If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist
-
Based on the below, is George W Bush a terrorist? If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist[^] Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
-
Based on the below, is George W Bush a terrorist? If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist[^] Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
*If* this is true, and frankly I wouldn't be overly surprised if it was, it's just kind of depressing :( Where are we now on "sending mixed messages" or "flip-flopping"? ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned
-
Based on the below, is George W Bush a terrorist? If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist[^] Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
A terrorist is defined by your point of view. American military are terrorists to the Taliban, correct? So by that rationale America is harboring thousands of terrorists. Of course that's silly if you don't support the Taliban - THEY are the terrorists. Back to my point: from America's political point of view, would assasinating Castro be a terrorist act? Michael Hodnick www.kindohm.com blogs.kindohm.com
-
Based on the below, is George W Bush a terrorist? If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist[^] Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
IMO, the only example of terrorism in the article is the fouth one (assuming, of course, they are playing straight with the facts): A fourth Panama conspirator, Louis Posada Carriles, left Panama for Honduras. He is still wanted in Venezuela on charges of bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 passengers. In 1998, in an interview with the New York Times from a hideout in Central America, Posada admitted taking part in numerous acts of terrorism, including a wave of Havana hotel bombings in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist. He said his violence was funded by prominent U.S.-based supporters in the Cuban exile community. (Notably, he was the only one who did not go to the US, so this is a moot point.) Most examples of "terrorism" cited by the article are actually assassination attempts: "They were arrested in 2000 for plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro by planting explosives at a meeting the Cuban dictator planned to hold with university students in Panama." IMO, assassinations are not terrorism. They are simply assassinations - which isn't meant to condone it. Killing a leader or other high-level government official is very different than killing civilians randomly. And when assassinations kill civilians (because the assassins use a bomb or something equally indescriminant), I consider that to be a "sloppy assassination" - worse than a simple assassination, but still not terrorism, even though they're pretty much cousins in terms of effects (depending on the number of civilians killed). There's also the issue of whether they continue to commit these acts. Someone who is actively pursuing terrorist attacks is different from someone who has done so in the past, but doesn't anymore. Sure, there's a criminal-prosecution element. But, take the case of Abu Abbas[^] who was one of the Achille Lauro[^] terrorists. He has renouced the use of terrorism. He was also picked up in Baghdad[^]. Does this mean Iraq was "harb
-
IMO, the only example of terrorism in the article is the fouth one (assuming, of course, they are playing straight with the facts): A fourth Panama conspirator, Louis Posada Carriles, left Panama for Honduras. He is still wanted in Venezuela on charges of bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 passengers. In 1998, in an interview with the New York Times from a hideout in Central America, Posada admitted taking part in numerous acts of terrorism, including a wave of Havana hotel bombings in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist. He said his violence was funded by prominent U.S.-based supporters in the Cuban exile community. (Notably, he was the only one who did not go to the US, so this is a moot point.) Most examples of "terrorism" cited by the article are actually assassination attempts: "They were arrested in 2000 for plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro by planting explosives at a meeting the Cuban dictator planned to hold with university students in Panama." IMO, assassinations are not terrorism. They are simply assassinations - which isn't meant to condone it. Killing a leader or other high-level government official is very different than killing civilians randomly. And when assassinations kill civilians (because the assassins use a bomb or something equally indescriminant), I consider that to be a "sloppy assassination" - worse than a simple assassination, but still not terrorism, even though they're pretty much cousins in terms of effects (depending on the number of civilians killed). There's also the issue of whether they continue to commit these acts. Someone who is actively pursuing terrorist attacks is different from someone who has done so in the past, but doesn't anymore. Sure, there's a criminal-prosecution element. But, take the case of Abu Abbas[^] who was one of the Achille Lauro[^] terrorists. He has renouced the use of terrorism. He was also picked up in Baghdad[^]. Does this mean Iraq was "harb
( Some people, of course, are trying like crazy to brow-beat the US by shifting definitions of "terrorist" until it is a meaningless term. ) Wow! If I could give you a +20 I would! :) Jeremy Falcon
-
IMO, the only example of terrorism in the article is the fouth one (assuming, of course, they are playing straight with the facts): A fourth Panama conspirator, Louis Posada Carriles, left Panama for Honduras. He is still wanted in Venezuela on charges of bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 passengers. In 1998, in an interview with the New York Times from a hideout in Central America, Posada admitted taking part in numerous acts of terrorism, including a wave of Havana hotel bombings in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist. He said his violence was funded by prominent U.S.-based supporters in the Cuban exile community. (Notably, he was the only one who did not go to the US, so this is a moot point.) Most examples of "terrorism" cited by the article are actually assassination attempts: "They were arrested in 2000 for plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro by planting explosives at a meeting the Cuban dictator planned to hold with university students in Panama." IMO, assassinations are not terrorism. They are simply assassinations - which isn't meant to condone it. Killing a leader or other high-level government official is very different than killing civilians randomly. And when assassinations kill civilians (because the assassins use a bomb or something equally indescriminant), I consider that to be a "sloppy assassination" - worse than a simple assassination, but still not terrorism, even though they're pretty much cousins in terms of effects (depending on the number of civilians killed). There's also the issue of whether they continue to commit these acts. Someone who is actively pursuing terrorist attacks is different from someone who has done so in the past, but doesn't anymore. Sure, there's a criminal-prosecution element. But, take the case of Abu Abbas[^] who was one of the Achille Lauro[^] terrorists. He has renouced the use of terrorism. He was also picked up in Baghdad[^]. Does this mean Iraq was "harb
