Kerry WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! (shocking pics)

[DigitalTragedy]

Well hello all libral peoples,

Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy. And Bob Schieffer sat there, without even raising an objection to Kerry's smear. Had Kerry not shown a long track record of this kind of rhetoric in the past -- and had to answer for it repeatedly during last year's presidential election -- one could possibly believe it came out as a slip of the tongue. However, he obviously has never stopped believing that the American fighting man and woman represents the same relative evil as the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and al-Qaeda.
The Democrats need to answer for this outrage. Is it really the party position that American soldiers terrorize Iraqi civilians? Do they want the Iraqis to do it instead of us? Kerry has unmasked himself and his fellow anti-war zealots for the hypocrites they are.


When I think of John Kerry I just can't help but think of someone else...check out the pics(via links below), let me know if you see the same shocking resemblances I see.


Peace out from a person from the only sane party in this libral world!

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10417&stc=1&d=1134153591

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10416&stc=1&d=1134153591

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10415&stc=1&d=1134153591

[Andy]

S'up George

[Paul Tao]

no way.

[aminorthreat55]

Who are the librals? Since when do we have a party named after a Roman measurement of weight?

[Trainsaw]

Waste of time reading that

[DigitalTragedy]

Waste of time reading that

I'm sorry you can't handle the truth.

[getupkid53]

the flash one made me sick.. either way, the middle one is pretty funny

[commatosa]

like I said before....us liberals have a magical power that conservatives lack. It's called "the ability to see things from other peoples' perspectives." John Kerry does have a point. To the Iraqis that don't want us there, we are terrorists. Granted, the soldiers are definitely not the ones to blame, they're just doing what they're told. BUT, the Iraqia have more of a reason to hate us than we do of them. They didn't do anything to us and we're in their country killing everyone. So it kind of looks bad.

[I am all talk]

the only clips of Kerry's statements I saw were on The Oreilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes so assuming they used the most powerful quote, it is safe to say that you are overreacting. Kerry never called them terrorists. He said they were terrorizing the Iraqi people. If you can't see the difference between those two then I can't help you.

[Louballs]

Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy.
The Democrats need to answer for this outrage. Is it really the party position that American soldiers terrorize Iraqi civilians? Do they want the Iraqis to do it instead of us? Kerry has unmasked himself and his fellow anti-war zealots for the hypocrites they are.

Last time I checked, "terrorism" referred to the use/threat of use of violence to achieve political change. Under that definition, how are American soldiers not terrorists? Supporting the change they're trying to effect doesn't mean it's any less terrorism.

[Cal Smith]

Last time I checked, "terrorism" referred to the use/threat of use of violence to achieve political change. Under that definition, how are American soldiers not terrorists? Supporting the change they're trying to effect doesn't mean it's any less terrorism.

I believe terrorism would also have to fall under the "unlawful" use

The League of Nations Convention for the Prevention and the Repression of Terrorism defined it as "acts of terrorism are criminal acts directed against a state which aim, or are of a nautre, to provoke terror.

Also terrorism is usually defined as being directed against noncombatants.

The US has done neither of these in the case of Iraq.

[Louballs]

I believe terrorism would also have to fall under the "unlawful" use

The League of Nations Convention for the Prevention and the Repression of Terrorism defined it as "acts of terrorism are criminal acts directed against a state which aim, or are of a nautre, to provoke terror.

Also terrorism is usually defined as being directed against noncombatants.

The US has done neither of these in the case of Iraq.

Dude, you can't piece together 3 different definitions (one of which comes from the authoritative dictionary of "usually") to make the one you want.

The LN definition may exclude US actions. The dictionary definition (which includes "unlawful") arguably includes the US actions: I doubt our invasion was "lawful" under Iraqi law at the time. So it depends on whose "lawfulness" you recognize. (I won't address the "usually" dictionary; I can't seem to find a copy of that one.)

The point of this exercise in semantics is this: to call the characterization of our actions in Iraq an "outrage" or "moral relativism" is to ignore the fact that there are many different ideas of what constitutes terrorism; to call for an entire party to answer for one person's adoption of one of those definitions is kinda ridiculous. (BTW: since when is moral relativism such an evil? What's wrong with recognizing that not everyone views the world like Americans do?)

