comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that Hamas are terroristsThey have targeted innocent civilians for years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That I do. And the Israeli government is a terrorist state also.
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
..................................................................
Well that is the definition of the word...
I have used the oxford English dictionary (surely the authority on English for the English)
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism
There is nothing in there about targeting civilians. Just because western governments have somewhat tried to confuse the word it doesn't change its meaning. That is the actual definition of the word. By being unofficial group, the founding fathers were terrorists.
Any freedom fighter is automatically a terrorist even if they only ever target the military.
Remember this isn't my view now, this is the actual definition of the word.
"Slightly ironic that in your desperation to back the Jewish state you have hinted that one of the biggest enemies of the faction who tried to wipe the Jews out could not be justified for turning to terrorism"
but they didn't turn to terrorism
they fought Naz i soldiers and attempted to hurt the naz i war effort, not German women and children on buses and in markets
this effort to say everyone is a terrorist (therefore no one is a terrorist) is incredibly weak
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"Well that is the definition of the word..."
I don't think you would find a single person agreeing with the Oxford definition in the streets. They probably need to do an edit.
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 33 seconds ago
So do you disagree with the EU's list of terrorist groups?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In general I'd be wary of a political body's list of terrorist groups. They may as well be listed as the EU's enemies. And this is from a relative europhile. The UN's list would be more reliable.
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that Hamas are terroristsThey have targeted innocent civilians for years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That I do. And the Israeli government is a terrorist state also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats where we differ. Although I don't agree with the civilians being killed I see the Israelis as acting to defend their people and Hamas firing rockets from civilian areas and telling them not to leave areas that Israel have said they will target in order to get more sympathy. They are deliberately killing Israelis and ensuring their own civilians are caught up in it to get sympathy. Why else would they fire rockets from the roofs of schools (which has been filmed)?
"In general I'd be wary of a political body's list of terrorist groups."
this I can agree on
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 45 seconds ago
"Well that is the definition of the word..."
I don't think you would find a single person agreeing with the Oxford definition in the streets. They probably need to do an edit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop.
"But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop."
we finally agree on something
So you don't think people who attack innocent civilians without any military target are terrorists then? There is no hope for you.
........................................
Gooner you can't seem to understand a single one of my posts.
Let me ask you a question. Where in the definition of the word terrorist does it mention civilian casualties?
Where?!
I wasn't saying Hamas aren't terrorists you blithering idiot I was saying they were, as well as any non government group that uses force or violence to achieve their will.
I have this bad habit of actually using words by their actual meaning rather than whatever happens to fit my world view, so thanks for the pity.
...................................
What was 53 years ago?
.....................................
'67 war.
Giroulski I wouldn't mind if they actually changed the meaning of the word.
But as it is any organisation, no matter how good and how cleanly they do it, will be branded a terrorist organisation (accurately) by the government they are fighting. No matter how evil that government is. People will probably side with the evil government purely on the basis of that word.
That is the problem with the word terrorism at the moment.
(your other post)
Don't get me wrong they keep making gains but a peace deal would concrete in place whatever they get out of the deal, this open ended strategy of continuing what their doing is always under risk from a change in public opinion (specifically in the USA) and the weakness of the Arab countries around them. In a few decades they could end up regretting this wasted opportunity!
Its hard to decide what came first, the fertility or the massive amount of killing over the fertile land... maybe they slowly developed side by side...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
but they didn't turn to terrorism
they fought Naz i soldiers and attempted to hurt the naz i war effort, not German women and children on buses and in markets
this effort to say everyone is a terrorist (therefore no one is a terrorist) is incredibly weak
.........................................
It has been a brilliant effort by Western governments in recents years I don't doubt but that doesn't change the bloody definition of the word.
Changing the word simply to suit western political tastes is not how it bloody works.
The founding fathers and the WW2 resistance movements were very much terrorist movements, freedom fighters are pretty much terrorists, its difficult to be a freedom fighter without actually being a terrorist.
Yes the West has used some great propaganda to confuse this issue for their own purposes but that doesn't mean we should follow them blindly because they have only done it out of self interest!
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 1 minute ago
67 war was 53 years ago?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay my bad, i added the 3 to 50 instead of taking it away!!
My bad.
47 years.
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 16 seconds ago
So you don't think people who attack innocent civilians without any military target are terrorists then? There is no hope for you.
........................................
Gooner you can't seem to understand a single one of my posts.
Let me ask you a question. Where in the definition of the word terrorist does it mention civilian casualties?
Where?!
I wasn't saying Hamas aren't terrorists you blithering idiot I was saying they were, as well as any non government group that uses force or violence to achieve their will.
I have this bad habit of actually using words by their actual meaning rather than whatever happens to fit my world view, so thanks for the pity.
...................................
What was 53 years ago?
.....................................
'67 war.
Giroulski I wouldn't mind if they actually changed the meaning of the word.
But as it is any organisation, no matter how good and how cleanly they do it, will be branded a terrorist organisation (accurately) by the government they are fighting. No matter how evil that government is. People will probably side with the evil government purely on the basis of that word.
