• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Saddam a terrorist?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Is Saddam Hussein literally a terrorist?

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Disagreeable said:
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 :mad: 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! :D :D

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.
H-m-m-m-m - - -"- - -try to change the subject by calling me names"

:twisted: disagreeable :twisted: - HERE is the PERFECT example of what I have referred to as "Ricochet". If you read the post once more - carefully - I have not "called you names" - unless you consider "Radical Liberal" a name, unless you consider "Ricochet" a name unless, perhaps, you consider "apropos" a name :shock: :???:

:twisted: disagreeable :twisted: , I read the entire link - enough to realize that you quoted it from the "Pakistan" newspaper! :shock: Your profile neglects to give much information about you :eek: :shock: . Are you a reporter for that Pakistan newspaper? :???: Are you involved in Agriculture AT ALL? :? Inasmuch as this IS an Agriculture site, I don't think that I have ever seen any comments from you elsewhere on these Boards in regard to AGRICULTURE per se :roll: . Perhaps you are a "plant ". :???: Just curious - - - - - :twisted: disagreeable :twisted:

Regarding the Post -instant: I feel most people recognize the difference between the lexical meaning of the word "Terrorist" and the Political significance of "Terrorist" in the World of Today. Again, the term"Semantics" enters into any
LOGICAL discussion - - along, of course, with a reasonable portion of common, ordinary, everyday "Horse Sense". Would that we all could "keep our heads about us when everyone else is losing theirs!"
 
reader (the Second) said:
I just came across this. I subscribe to a wire service that sends articles based on keywords, including "terrorist". It seems apropos this discussion of the meaning of "terrorist."

Twenty years later, survivor says bombing of Rainbow Warrior ended Greenpeace 'innocence'

By RAY LILLEY Associated Press Writer
WELLINGTON, New Zealand

If French agents who blew up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbor 20 years ago were trying to sink the Greenpeace movement along with its protest ship, they couldn't have done a worse job.

Instead of scuttling the environmental group in what New Zealand considers its only terrorist attack, the French strike gave Greenpeace a rallying point and a sharper focus.

"It was the end of our youthful, exuberant innocence," said Steve Sawyer, who at the time was the leader of the Rainbow Warrior's anti-nuclear protests. He spoke to The Associated Press ahead of Sunday's anniversary of the blast on July 10, 1985.

"We suddenly became very, very deadly serious," he said, because "democratic governments were willing to kill us."

In the years since, the organization formed in 1971 has grown into an environmental powerhouse with 2.8 million supporters worldwide.

The blast, which killed a Greenpeace photographer, Dutchman Fernando Pereira, gave the group "an aura of credibility and respectability we hadn't had previously. We were in the center of some pretty big politics ... (with) a lot more access," Sawyer added.

As Greenpeace commemorates the attack, the group remains angry over the French operation. On Sunday, the sunken ship's replacement, Rainbow Warrior II, will visit New Zealand's Matauri Bay, where the original Rainbow Warrior was scuttled after being refloated during an investigation. Divers will lay a marble sculpture of a dove with an olive branch on the seabed near the sunken vessel.

In July 1985, two mines planted by French secret service frogmen tore apart Rainbow Warrior's hull as the ship was preparing to sail to France's South Pacific nuclear test site at Mururoa Atoll as part of a campaign for a nuclear-free Pacific.

The first device tore a hole big enough "to drive a Volkswagen through" said the vessel's skipper, Pete Willcox.

Willcox, then 32, was asleep in his bunk when the ship shuddered under the first blast and water gushed into its engine room.

Pereira ran below to grab some of his camera gear while Willcox was checking whether people had escaped from their cabins.

Then a second high-powered mine detonated "right under us ... on the propeller shaft," Willcox said, adding that the blast "trapped Fernando Pereira in his cabin and drowned him."

Police divers confirmed the blasts were sabotage. Within two days, the "finger was pointing at France ... but we didn't believe it at first," said Alan Galbraith, the retired detective who headed the investigation.

The evidence became overwhelming: diving tanks with French markings; a French yacht which delivered the explosives and several saboteurs; seized computer phone logs with direct-dial numbers to the French secret service in Paris.

Two of nine French agents who entered New Zealand were arrested within days in a scene worthy of cinema's bumbling French detective, Inspector Jacques Clouseau.

Instead of fleeing the country, agents Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur were waiting for a refund for having returned a rented van early.

"To our surprise they were still waiting for their check refund" when detectives tracking the vehicle walked into the rental office, said Maurice Whitham, one of the investigators.

Said Galbraith: "It wasn't the best spy technique _ receipts were kept. It was a significant paper trail."

New Zealand branded the attack "an act of state-sponsored terrorism" and, after years of open hostility with France, won a multimillion-dollar reparations payment and what Greenpeace has called an "unconvincing apology."

Pierre Lacoste, who headed France's counter-espionage agency at the time, said in an interview last week with The New Zealand Herald that the drowning of photographer Pereira was an accident that weighed heavily on his conscience.

"I would perfectly understand it if New Zealanders considered this act to be an act of terrorism, to sink a boat in a port where there are just yachtsmen, peaceful people," he told the newspaper.

"It does not really deserve to be called that, but if it is felt in that way, that is reality," he said.

After the attack, Lacoste was fired and Defense Minister Charles Hernu resigned.

The two arrested French agents, each sentenced to 10 years for manslaughter, were freed within two years after France threatened trade and other sanctions against New Zealand.

Willcox said the attack raised the hostility over French nuclear testing "to a much higher level than it ever would have been if they hadn't blown up the boat."

"I don't hold any anger toward the French people," he said. "I just hold anger toward members of their government who made these really stupid decisions."
Fascinating post! It recapitulates Webster's definition of "Terrorism".

Question: Why does the World accept the imbecilities and injudiciousness of France? :shock: :roll: Is it - - -habit :roll: :roll:
 
Question: Why does the World accept the imbecilities and injudiciousness of France? Is it - - -habit

"Let he who has commited no sin cast the first stone" comes to mind as a possible answer.
 
Reader while I can accept the premiss that by fighting against a radical group you give them credibility, the flaw is in appling it to the Radical islamic terrorists, if my history is correct, our appeasement led to Sept 11, not our attacking them.

maybe had we attacked them we could have prevented the deaths of so many innocent lives.

While I can find many referances to the attacks by terrorists, I find few in which we "started" this war on terror.

Saddam Attacked Kuwait, Osama Attacked US, Iran Took hostages, Palistinians killed Americans, Not the other way around..
 

Latest posts

Top