[Cal Smith]

Dude, you can't piece together 3 different definitions (one of which comes from the authoritative dictionary of "usually") to make the one you want.

There's not ONE defining defintions of terrorism. There's a lot of them and it's a debatable topic. I was simply pointing out that a lot of them establish that it's a "criminal action" and done against noncombatants.

The LN definition may exclude US actions. The dictionary definition (which includes "unlawful") arguably includes the US actions: I doubt our invasion was "lawful" under Iraqi law at the time. So it depends on whose "lawfulness" you recognize. (I won't address the "usually" dictionary; I can't seem to find a copy of that one.)

The point of this exercise in semantics is this: to call the characterization of our actions in Iraq an "outrage" or "moral relativism" is to ignore the fact that there are many different ideas of what constitutes terrorism; to call for an entire party to answer for one person's adoption of one of those definitions is kinda ridiculous. (BTW: since when is moral relativism such an evil? What's wrong with recognizing that not everyone views the world like Americans do?)

I don't care as much for the dictionary defention as much as I do from a scholarly defentions.

[Justin_stacy]

like I said before....us liberals have a magical power that conservatives lack. It's called "the ability to see things from other peoples' perspectives." John Kerry does have a point. .

Of all the people to say something so ignorant.........how you don’t just laugh at yourself is beyond me…

As for kerry he lacks the ability to articulate his words. I don't think anyone really feels this man believes American soldiers are terrorist; he just doesn't know how to clearly get his point across or understand that his words can be taken out of context. Kerry may not be an honorable person, but he's not the total nut job his words would have you believe him to be....

[splitsecond]

Haha.

[Louballs]

There's not ONE defining defintions of terrorism. There's a lot of them and it's a debatable topic.

Exactly my point.

I was simply pointing out that a lot of them establish that it's a "criminal action" and done against noncombatants.

You established that one of them calls it "criminal." As I pointed out, our actions in Iraq (under Iraqi law, and probably more than a few international treaties, if you consider them "laws") fit that definition.

You also mentioned something about non-combatants-- this may or may not be the case, but I won't bother addressing the dictionary of "usually."

I don't care as much for the dictionary defention as much as I do from a scholarly defentions.

And apparently Kerry takes the opposite view. Which, again, was my only point.

[justsomenumber]

i dont see a resemblence...

[LeftWideOpen]

can we get some sort of intelligence test thats contingent upon AP membership? It seems like the number of idiots joining this site has skyrocketed over the past month or two.

[odnetnin]

We saw it all through the 20th century. And now in the 21st century, it's time to stand up and realize that we should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned about what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control, those that control my life and those that seek to control it even more. I want freedom. That's what I want. And that's what you should want. It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose and show them the greed, the hatred, the envy, and yes, the insecurities, because that's the central mode of control. Make us feel pathetic, small, so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny. We have got to realize that we're being conditioned on a mass scale. Start challenging this corporate slave state. The 21st century is going to be a new century. Not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance, of classism, of sadism, and all the rest of the modes of control. It's going to be the age of human kind standing up for something pure and something right. What a bunch of garbage; liberal, democrat, conservative, republican. It's all there to control you! Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control, the CEO job of Slavery, Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies. I'm sick of it, and I'm not going to take a bite out of it, do you got me? Our existence is not futile. We're going to win this thing. Humankind is too, good. We're not a bunch of under-achievers. We're going to stand up, and we're going to be human beings. We're going to get fired up about the real things, the things that matter, creativity and the dynamic human spirit that refuses to submit.

[noodledancer]

Last time I checked, "terrorism" referred to the use/threat of use of violence to achieve political change. Under that definition, how are American soldiers not terrorists? Supporting the change they're trying to effect doesn't mean it's any less terrorism.
by that definition, american revolutionaries were terrorists. terrorism is more about injecting fear into the (civilian) public than any meaningful attempt at political reform. to me, if anything, the war iraq is more of a coup than an act of terrorism.

the meaning of a word goes beyond what's printed in the dictionary to include connotation & social context. you won't hear to many people (at least not in the u.s.) describing someone as niggardly. why is that? although it simply means 'stingy,' that word evokes a strong reaction from people because it feels bad due to its similarity to a racial slur.

