Saddam a terrorist?
- Thread starter Sierraman
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, that depends on your definition of terrorism. They just changed the official definition yesterday. Under the new definition, he probably would be a terrorist. But under the new definition, Terry Nichols' bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City would be a terrorist act. This Administration wants to keep Americans scared. Not working....
Since Bush invaded Iraq under the old definition, I say, no, Saddam is not a terrorist.
Since Bush invaded Iraq under the old definition, I say, no, Saddam is not a terrorist.
SASH
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure that if you asked the families of the thousands of people that he tortured and killed in Iraq that they would say he was a terrorist. At least they would now that they can. When he was still in power, saying things like that could get you tortured and killed.
Steve
Well-known member
Blowing up a building with people in it is an act of terror
, it is obvious you need to get back on your medication! or go back to the hospital. they let you out way to soon....
DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
- - - :twisted: disagreeable :twisted: - - I promised myself that I would not desecrate my new boots by lurching around in your barnyard, however the excrement and cow flop which you disperse preclude my adhering to that resolve.Disagreeable said:
You stated, "Well, that depends on your definition of terrorism. They just changed the official definition yesterday." That is such a fallacious statement, it isn't worthy of rebuttal!
I will concur with "Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition - Defining the English Language for the 21st Century":
TERRORISM - 1 the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy 2 the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way.
TERRORIST - one who practices terrorism
IMO - I would say Saddam has been, is, and always will be as much of a 'terrorist' as Hitler, Mao, or even - Atilla The Hun. - or - aren't you aware of who those people were - - :twisted: disagreeable :twisted: ?
To embellish the above definitions would be as fatuous as referring to the "Ten Commandments" as the "Several Suggestions".
Here, Folks, is another example of the " Ricochet techinque of political debate. Always pay attention to the subject at hand. :twisted: :wink:
Brad S
Well-known member
I want to add stealth to the terrorism definition. Terrorists move in groups that aren't easilly identified. Hell yes Nichols was a terrorist! Heussain was absolutely a despot when he used WMD to gas the Kurds, and he was a despot when invaded Kuwait.
Saddam Heussain was a terrorist when he financed Hummas, when he supplied Arafat, when he allowed Iraq to be used to plan the first assault on the Twin Towers.
So yes Heussain was a terrorist, but his villany didn't stop there.
Saddam Heussain was a terrorist when he financed Hummas, when he supplied Arafat, when he allowed Iraq to be used to plan the first assault on the Twin Towers.
So yes Heussain was a terrorist, but his villany didn't stop there.
Brad S said:
Then by your definition there are many more world leaders who qualify as terrorist. Sadam was himself supplied by western leaders. As has been Iran in the past. The defining of a terrorist can get to be a slippery slope and open up arguments that not everyone is going to want to face. I agree wholeheartedly that Sadam was/is a criminal, a despot, and a homicidal genocidal maniac, but labeling him a terrorist may broaden the definition to include those we would not wish it to.
Just food for thought.
Brad S
Well-known member
I make no distinction between Arafat and the suicide bombers he deployed against children nor the butcher that financed the whole deal - they're all terrorists.
US military aid supported Iraq against a worse Iran in an effort to keep the insane Iranians out of the Gulf. The aid did its job, but dishonest people can distort the situation and say US was funding Hummas. This is a lie, but people have been lieing along time.
Here is an example of someone who knows nothing or nkows a little, but not enough to lie well:
"Then by your definition there are many more world leaders who qualify as terrorist. Sadam was himself supplied by western leaders. As has been Iran in the past."
So is anybody suggesting the Shaw was engaged in terrorism when the US gave aid to Iran? Ofcourse not, but if we sling enough mud it can't all be answered even if it all is fabricated.
US military aid supported Iraq against a worse Iran in an effort to keep the insane Iranians out of the Gulf. The aid did its job, but dishonest people can distort the situation and say US was funding Hummas. This is a lie, but people have been lieing along time.
Here is an example of someone who knows nothing or nkows a little, but not enough to lie well:
"Then by your definition there are many more world leaders who qualify as terrorist. Sadam was himself supplied by western leaders. As has been Iran in the past."
So is anybody suggesting the Shaw was engaged in terrorism when the US gave aid to Iran? Ofcourse not, but if we sling enough mud it can't all be answered even if it all is fabricated.
Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
DOC HARRIS SAID:
Read it and weep, Doc. Full article at the link below. Better stay out of the barnyard if you can't do any better than this.
US redefines terrorism: Estimate shows 3,192 terror attacks in 2004
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-7-2005_pg4_2
Read it and weep, Doc. Full article at the link below. Better stay out of the barnyard if you can't do any better than this.
US redefines terrorism: Estimate shows 3,192 terror attacks in 2004
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-7-2005_pg4_2
Brad S said:
My point being, if you have the mental capacity to comprehend it (which I highly doubt), is that many countries, especially those with more agressive foreign policies are guilty of many things that could be twisted into a definition of terrorism. This may be by direct political influence, or apathy to a known situation at a given time. To say things are black and white is simply childish. To accuse these same countries (mine, yours) of terrorism is also wrong in my opinion. But I'm also raising my children in the best country in the world, without having to worry about bombs dropping on their heads or civil uprisings supported by foreign governments, so my view could certainly be considered less than impartial.