I saw this story some weeks ago, when the four were released by the ex-president of Panama, just before she leaves the office. Cuba cut its diplomatic relationships with Panama short after that. At that time, I digged and found an article in a newspaper of Florida (what a surprise) which ran a totally different story (sadly I'm not able to find it anymore). It was convincing enough to create a doubt on the "standard" description made about the four men. Brit wrote: (Notably, he was the only one who did not go to the US, so this is a moot point.) He's the only one of the four not to carry a US passport. Brit wrote: I consider that to be a "sloppy assassination" - worse than a simple assassination, but still not terrorism, even though they're pretty much cousins in terms of effects (depending on the number of civilians killed). That's disturbing, quiet specious. For example, if Al-qaeda claims that when it attacked the pentagon, its goal was to kill Rumsfeld, should we then declassify this as a terrorist attack? Just because the target is identified, a political assassination is then not a terrorist action? If so, ETA is not a terrorist group, and most of the killings made by IRA and UVF aren't then terrorist actions either. Limiting terrorist actions to "anonymous" killings is IMO too restrictive.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
I saw this story some weeks ago, when the four were released by the ex-president of Panama, just before she leaves the office. Cuba cut its diplomatic relationships with Panama short after that. At that time, I digged and found an article in a newspaper of Florida (what a surprise) which ran a totally different story (sadly I'm not able to find it anymore). It was convincing enough to create a doubt on the "standard" description made about the four men. Brit wrote: (Notably, he was the only one who did not go to the US, so this is a moot point.) He's the only one of the four not to carry a US passport. Brit wrote: I consider that to be a "sloppy assassination" - worse than a simple assassination, but still not terrorism, even though they're pretty much cousins in terms of effects (depending on the number of civilians killed). That's disturbing, quiet specious. For example, if Al-qaeda claims that when it attacked the pentagon, its goal was to kill Rumsfeld, should we then declassify this as a terrorist attack? Just because the target is identified, a political assassination is then not a terrorist action? If so, ETA is not a terrorist group, and most of the killings made by IRA and UVF aren't then terrorist actions either. Limiting terrorist actions to "anonymous" killings is IMO too restrictive.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
I've got to chime in on this one... K(arl) wrote: For example, if Al-qaeda claims that when it attacked the pentagon, its goal was to kill Rumsfeld, should we then declassify this as a terrorist attack? I personally have never considered the attack on the Pentagon an act of terror, though it used the weapons of terror. The pentagon is a military installation, exists for military purposes, and thus is a military target. Attaching the Pentagon was an act of war. A declaration of Al Queds's desire to destory the US by attacking it's military. As the old saying goes, play with fire and you might bet burned.
-
I've got to chime in on this one... K(arl) wrote: For example, if Al-qaeda claims that when it attacked the pentagon, its goal was to kill Rumsfeld, should we then declassify this as a terrorist attack? I personally have never considered the attack on the Pentagon an act of terror, though it used the weapons of terror. The pentagon is a military installation, exists for military purposes, and thus is a military target. Attaching the Pentagon was an act of war. A declaration of Al Queds's desire to destory the US by attacking it's military. As the old saying goes, play with fire and you might bet burned.
Matt Gullett wrote: Attaching the Pentagon was an act of war Doesn't an "Act of War[^]" imply that States are involved? :confused: I searched for definition of what terrorism is, and I found this one on the official website of the EU: Definitions "Persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts" means individuals, groups and entities on whom there is accurate information proving that they have committed, are attempting to commit or are facilitating the commission of terrorist acts. "Terrorist acts" are defined as intentional acts which may seriously damage a country or international organisation by intimidating a population, exerting undue compulsion of various types or by destabilising or destroying its fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures. The list of terrorist acts includes: attacks on a person's life or physical integrity; kidnapping or hostage-taking; causing extensive destruction to a public or private facility, including information systems; seizure of means of public transport, such as aircraft and ships; manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport or use of weapons, explosives, nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; release of dangerous substances, causing fires, explosions or floods; interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource; directing or participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by funding its activities or supplying material resources. Merely threatening to commit any of these criminal acts is also to be treated as a terrorist offence. The common position also defines "terrorist group" as a structured group of persons, acting in concert to commit terrorist acts, regardless of its composition or the level of development of its structure.[^]
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would p