[Asterix]

Well hello all libral peoples,

Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy. And Bob Schieffer sat there, without even raising an objection to Kerry's smear. Had Kerry not shown a long track record of this kind of rhetoric in the past -- and had to answer for it repeatedly during last year's presidential election -- one could possibly believe it came out as a slip of the tongue. However, he obviously has never stopped believing that the American fighting man and woman represents the same relative evil as the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and al-Qaeda.
The Democrats need to answer for this outrage. Is it really the party position that American soldiers terrorize Iraqi civilians? Do they want the Iraqis to do it instead of us? Kerry has unmasked himself and his fellow anti-war zealots for the hypocrites they are.


When I think of John Kerry I just can't help but think of someone else...check out the pics(via links below), let me know if you see the same shocking resemblances I see.


Peace out from a person from the only sane party in this libral world!

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10417&stc=1&d=1134153591

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10416&stc=1&d=1134153591

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10415&stc=1&d=1134153591

This one pretty much gets a check Minus in my book

[Louballs]

by that definition, american revolutionaries were terrorists. terrorism is more about injecting fear into the (civilian) public than any meaningful attempt at political reform. to me, if anything, the war iraq is more of a coup than an act of terrorism.

I think that's an incorrect way of looking at terrorism. People don't engage in terrorism just to "inject fear" into people; that's just the means to their end: political change. Loathe as we are to admit it, even the 9/11 bombers had a political objective; they weren't just trying to kill people.

the meaning of a word goes beyond what's printed in the dictionary to include connotation & social context. you won't hear to many people (at least not in the u.s.) describing someone as niggardly. why is that? although it simply means 'stingy,' that word evokes a strong reaction from people because it feels bad due to its similarity to a racial slur.

I understand connotation, but connotation is a reflection of a word's effect on the listener, not the meaning of the word itself. The American revolutionaries were terrorists, under the actual definition of the word. The reason people don't like to put it that way is because "terrorist" has been applied more recently to people/groups whose political objectives we don't agree with. Thus, connotatively, "terrorist" has become synonymous with "bad guy." But that's not literally the case.

[Cal Smith]

No, the reason why is most "political" scholars believe terrorism is an act done against civilians. Hence the reason you saw the Iraqi government not classify the attacks against American troops in Iraq as "terrorists"................I wouldnt either.

Your defenition, in short.........using fear to promote political change, can apply to a movie like that natural disater movie that came out a couple years ago. If the directors intention was to promote enivromental awarness, and used this movie to scare people into it wouldnt that be terrorism by your defenition?

[Louballs]

Your defenition, in short.........using fear to promote political change, can apply to a movie like that natural disater movie that came out a couple years ago. If the directors intention was to promote enivromental awarness, and used this movie to scare people into it wouldnt that be terrorism by your defenition?

Ummm... that's not my definition. I was quoting the last poster. I meant that terrorism involved "injecting fear" through violence, which was the same definition that I offered earlier in this thread. But brilliant strawman-smanship; maybe next time I'll find something you didn't say and come up with a biting counterargument.

And by the way: who are these "political scholars" you keep ranting on about? Did they write the Dictionary of "Usually"?

[Cal Smith]

Ummm... that's not my definition. I was quoting the last poster. I meant that terrorism involved "injecting fear" through violence, which was the same definition that I offered earlier in this thread. But brilliant strawman-smanship; maybe next time I'll find something you didn't say and come up with a biting counterargument.

And by the way: who are these "political scholars" you keep ranting on about? Did they write the Dictionary of "Usually"?

my response was to you generalizing the american revolutionaries as terrorists.

political scholars i'm referring to are to every academic book, and every political journal i've ever read or seen. look at those and you'll see where i got "usually". I won't deny that one might not, but i've never seen one and i've read quite a bit. if you've seen differently i'd like to read?

[Louballs]

my response was to you generalizing the american revolutionaries as terrorists.

political scholars i'm referring to are to every academic book, and every political journal i've ever read or seen. look at those and you'll see where i got "usually". I won't deny that one might not, but i've never seen one and i've read quite a bit. if you've seen differently i'd like to read?