It's the view that "we are absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong" that justifies most of the savagery in the world and if you look at it from a philosophical standpoint you'll see your mind set is as poor as anyones. But of course you know so much more than anyone else so who's to argue with you. :roll:
DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
:twisted: disagreeable :twisted: As usual, you have, again, tried to RICOCHET! You are so eager to change the subject that you refuse to read the entire post. I DID do better. :twisted: You :twisted: are so transparent and obvious you are laughable! :lol: :lol: :twisted: You :twisted: as do other Radical Liberals, grab at any straw in an effort to propound your Anti-American, Anti-Bush blather. If you dislikeDisagreeable said:
living in this free country, move to some other nation and convince them how compassionate and humane you are. Tell THEM how much you hate the United States and it's Government. Why - you might even be able to assist the Terriorists themselves. - - an entirely new career for you - :twisted: disagreeable :twisted: How apropos! In the meantime, I will carefully avoid :twisted: your :twisted: filthy barnyard. Bon Voyage! What DOC said plus, you'll be loved by Osama and his buddies. You'll be one of the group, you need that kind of frienship. Its hard to be loved by the country you hate. Or do you already live with your terror gang. Cool name huh? The Terror Gang.
Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
DOC HARRIS said:disagreeable :twisted: As usual, you have, again, tried to RICOCHET! You are so eager to change the subject that you refuse to read the entire post. I DID do better. :twisted: You :twisted: are so transparent and obvious you are laughable! :lol: :lol: :twisted: You :twisted: as do other Radical Liberals, grab at any straw in an effort to propound your Anti-American, Anti-Bush blather. If you dislike
No. I said they changed the definition of Terrorism. You said "That is such a fallacious statement, it isn't worthy of rebuttal!"
I posted a link showing that the US govenment has changed their definition of Terrorism.
Now you twist and squirm and try to change the subject by calling me names. Won't happen here. The subject is the definition of Terrorism. The US government has changed their definition of a terrorist act.
Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
Sierraman said:
Why'd you delete your posts?
Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
Silver said:
I second that.
Why did I delete my posts? Good question disagreeable. Well, it's simple to explain. The owrds I have typed have been quoyed enought imes, my words in the original form are quite unnecessary. But thanks for the concern. You're quite considerate in that regard. And I didn't delete it, I don't know how. I can't return an empty post either.
I do hope you have a group you can be part of that can be friends with you. I would like to be friendly, but I know nothing of you but your ideas. And I can't say those are things I could live with ....
I do hope you have a group you can be part of that can be friends with you. I would like to be friendly, but I know nothing of you but your ideas. And I can't say those are things I could live with ....
Terrorism has a definition and given what a scourge it is today, let's not mangle the definition as Doc wants to do.
I imagine he would label LAGs (liberal activist groups) as terrorists too if we were not paying attention.
Black and white, lowest common denominator, one source of information (or shall we call it propaganda), lack of analytical ability, kneejerk rejection of anything that doesn't support ones' views and so on... In the last few years I have seen the U.S. turn into the kind of mindless propaganda and reality show junkies that I witnessed in Egypt. It saddens me and bodes badly. EDUCATION and READING and DEBATE and ANALYTICAL THINKING are needed here.[/quote]
Dear Reader,
Mr. Brad S. has a very good point. A definition is not set by any one person or group. People use words that fit best to what they want to say, not according to what XYZ says the should say. In my opinion, a lot of LAGs would be labeled terrorists. Not all, not even most, although almost all would be weirdos(look for an official definition on that word).
Education, debate, analytical thinking, and reading are needed where? In Egypt? How about in North East U.S. and Southern California,? Egypt has the Nile, and you've got De Nile. (Sorry, love that one. )
As far as rejecting something that doesn't support your views. That makes perfect sense to me. Would you support allowing an alligator into your truck? It's view is that you're lunch, and you don't see yourself that way. I'd hope, you'd have a kneejerk reaction to its entering your truck. Runover it and kill it before it comes inside with you and better then in the back. Ah ha, so now it makes sense? 8)
Sometimes, people need a broader view of things before they start telling other people they're too focused on their ideas, even though having a broader perspective will tell you that some things have to be narrow.
I don't mean to be crass Reader. I respect a lot of things you have said on this site, but in this case, you have not thought before typing.
I imagine he would label LAGs (liberal activist groups) as terrorists too if we were not paying attention.
Black and white, lowest common denominator, one source of information (or shall we call it propaganda), lack of analytical ability, kneejerk rejection of anything that doesn't support ones' views and so on... In the last few years I have seen the U.S. turn into the kind of mindless propaganda and reality show junkies that I witnessed in Egypt. It saddens me and bodes badly. EDUCATION and READING and DEBATE and ANALYTICAL THINKING are needed here.[/quote]
Dear Reader,
Mr. Brad S. has a very good point. A definition is not set by any one person or group. People use words that fit best to what they want to say, not according to what XYZ says the should say. In my opinion, a lot of LAGs would be labeled terrorists. Not all, not even most, although almost all would be weirdos(look for an official definition on that word).
Education, debate, analytical thinking, and reading are needed where? In Egypt? How about in North East U.S. and Southern California,? Egypt has the Nile, and you've got De Nile. (Sorry, love that one. )
As far as rejecting something that doesn't support your views. That makes perfect sense to me. Would you support allowing an alligator into your truck? It's view is that you're lunch, and you don't see yourself that way. I'd hope, you'd have a kneejerk reaction to its entering your truck. Runover it and kill it before it comes inside with you and better then in the back. Ah ha, so now it makes sense? 8)
Sometimes, people need a broader view of things before they start telling other people they're too focused on their ideas, even though having a broader perspective will tell you that some things have to be narrow.
I don't mean to be crass Reader. I respect a lot of things you have said on this site, but in this case, you have not thought before typing.
