IMO if you support US you should want our troops home. Here is why. The war in Iraq c

This is getting too typical for you, gworld. You either don't read or can't read. Let me know which difficulty is currently affecting you.

Now, care to try again:

I don't think the writers of the dictionary would include 'blowing up civilians on a bus or in a market with no perceivable goal' as a valid aspect of war. Do you?

 

I don't care about what you think, either agree with the definition from the dictionary or define your own definition. I have no interest in what things are not war, I want to know what war is.

While you are at it to write a new dictionary, do you have a definition for terrorism?

 

I'm interested in what -you- think, gworld. I'll reword to help you out, so you can attempt to formulate an opinion here. I know its tough, but apply your dictionary skills to the problem:

Do you think the writers of the dictionary would include 'blowing up civilians on a bus or in a market with no perceivable goal' as a valid aspect of war?

Again, its not difficult. This is the game you are trying to play here. Answer the very simple question.

So, you agree, with me then. You are not capable of understanding an issue beyond 10-12 words or so?

I'll ask again. In a different way:

Do you think 'blowing up civilians on a bus or in a market with no perceivable goal' is terrorism? How about planting bombs under newly built schools? Terrorism or not?

 

While I can very well answer about this post I prefer to stick with current day politics, because the conflict of WWII is over long way now, then enemies are friends now, then friends are not so good friends now, So no point debating over a dead issue.
However, if you want to debate over WWII lets make a different thread about it carry our discussion over there. I'd have to include WWI in that debate also, because the final end result of WWI played a major role to create a foundation of WWII.

but I know you would still insist over my answer so - No I don't consider any of them terrorists. the situation was different, that was a madness started by some people (Japs and Nazs) that forced most the world to defend themselves.

 

this is kind of funny, Does al queda even have any chance of gaining any real power in Iraq? Won't the Shiites just kill them?

Also like turkey, united Arab emigrates and other Muslim countries cable of policing themselves, mostly?

 

Getting back to the beginning of this thread , it is high time the US Govt realises that it has made a serious blunder in attacking IRAQ. Having gone in, it has to get out ASAP with damage limitation to its own brave soldiers. The nucleus of terrorism is not Iraq,it is the Pakistan-Afghan border ; US has unnecessarily stirred a hornet's nest.

 

My question was not about WWII, it was about use of violence against civilian target. It was not more than couple of weeks ago that USA bombed a civilian target in hope of killing a terrorist. If you look at the history of war in Iraq, civilian population have been bombed and killed for different reasons, does this make USA a terrorist or should we instead think that a general definition of terrorism should not include the use of violence against civilians?

Before starting to defend USA's actions blindly, what I am discussing is not about those events but trying to clarify the definition of what is or is not terrorism.

 

It certainly appears they have some real power right now. Oddly enough, both sunnis and shiites are fighting there. I know...I was surprised to read about as you are to hear about it, but a while back, I came across a news story where sunnis were fighting al qaida.

However, the promise of virgins to sexually frustrated men seems to be the driving force for them killing each other.

I don't believe Turkey is a muslim country. It's base is primarily muslim. There are others, who live under dictatorships, that seem to do marginally well.

 

Are we back to playing the define terrorism game to bash the US and defend real terrorists again? Always seeking pity for your buds.

 

yeah the al queda people can blow stuff up but there really isn't any chance they take over the country, they are way outnumbered by the locals, and a lot of locals will turn on them as soon as their common enemy (US) leaves

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16reconcile.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/08/news/assess.php

 

You know, I honestly would suggest you not to believe everything that's written in the news, especially if it's pitched with the help of the military. I read it too... And I don't think they're actually "fighting" al qaeda.... Much more likely it's a maneuver to stop fighting the USA military and instead prepare for the BIG sunni vs. shia fight that will inevitably happen as soon as USA pulls out.

If you'll look into the context of the story, it's something like "USA military is counting on Sunni tribal leaders' support to fight against al Qaeda, and that's why it's arming Sunni militant groups (that were fighting the USA just recently) with shiny new weapons." The really funny part is that all that's needed to get those shiny new weapons is a simple "promise" that they won't attack Americans with them. And we all know exactly how much promises are worth in the Middle East....

So what is in fact happening, is that the USA military is currently arming the same Sunni militias that were attacking it a few months ago, just like it armed mostly Shia-controlled, Mehdi-army infiltrated Iraqi army before. All that while keeping them separated as two different camps (which is the really big problem here -- they should've worked harder on unifying shias and sunnis against the same enemy, not arming two military structures that hate each other just a little bit more than they hate Americans). And when it's time to withdraw... Happy bloodbath everybody.

That's why it's my firm belief that USA is acting very reckessly due to stupidity of the Bush administration, although generally without any malicious intent. I personally believe that USA is really trying to change the situation around somehow, but the tactics it chose are completely messed up and will only guarantee more bloodshed and instability in the Middle East in the future.

 

Hurray, Queen of cheer leader group is back.

Time to laugh. As usual nothing to say except his usual clowning. How about instead of disturbing serious discussion, you spend some time practicing with your cheer leader squad? It seems they are slacking and not cheering as before. Please continue with your clowning and make us laugh. Still laughing at you.

 

Odd that gworld is laughing at people; when he's spending lots of time avoiding questions that seem to have simple answers.

 

It is no point discussing with a member of cheer leader group, you are too much of a Blonde.

Things that are not war:

1) Smoking cigarettes is not war
2) going to school is not war
3) driving a car is not war
....
.....
...
1000,000) other things that are not war

When you know what you are talking about and have a definition for what war and terrorism IS, come back and we talk.

 

Do you think 'blowing up civilians on a bus or in a market with no perceivable goal' is terrorism? How about planting bombs under newly built schools? Terrorism or not?

Come on gworld. Try to put some thought behind it. Is putting a bomb under a school to blow up kids an act of terrorism? How about it? Got a yes or a no for me?

 

Too much of a blonde, out to try to defend the honor of Queen of cheer leading squad. Not worth answering.

Typical cheer leader squad cheers:

Cheer leader squad: You are a terrorist, you are a pro terrorist, you are a terrorist,.....

passer by: What do you mean by terrorist?

Cheer leader squad: We don't know, we are dumb blondes, only repeating the cheers that they have thought us.

Queen of cheer leader squad: I don't know, if you have a beef with our cheers, talk with the author.

 

Come on gworld. Try to put some thought behind it. Is putting a bomb under a school to blow up kids an act of terrorism? How about it? Got a yes or a no for me?

How about it? 3rd time the charm?

I'm a blond, apparently, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer. How about you?

Placing a bomb under a school to blow up kids once its in session? Terrorism?

How about strapping a bomb to a retarded kid and sending him to blow people up? Terrorism?

Not difficult questions. Really. Got anything for me?

 

I wonder why AGS and gworld never answered this, but have no spare bad words for the US, Israel, Christians, Jews, Soldiers and dmoz. Actually, I've never seen AGS bash dmoz, but the rest is quite accurate.

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

That was the funniest thing I have heard in long time, queen of cheer leaders think he has a mind and not only that but an Inquiring one.

You are killing me with laughter, you must be a terrorist. Keep on clowning, I just love it. Still laughing at you.