My definition comes from the dictionary. On another post, you referred to a definition of "pro-abortion" that came from a dictionary, but referred to so-called pro-choicers. Since, taken literally, "pro-abortion" means "for abortion," not pro-choice, I am assuming that dictionaries tend to adopt the colloquially- and politically-accepted definitions of words. And the definition of "terrorist" in my dictionary does not in any way restrict its application to assaults on civilians. Therefore, buddy boy, I'm shifting the burden of proof to you: give me one source that authoritatively defines terrorism as violence against civilians, and I'll at least call it a draw. But if you give me some source that says it "usually" refers to violence against civilians, then you're only supporting my point: that it's a connotative, not definitive classification.

[Cal Smith]

My definition comes from the dictionary. On another post, you referred to a definition of "pro-abortion" that came from a dictionary, but referred to so-called pro-choicers. Since, taken literally, "pro-abortion" means "for abortion," not pro-choice, I am assuming that dictionaries tend to adopt the colloquially- and politically-accepted definitions of words. And the definition of "terrorist" in my dictionary does not in any way restrict its application to assaults on civilians. Therefore, buddy boy, I'm shifting the burden of proof to you: give me one source that authoritatively defines terrorism as violence against civilians, and I'll at least call it a draw. But if you give me some source that says it "usually" refers to violence against civilians, then you're only supporting my point: that it's a connotative, not definitive classification.

Honeslty I'd say.........find be one academic source that doesnt define it that way?

Here's some though:

1.) World Politics Into The 21st Century; Lamborn and Lepgold pg. 124
"Use of violence or the threat of vilence against innocent bystanders to achieve political purposes"

2.) Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 463, International Terrorism. (Sep., 1982), pp. 11-23. Brian Jenkins
"Most civlized nations have identified modes of conflict that are criminal-homicide, kidnapping, threats to life, the willufl destruction of property, and so on. Laws against such criminal acts may be violated inwar, but even in war there are rules that outlaw the use of certain weapons and tactics. The rules of war grant civilian noncombatants at least theoretical immunity from deliberat attack................but terrorirst recognize no neutral terroritory.

3.) Foreign Policy, No. 108. (Autumn, 1997), pp. 10-22. John Deutch
"Terrorism is best defined as acts of violence committed against innocent persons or noncombatants that are intended to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation."

Again I'd ask you to find me one that doesnt?

[Louballs]

I hate to nitpick, but, since you're inviting it . . . .

Honeslty I'd say.........find be one academic source that doesnt define it that way?

Here's some though:

1.) World Politics Into The 21st Century; Lamborn and Lepgold pg. 124
"Use of violence or the threat of vilence against innocent bystanders to achieve political purposes"

3.) Foreign Policy, No. 108. (Autumn, 1997), pp. 10-22. John Deutch
"Terrorism is best defined as acts of violence committed against innocent persons or noncombatants that are intended to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation."

I think these are pretty equivocal. "Innocent bystanders" doesn't necessarily mean "civilians;" it could just as reasonably refer to non-engaged military personnel. Were the attacks on the World Trade Center "terrorist," while the attack on the Pentagon was not?

2.) Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 463, International Terrorism. (Sep., 1982), pp. 11-23. Brian Jenkins
"Most civlized nations have identified modes of conflict that are criminal-homicide, kidnapping, threats to life, the willufl destruction of property, and so on. Laws against such criminal acts may be violated inwar, but even in war there are rules that outlaw the use of certain weapons and tactics. The rules of war grant civilian noncombatants at least theoretical immunity from deliberat attack................but terrorirst recognize no neutral terroritory.

First of all, this is hardly a "definition" of anything. To the extent that it does "define" "terrorism," it still doesn't answer my point. All it says is that terrorists don't discriminate between military personnel and civilians, not that they are defined by attacks on the latter.

Disappointing, I thought you were up to the challenge.

Again I'd ask you to find me one that doesnt?

Again, I'd say you given me one that does, but . . .

How do you define terrorism?
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html
"Noncombatant" targets--not necessarily "civilians."

Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html

And oh yeah:
"In response to the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks), political leaders from Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America), Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia), and the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) have placed the phenomenon of terrorism within the context of a global struggle against systems of government perceived by those accused of using terrorist tactics as harmful to their interests. The European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) includes in its 2004 definition of "terrorism" the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#endnote_EUTerrorismDefini tion

Tell me how that doesn't fit our presence in Iraq?

