DivineComedy

If you actually tried to read what is posted, a modicum of intelligence would understand.

Does not get on the plane:



Gets on the plane:



Do you see the difference?

*****

Do you understand the following analogy?


“Rape is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the selective breeding of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigview Brznutski)

(Terrorized by 'War on Rape' - Washingtonpurplethrobbingpost)
Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com

No, I am proving by reasoned argument that you are an Idiot! What do you think?

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

Cephus

Sure, but paying his or her parents, who do not sell drugs, certainly isn't. None of the people receiving money are, in any way, shape or form, committing terrorist acts.

Iriemon

I read and re-read your posts trying to fathom the logic. My deepest apologies that my apparently less than a modicum of intellgence is making your reasoning somewhat baffling to me.

Yes, one is a picture of Mujadeen jihadists in Afghanistan and one is apparently one of the 9-11 terrorists getting on the plane.

So the point you are trying to make here that the jihadists are not terrorists?

Or is your point that it is OK that America sponsored terrorists because they weren't fighting against us at that particular time?

*****

"Rape is not an enemy" -- true.
"but a technique of warfare" -- on occasion.
"political intimidation through the selective breeding of unarmed non-combatants.” -- I doubt that rape in military situations is for the purpose of breeding of unarmed non-combatants, but I may be possible.

What does that have to do with Brzezinski's statement?

"Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.”

That is absolutely true.

Are you trying to assert that "terrorism" is an enemy?

Was "blitzkrieg" our enemy in WWII?

Or maybe WWII was a war against Kamikaze.

Well that is mighty nice of you to say.

But BTW, Divinecomedy, don't have to try to explain that you are an a**hole. It is completely evident from your posts.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Khayembii Communique

Not really. He didn't only give money to families of suicide bombers.

Do you know how many times Saddam did this?

Yes, DivineComedy, if terrorism is the enemy, then define "terrorism" please.

Billo_Really

This is an opinion you have every right to have, but it is certainly not a reason to go to war.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Billo_Really

This is terrorism.

Khayembii Communique

That's not terrorism; that's an illegal military action.

Billo_Really

You don't think those people at the other end of those bombs are pretty "terrified"?

To the people getting bombed, what's the difference?

Don't you think you're splitting hairs?

DivineComedy

WOW, I can actually agree with you on something. Maybe there is hope for peace, yet…

Khayembii Communique

Sure, but in that case all military actions could be considered terrorism. An act is a terrorist act if its intention is to cause terror. These bombings were mostly operations against artillery batteries and other military targets, and the civilians killed in these bombings were not the target (although hundreds of civilians did die).

There is a small difference, although this is not where the difference lies. The difference lies in the intention of the action and not the response of those who experienced it.

Not at all. I consider your use of the word to be an appeal to emotion most of the time. You have shown that you consider all military actions to be "terrorist" actions, and in doing so you are hollowing out the real meaning of the word.