The Hard Facts!

Bombing of trains containing civilians is an act of terrorism. Those that did so are terrorists.

Spain having troops in Iraq is not aiding in the fighting of terrorists. It is aiding an illegal Occupation and indirectly supporting an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.

1.Is the attack on the USS Cole an act of terrorism?
2. Is the bombing of a US Embassy an act of terrorism?
3. Is the bombing of Marine Barracks an act of terrorism?
4. Is a rocket attack on a civilian neiborhood an act of terrorism?
5. Is shooting down a Military helicopter an act of terrorism?
6. Is blowing up Military vehicles an act of terrorism?

Well Brandon, it looks like YOU, & a lot of US, look at the act of Terrorism in completely different views, but what I'd like to know from you, is where you're getting your "personal" information, we'd all like to have that knowledge, but quite frankly, I don't believe you've got it to back up what you're attempting to say here...

Contemplating The Meaning Of Life,
Patt

PegasusPatt wrote:

Well Brandon, it looks like YOU, & a lot of US, look at the act of Terrorism in completely different views, but what I'd like to know from you, is where you're getting your "personal" information, we'd all like to have that knowledge, but quite frankly, I don't believe you've got it to back up what you're attempting to say here...

Contemplating The Meaning Of Life,
Patt

I am saying that I define terrorism as requiring an act against a non-combatant, and that I regard an attack against a military target, or many government targets as conventional military attacks. Once this definition is made, the classification of most of your specific examples is easy. I am giving what to me is a reasonable requirement for an act to be called terrorism. Since I am only stating my opinion, that is, what I consider to be a proper definition of terrorism, I am not required to back it up.

Brandon9000 wrote:
"1. The attack on the Cole was not terrorism, since it targeted military personnel.
2. This is a hard one because the embassy staff are official representatives of the US, and so, one could make a case for Al Qaeda that they did not target non-combatants. This is something that could be argued both ways. However, typically diplomats are given immunity from attack, because if they were not, diplomacy could not exist.
3. The bombing of the Marine barracks was not terrorism, since they were a legitimate military target from our enemies' point of view.
4. A rocket attack on a civilian neighborhood is terrorism unless a specific military or governmental structure is targeted and a serious attempt is made to minimize civilian casualties.
5. Shooting down a military helicopter is an act of war, not an act of terrorism, since a military vehicle is the target.
6. Blowing up a military vehicle is an act of war, not terrorism, since the target is military."

Since the President and Administration authorized carpet bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq, your description of them is most fitting.

The years of relative prosperity and peace in the USA during Clinton years might as well be 1,000 years ago, not just 4 years ago, it seems so long now.

Since Bush won his lawsuit and was handed the keys to the White House by the Renquist Five, 3 million jobs have vanished, tens-of-thousands of jobs have gone overseas never to return, millions of Americans have been unemployed so long they're no longer counted by the Dept. of Labor, 1.7 million Americans have been added to the ranks of poverty, the number of uninsured Americans has climbed, we're in the midst of a guerilla war in Iraq for oil and legacy, energy prices are skyrocketing with gas prices nearing $2.00 a gallon, and the nation has gone from a $165 billion surplus to a $520 billion dollar deficit.

This is George W. Bush's America. Well done, Georgie.

Civilian employment in 1996: 132 million
Civilian employment in 2000: 141 million
Civilian employment in 2004 146 million

Pray tell, where are all these lost jobs?

PegasusPatt, surely you are not attempting to speak for everyone on this, right? :wink:

I find myself agreeing with Brandon9000's p.o.v. than many of the "US" that you make claim to.

No, you're not required to back it up, but I'll bet the ranch on what you'd have to say if it happened to someone you love! That, my friend, does indeed hurt to know that a loved one died, & w/no explanation given as to why... I've seen & read things that were a first for me, but your attitude, well, it somehow tells me, "you're always right", so no matter what I say, "you're right"... But, since we have a Democratic lifestyle, your definition of a "proper definition of Terrorism", is indeed anything but "proper"... (Just a thought...)

Have a Good 'Un in Your Unexplainable Little World,
Patt

While there are over one million students graduating and leaving schools in just ONE of our large states, in a given year--- just 'half' that, which would give you too low a number- but...
multiply anyway, 48 mainland states by half a million--
That gives you 24 million people a year seeking a way to make a living and have a family/pay for advanced education.
Some die, some retire- but it is a FACT... Foxfyre, dying and retiring do not keep pace with new job seekers.

According to your stats above, only 5 million out of 96 million began to work. (2000 to 2004/ 24 million per year)

Lets just take HALF off the 96 million and say 48 million. Say that the other 48 million either died or retired. Still you have 43 million who NEED a job. hmmmm?

PegasusPatt wrote:

No, you're not required to back it up, but I'll bet the ranch on what you'd have to say if it happened to someone you love! That, my friend, does indeed hurt to know that a loved one died, & w/no explanation given as to why... I've seen & read things that were a first for me, but your attitude, well, it somehow tells me, "you're always right", so no matter what I say, "you're right"... But, since we have a Democratic lifestyle, your definition of a "proper definition of Terrorism", is indeed anything but "proper"... (Just a thought...)

Have a Good 'Un in Your Unexplainable Little World,
Patt

Your response is the response of someone who cannot defend his point of view with relevant logic, so responds with personal attacks and irrelevant matters. Assume that I'm guilty of any character defect you please. That doesn't in any way detract from the validity of what I'm saying. An argument may be correct or incorrect, regardless of the personal qualities of the person who advanced it. I have given a reasonable and appropriate definition of terrorism. Would I personally be upset or angry if someone close to me in the military were killed or injured in a form of attack I consider an act of war and not terrorism? Of course, but what do my likely emotional reactions under stress have to do with anything?

I responded to a request by pistioff to define terrorism and classify some examples. If you disagree, how about explaing specific areas of disagreement and stating your contrary opinion?

Well, to begin w/I didn't realize I was precisely attacking anyone, but apparently I have-for that I apologize... But! I will gather my thoughts about what you have asked of me to tell you, & when I do, I sincerely hope you don't take it so personal, I'm not your enemy just because I don't agree w/everything you've said, but I am a concerned Citizen of the United States, & when 09-11-2001 came to pass, I lost people I didn't even know & that did indeed hurt me & this whole Country, as well it should have... Now, that WAS an act of Terrorism, yes? Now on to my thoughts of War... I'll be back w/your answers, & perhaps we can finally agree to agree on something... (or not)... But, it won't be because we're lacking in the Freedom Of Speech category for sure...

Have a Good 'Un!
Patt