Point being (yet again) that there are multiple definitions, and criticizing Kerry for adopting one over the other ignores that fact. Maybe some polysci geeks define it as targeting civilians, but keep in mind that they're studying it in a historical context: thus, it has a connotative meaning to them. The fact that it often targets civilians, however, does not mean that it has to by definition.

[Cal Smith]

I hate to nitpick, but, since you're inviting it . . . .



I think these are pretty equivocal. "Innocent bystanders" doesn't necessarily mean "civilians;" it could just as reasonably refer to non-engaged military personnel. Were the attacks on the World Trade Center "terrorist," while the attack on the Pentagon was not?

Obviously you've forgotten all the people on the plane. Give me a break innocent bystanders and civilians are the same thing.

First of all, this is hardly a "definition" of anything. To the extent that it does "define" "terrorism," it still doesn't answer my point. All it says is that terrorists don't discriminate between military personnel and civilians, not that they are defined by attacks on the latter.

Disappointing, I thought you were up to the challenge.

Hmmmm...........all i was trying to do was show you some scholarly definitions of terrorism. That was the whole point in my post.

Good Lord, that's the point! The fact that they don't discriminate between military and civilians does define their attacks on the latter as the difference.

Again, I'd say you given me one that does, but . . .

How do you define terrorism?
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html
"Noncombatant" targets--not necessarily "civilians."

Noncombatant's are civilians............

Terrorism is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html

Again we're talkign scholarly defenitions of terrorism. The US government defention is about as useful is that of Palestine's. Don't you agree?

And oh yeah:
"In response to the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks), political leaders from Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America), Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia), and the Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) have placed the phenomenon of terrorism within the context of a global struggle against systems of government perceived by those accused of using terrorist tactics as harmful to their interests. The European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) includes in its 2004 definition of "terrorism" the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#endnote_EUTerrorismDefini tion

Tell me how that doesn't fit our presence in Iraq?

Point being (yet again) that there are multiple definitions, and criticizing Kerry for adopting one over the other ignores that fact. Maybe some polysci geeks define it as targeting civilians, but keep in mind that they're studying it in a historical context: thus, it has a connotative meaning to them. The fact that it often targets civilians, however, does not mean that it has to by definition.

Wikipeida............really........ .....? Eu.......really..........?

You asked for scholarly defenitions of terrorism and I provided 3. I ask for one and I get DOD defenition, EU defenition, and a CIA defenition (and this one actually went with my argument).

The reason why you don't want a countries defenition if you really want to look at the subject at hand is that every country will have their own idea of terrorism. Why would you even want to define terrorism like the EU has? Think about it...........you have quite a few countries arguing what it is to them, so you know you're going to get a watered down defenition. Scholarly defenitions from political journals and such have no reason to have objection. They look at history, they look at trends, and they are able to define specifics without having to sugarcoat a defenition to make France happy, or to make the US happy.

[Louballs]

Good Lord, that's the point! The fact that they don't discriminate between military and civilians does define their attacks on the latter as the difference.

Question: in the cat-and-mouse game between you and logic, is it the logic that evades you, or are you evading logic? You said terrorism is defined by its targeting civilians, implying that it has to target civilians in order to constitute "terrorism." The sample you offered only said that, unlike armies bound by rules of war, terrorists don't discriminate between civilians and military personnel. While that does define terrorists' attacks on civilians as "the difference" (to wit: that terrorists are willing to attack civilians, while countries at war (ostensibly) are not), that's a far cry from saying that action must target civilians in order to constitute terrorism. Logic.

Noncombatant's are civilians............

Says you. "Noncombatant," to me, implies anyone who's not engaged in combat. An attack on soldiers asleep in their barracks would seem as much an attack on "noncombatants" as any other "terrorist" act.

Again we're talkign scholarly defenitions of terrorism. The US government defention is about as useful is that of Palestine's. Don't you agree?

No, I don't--at least not for the purposes of this discussion which (in case you forgot) is whether Kerry should be criticized for calling our Iraq presence "terrorism." My point is that, under at least some defintions (whether they appear in your undergrad polysci books or not) our actions would fit the term "terrorism." If you don't like those definitions, fine. We agree to disagree; next case.

