Yes it does, especially when Sadr uses combatants that appear as civilians. That's commonly known and I thought you all would know that so I didn't mention it. That clarifies the situation and shows that Sadr is indeed a terrorist.
quote:
Admirably, you avoided your earlier mistake in this explanation of your claim that Sadr is a terrorist, but you missed that Floyd was just pointing out your earlier claim. |
My earlier claim was based on commonly known information that I did not mention.
quote:
Then I point out that you didn't address Floyd's point, and you again justify your position that Sadr was a terrorist, again using a correct justification. |
Again you are making incorrect inferences.
quote:
However, you still miss the point that we are criticising your earlier argument, that Sadr was a terrorist merely because he killed 30 American soldiers. We never disputed your conclusion, just your original justification. |
I made that statement and I stand by that because I thought it would be associated with commonly known information, that Sadr uses terrorist tactics.
So your argument against me is as usual ****.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sovereign
|
|
I label people or groups that use innocent people to kill people and / or destroying property in the process, terrorists.
The innocent people like women and children are forced to be human sheilds, or are forced to don bombs on their personas.
That sort of thing makes the person or group responible terrorists. If they did not use such methods or tactics, then they would be considered militia or gurriellas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
1. The problem with Kerry an Iraq is that I can't imagine any democrat and most republicans who would have decided to invade Iraq. Yet, there we are and even if you think we should not be there we have already committed ourselves to the game. America does not want to lose face and leave without saying we won. So far we've only lost one war and people still won't admit to that(we left 2 years before the fall of Saigon). If you are Kerry it would be hard to always have to go between what you feel is right and what you feel you need to say to get in the whitehouse. It's easy for Bush to point to the mixed things that other politicians are saying. If they say even the smallest criticisms of his policies then they hate freedom, hate america, love terrorists, or are just plain pinko communists.
2. How are these people pretending to be civillians. They don't own uniforms. They wear the same clothes as the civillians because that is what they have. I also cannot except that in a war declared on Iraq by the U.S. that people firing on American soldiers on their home soil could be considered terrorism. These people have obviously not conceded defeat. Calling these people terrorists is calling the french resistance in ww2 terrorist.
3. Hezbollah was not responsible for the world trade bombing. We need to focus on one group at a time. Right now we need to get AQ out of the way. Think about if we would have focused on AQ instead of diluting our efforts on Iraq. Would the recent tragedy have happened in Spain? As has been said we need to stay the course. What's the course? Iraq or AQ. How much is said about AQ. Why is the focus on Iraq? Do we have more troops in Iraq or Afghanistan? Where is OSL?
4. Lastly, Free Press is a cornerstone of democracy! It the same thing that allows people on this site to speak out. Just because we don't like the message does not give the right to shut it down.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-04-2004 02:28
|