Originally posted by sasquatch672You do realise this is the exact same argument than fanatics use to fly planes into buildings killing thousands of civilians don't you?
So...quick question, Zanthos, basic idiot test.
Did Israel provoke this latest confrontation? Or did Hezbollah dig a tunnel under the security fence, kill two Israeli soldiers and kidnap a third?
Did Israel start it? Or did Hezbollah?
Does the charter of Israel call for the destruction of Arab states? Or, does the charter of Hezbollah ...[text shortened]... their heads, they should refuse to be held hostage by murderous, suicidal, sociopathic Muslims.
Originally posted by XanthosNZwell since he hasn't used force "unlawfully" i guess he's not a terrorist, thanks for clearing that up.
A terrorist causes terror correct? If Bush was causing terror say in Iraq and previously in Afghanistan then he would be a terrorist by that definition correct?
Or you could go according to the US State Department definition:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilia ...[text shortened]... , in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(taken from the site STANG/Sambo linked to)
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI wouldn't say it's clear.
well since he hasn't used force "unlawfully" i guess he's not a terrorist, thanks for clearing that up.
We're back to the argument about whether a second UN Security Council Resolution was required to invade Iraq or whether it could be justified using the ones from the previous Gulf War.
If a second one was required, then the Axis of Good illegally invaded another country.
Originally posted by aging blitzerthey had violated 16 un resolutions and the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war, there is nothing illegal about it. Even the far left press here in the U.S. does not refer to it as illegal. No "sane" person even uses the illegality arguement anymore.
I wouldn't say it's clear.
We're back to the argument about whether a second UN Security Council Resolution was required to invade Iraq or whether it could be justified using the ones from the previous Gulf War.
If a second one was required, then the Axis of Good illegally invaded another country.
1 edit
The legal advice given to the UK government by the Attorney General was
"...26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides...."
I wouldn't say that was clear.
Your lawyers may have different opinions.
full text
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1472459,00.html
Originally posted by sasquatch672Gets my rec, SQ. I think that's really well said. I think it's fundamentally a war between science and magic, between progress and regress, between an ascending civilization and a descending savagery. It's between two ways of life that simply cannot co-exist as the world becomes smaller.
No, wheels, I do not realize that this is the exact same argument that terrorists use to fly buildings into planes. I doubt that much of what caused 9/11, or the Khobar Towers, or the first WTC bombing, or the bombing of two American embassies in Africa, or the bombing of the USS Cole, had much to do at all with Muslims being mad at the US for having t ...[text shortened]... do with US troops here or there. They want to go back to the seventh century.
Originally posted by DelmerTo the contrary, I insist on holding those in power accountable. More than any other politician, Bush is corrupt, a war monger and a threat to our security.
You insist on reducing everything to a simplistic cult of personality. It's kind of an anti-hero worship with you. I'm betting Bush has become way more important to you than he has to the rest of us.
Originally posted by Sambo69That isn't contrary to my post:
To the contrary, I insist on holding those in power accountable. More than any other politician, Bush is corrupt, a war monger and a threat to our security.
"You insist on reducing everything to a simplistic cult of personality. It's kind of an anti-hero worship with you. I'm betting Bush has become way more important to you than he has to the rest of us."
Seems to me that your comment supports my post.
Originally posted by DelmerYou don't see a need to hold those in power, like Bush, accountable ?
That isn't contrary to my post:
"You insist on reducing everything to a simplistic cult of personality. It's kind of an anti-hero worship with you. I'm betting Bush has become way more important to you than he has to the rest of us."
Seems to me that your comment supports my post.
Why punish Saddam or pursue Bin Laden ?