The reason why you don't want a countries defenition if you really want to look at the subject at hand is that every country will have their own idea of terrorism. Why would you even want to define terrorism like the EU has? Think about it...........you have quite a few countries arguing what it is to them, so you know you're going to get a watered down defenition. Scholarly defenitions from political journals and such have no reason to have objection. They look at history, they look at trends, and they are able to define specifics without having to sugarcoat a defenition to make France happy, or to make the US happy.

Which was my point: they take something that is defined by a dictionary (which was the source for my original definition--you want to argue that that's not objective?), and put a connotative gloss on it by defining it in light of the people whose actions it has defined. If you call someone "prejudiced," a "scholarly" opinion might define that in terms of one's feelings on race. But that's not, literally, what the word means. So too here. Your "scholarly" writers (arguably) define "terrorism" based on the actions of the people whose acts have already been defined as "terrorist." This is just backwards: they're defining a word based on facts to which it was applied after the word was already defined.

Anyway, regardless of how many more of these articles you want to throw up here, I just don't accept that, because Kerry's statements didn't conform to some polysci professor's take on "terrorism," they are somehow akin to blasphemy.

[Cal Smith]

Question: in the cat-and-mouse game between you and logic, is it the logic that evades you, or are you evading logic? You said terrorism is defined by its targeting civilians, implying that it has to target civilians in order to constitute "terrorism." The sample you offered only said that, unlike armies bound by rules of war, terrorists don't discriminate between civilians and military personnel. While that does define terrorists' attacks on civilians as "the difference" (to wit: that terrorists are willing to attack civilians, while countries at war (ostensibly) are not), that's a far cry from saying that action must target civilians in order to constitute terrorism. Logic.

First, the other 2 examples clearly stated. You said it yourself right there in bold. It does define terrorists attacks on civilians as the difference. That's my point this whole time, and you just said it and I just bolded it for you. Read what your typing there again in bold.



Says you. "Noncombatant," to me, implies anyone who's not engaged in combat. An attack on soldiers asleep in their barracks would seem as much an attack on "noncombatants" as any other "terrorist" act.

Yes, so that means civilians are noncombatants and when you define terrorism as "kiling of noncombatants" you include civilians, and other army personal who is not in combat. A soldier sleeping would not be a noncombatant because he's still a soldier in the war and he fights. A doctor, nurse, etc......., in the military would be.

Which goes back to my point again.



No, I don't--at least not for the purposes of this discussion which (in case you forgot) is whether Kerry should be criticized for calling our Iraq presence "terrorism." My point is that, under at least some defintions (whether they appear in your undergrad polysci books or not) our actions would fit the term "terrorism." If you don't like those definitions, fine. We agree to disagree; next case.



Which was my point: they take something that is defined by a dictionary (which was the source for my original definition--you want to argue that that's not objective?), and put a connotative gloss on it by defining it in light of the people whose actions it has defined. If you call someone "prejudiced," a "scholarly" opinion might define that in terms of one's feelings on race. But that's not, literally, what the word means. So too here. Your "scholarly" writers (arguably) define "terrorism" based on the actions of the people whose acts have already been defined as "terrorist." This is just backwards: they're defining a word based on facts to which it was applied after the word was already defined.

Anyway, regardless of how many more of these articles you want to throw up here, I just don't accept that, because Kerry's statements didn't conform to some polysci professor's take on "terrorism," they are somehow akin to blasphemy.

I could care less about what kerry said cause i realize he truly doesnt believe our soldiers are terorists. I was just presenting the other side of the argument you were leaving out. You kept using the dictionary defention or other broad sweeping defenitions to try to equate US soldiers to terorism.

I simply wanted to show that usually i've seen it defined as being "unlawful" and against "noncombatants". In doing that you can obviously seperate the difference between a US or British soldier in Iraq, and someone that crashes a plane into a side of a building.

I would hope it's clear to you that there is a difference between the two, and that being the case it only makes sense to use a defenition that clearly defines the difference.

I'm actually doing the most logical thing here. There's clearly a difference between someone who straps themselves with explosives and walks into a crowded restaurant, and US soldier in Iraq, and even a young Mujahid fighter who goes to fight Jihad in Iraq becaue he believes Muslims are under attack. Now, since there is obviously a difference (that being noncombatants being targeted) doesnt it just make sense to use the best definition to define that?

[justinevans]

like I said before....us liberals have a magical power that conservatives lack. It's called "the ability to see things from other peoples' perspectives." John Kerry does have a point. To the Iraqis that don't want us there, we are terrorists. Granted, the soldiers are definitely not the ones to blame, they're just doing what they're told. BUT, the Iraqia have more of a reason to hate us than we do of them. They didn't do anything to us and we're in their country killing everyone. So it kind of looks bad.

that is very untrue. he is just saying things to make himself look better. he really doesn't give a fuck about what iraqis think. he just wants to make a name for himself.

Liberals see things from other people's perspectives? then why is everyone either left or right anymore? Liberals deny the opinions of other people in our country just as conservatives do.

[Louballs]

First, the other 2 examples clearly stated. You said it yourself right there in bold. It does define terrorists attacks on civilians as the difference. That's my point this whole time, and you just said it and I just bolded it for you. Read what your typing there again in bold.

Read the sentences immediately before and after the one you boldfaced. You don't seem to understand this, so I'm going to give you an example, and then I'm done with this topic, because we're just talking around each other: Suppose a "fighter" is one who engages in hand-to-hand, weapon-free combat for sport. Suppose a "thug" is one who engages in physical attacks for fun; his attacks may be hand-to-hand, but unlike the "fighter," he is willing to use a weapon. If you suddenly saw a person punching another person on the street, and you said "that can't be a thug, because he's not using a weapon," you'd be wrong--at least logically, the fact that he didn't have a weapon does not preclude his being a "thug." You'd need more information to determine whether or not he was a thug (i.e., his motive for the attack). Thus, although a thug's use of weapons, from an observer's perspective, is "the difference" between a "fighter" and a "thug," a "thug" does not have to use a weapon in order to be defined as a "thug." Just like a terrorist does not have to attack civilians in order to be defined as a "terrorist."

[Cal Smith]

Read the sentences immediately before and after the one you boldfaced. You don't seem to understand this, so I'm going to give you an example, and then I'm done with this topic, because we're just talking around each other: Suppose a "fighter" is one who engages in hand-to-hand, weapon-free combat for sport. Suppose a "thug" is one who engages in physical attacks for fun; his attacks may be hand-to-hand, but unlike the "fighter," he is willing to use a weapon. If you suddenly saw a person punching another person on the street, and you said "that can't be a thug, because he's not using a weapon," you'd be wrong--at least logically, the fact that he didn't have a weapon does not preclude his being a "thug." You'd need more information to determine whether or not he was a thug (i.e., his motive for the attack). Thus, although a thug's use of weapons, from an observer's perspective, is "the difference" between a "fighter" and a "thug," a "thug" does not have to use a weapon in order to be defined as a "thug." Just like a terrorist does not have to attack civilians in order to be defined as a "terrorist."

I simply wanted to show that usually i've seen it defined as being "unlawful" and against "noncombatants". In doing that you can obviously seperate the difference between a US or British soldier in Iraq, and someone that crashes a plane into a side of a building.

I would hope it's clear to you that there is a difference between the two, and that being the case it only makes sense to use a defenition that clearly defines the difference.

I'm actually doing the most logical thing here. There's clearly a difference between someone who straps themselves with explosives and walks into a crowded restaurant, and US soldier in Iraq, and even a young Mujahid fighter who goes to fight Jihad in Iraq becaue he believes Muslims are under attack. Now, since there is obviously a difference (that being noncombatants being targeted) doesnt it just make sense to use the best definition to define that?

[open mind]

if your arguments were fact cal the bombing of the u.s.s. cole was not a terrorist attack.

[FreshyFresh23]

Of all the people to say something so ignorant.........how you don’t just laugh at yourself is beyond me…

As for kerry he lacks the ability to articulate his words. I don't think anyone really feels this man believes American soldiers are terrorist; he just doesn't know how to clearly get his point across or understand that his words can be taken out of context. Kerry may not be an honorable person, but he's not the total nut job his words would have you believe him to be....


Kerry lacks the ability to articulate? Excuse me, but please listen to anytime our president is speaking publicly and you will find a perfect example of "lacking the ability to articulate words"

[FreshyFresh23]

I simply wanted to show that usually i've seen it defined as being "unlawful" and against "noncombatants". In doing that you can obviously seperate the difference between a US or British soldier in Iraq, and someone that crashes a plane into a side of a building.

I would hope it's clear to you that there is a difference between the two, and that being the case it only makes sense to use a defenition that clearly defines the difference.

I'm actually doing the most logical thing here. There's clearly a difference between someone who straps themselves with explosives and walks into a crowded restaurant, and US soldier in Iraq, and even a young Mujahid fighter who goes to fight Jihad in Iraq becaue he believes Muslims are under attack. Now, since there is obviously a difference (that being noncombatants being targeted) doesnt it just make sense to use the best definition to define that?

They can be called terrorists perfectly fine. Just because it does not seem unlawful to our government does not mean it does not resonate as unlawful to a greater portion of the world. Also, we are merely a politically organized group with the intention of coercing/intimidating/overthrowing their current power structure. So, in a way, we sure are terrorists to a portion of the world.

[Justin_stacy]

Kerry lacks the ability to articulate? Excuse me, but please listen to anytime our president is speaking publicly and you will find a perfect example of "lacking the ability to articulate words"

Yes he does lack the ability to articulate his words.......hell you could say its so bad (I voted for/before I voted against) that it probably cost him the election.......but irregardless of that, how does Bush's poor speaking style effect in anyway Kerry's inability to say (or articulate) what he really means?

It's also quite ignorant of you to think that they both can't possess similar faults.....

[justinevans]

Kerry lacks the ability to articulate? Excuse me, but please listen to anytime our president is speaking publicly and you will find a perfect example of "lacking the ability to articulate words"

john kerry just says a bunch of nice words that have no meaning....he has 430004848 plans of doing things, but cannot deal what he was going to do. he was just not going to do what bush did or he was going to do what bush did better.

[PyjamaParty]

Imagine a country about a hundred times your country's size invades and started interfering with your economy and politics by making use of terror and abuse, would you not call them terrorists?!?

[PlaCracktheSky]

Imagine a country about a hundred times your country's size invades and started interfering with your economy and politics by making use of terror and abuse, would you not call them terrorists?!?

How are we making use of terror and abuse against innocent iraqis?

[PyjamaParty]

How are we making use of terror and abuse against innocent iraqis?

Many prisoners are innocent iraqis picked up by AMerican soldiers at random to be interrogated by underqualified intelligence officers.
Whenever theres an explosion in Iraq, the American forces will arrived and pick up suspects for interrogation, most of them being innocent bystanders.

Have you seen the photos of what they do to the Iraqi prisoners? Take a look:

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/rape.html

If THATS not abuse.. then what is?

[Salomonbz90]

this dude just figured out the greatest mystery in the world..thanks man!
your the bestestestest!

[sleepygrlgreen]

Well hello all libral peoples,

Kerry thinks that the American soldiers are the terrorists in Iraq, applying that unique gift of his for moral relativity once again to indict an entire deployment of soldiers as criminals of the same order as our enemy. And Bob Schieffer sat there, without even raising an objection to Kerry's smear. Had Kerry not shown a long track record of this kind of rhetoric in the past -- and had to answer for it repeatedly during last year's presidential election -- one could possibly believe it came out as a slip of the tongue. However, he obviously has never stopped believing that the American fighting man and woman represents the same relative evil as the Viet Cong, the Khmer Rouge, and al-Qaeda.
The Democrats need to answer for this outrage. Is it really the party position that American soldiers terrorize Iraqi civilians? Do they want the Iraqis to do it instead of us? Kerry has unmasked himself and his fellow anti-war zealots for the hypocrites they are.


When I think of John Kerry I just can't help but think of someone else...check out the pics(via links below), let me know if you see the same shocking resemblances I see.


Peace out from a person from the only sane party in this libral world!

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10417&stc=1&d=1134153591

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10416&stc=1&d=1134153591

http://www.absolutepunk.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=10415&stc=1&d=1134153591they look noting alike!

[gillianhsieh]

yeah i agree that the two pictures look really nothing alike. i mean come on, if i grew a thick beard and became the 21st century's first bearded lady, i would look just like both of them.

yea, and i would argue that the american occupation of iraq both is discomforting and results in crimes of war which pretty much can't be avoided in any war, aka terror and abuse, and could potentially be labeled as terrorism, even though i don't really take a stance on this "americans are terrorists" issue.