That is the problem with the word terrorism at the moment.
(your other post)
Don't get me wrong they keep making gains but a peace deal would concrete in place whatever they get out of the deal, this open ended strategy of continuing what their doing is always under risk from a change in public opinion (specifically in the USA) and the weakness of the Arab countries around them. In a few decades they could end up regretting this wasted opportunity!
Its hard to decide what came first, the fertility or the massive amount of killing over the fertile land... maybe they slowly developed side by side...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean 47 years, easy mathematical mistake. You went backwards from 67, not forwards.
And of course they will. It's just that people these days do not understand the separation of a government and their own interests. Well they do to an extent, but not to great enough of one. We only benefit when our interests and theirs coincide.
I know what you mean, but they will rely on the doctrine of self determination. I mean I'm not happy that they moved to Israel in the first place, but now they're there they're there. They'll apply the same principle to the West Bank. And it will work beautifully.
Probably. I wonder just how many skeletons lie at the gates of the city they all flock to worship at.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop.
.........................................
Exactly, so if we don't understand the correct definition of the words ourselves we can get carried away with what they say without understanding what is actually going on.
"The founding fathers and the WW2 resistance movements were very much terrorist movements, freedom fighters are pretty much terrorists, its difficult to be a freedom fighter without actually being a terrorist."
rubbish
twaddle
complete nonsense
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 6 minutes ago
"But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop."
we finally agree on something
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hah, our mutual distrust of ruling forces unites us :P
In all seriousness, I think people today come to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict too fresh. They don't understand that this isn't the latest conflict in the area but the continuation of a conflict that has been raging for millennia in some form or another. All that's changed is the banners they fight under.
"the correct definition of the words "
the correct definition is the one most widely accepted, not what is printed in one companies dictionary
Do you support all terrorists or just some?
..............................................
Only those with a just cause...
If we are talking as an example, terrorists who blew up the federal building in the USA, McVeigh or something, not at all and I am sure an abortion clinic, or a clinic where abortions take place has been bombed before as well, don't support that. Probably lots of terrorists I don't support...
Though I am not completely sure what that has to do with my criticism of the West confusing the word intentionally for propaganda purposes...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
rubbish
twaddle
complete nonsense
...................................
Look I am sorry you feel this way but that is the actual definition of the word. Using the word in such a way will only help the strong and the powerful to keep down the weak because a freedom fighter can always be accurately branded a terrorist.
No matter how righteous their cause is our papers can get away with calling them terrorists (and being accurate when they do) why you think this is a good thing I will never understand...
Got me there Cal, fair play.
Benayoun is a Disgrace
Page 103 of 146
104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108
posted on 1/8/14
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that Hamas are terroristsThey have targeted innocent civilians for years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That I do. And the Israeli government is a terrorist state also.
posted on 1/8/14
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
..................................................................
Well that is the definition of the word...
I have used the oxford English dictionary (surely the authority on English for the English)
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism
There is nothing in there about targeting civilians. Just because western governments have somewhat tried to confuse the word it doesn't change its meaning. That is the actual definition of the word. By being unofficial group, the founding fathers were terrorists.
Any freedom fighter is automatically a terrorist even if they only ever target the military.
Remember this isn't my view now, this is the actual definition of the word.
posted on 1/8/14
"Slightly ironic that in your desperation to back the Jewish state you have hinted that one of the biggest enemies of the faction who tried to wipe the Jews out could not be justified for turning to terrorism"
but they didn't turn to terrorism
they fought Naz i soldiers and attempted to hurt the naz i war effort, not German women and children on buses and in markets
this effort to say everyone is a terrorist (therefore no one is a terrorist) is incredibly weak
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
"Well that is the definition of the word..."
I don't think you would find a single person agreeing with the Oxford definition in the streets. They probably need to do an edit.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 33 seconds ago
So do you disagree with the EU's list of terrorist groups?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In general I'd be wary of a political body's list of terrorist groups. They may as well be listed as the EU's enemies. And this is from a relative europhile. The UN's list would be more reliable.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 30 seconds ago
Well thats the definition of the word. The founding fathers were terrorists, any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist.
The recent usage in the West has been an attempt to confuse the issue, quite simply so anyone opposing their government can be branded a terrorist (accurately) regardless of their targeting of civilians. People will hear the word terrorist and assume bad person.
Its a dangerous way to go because people fighting to just causes will be accurately branded a terrorist and it will discredit them in the eyes of the many people who don't accurately understand what a terrorist is.
=========
hmmm
we agree on people confusing what a terrorist is for propaganda purposes but not much else
never in a million years were the american colonies 'terrorists'
they fought the military
they're guilty as sin regarding genocide of the red indians, but terrorism wasn't in their game plan
when they fought people of the same skin colour, they engaged in proper military fashion
I don't agree with this statement at all "any non government agency trying to change peoples political will through force is a terrorist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the advent of tanks, jets, aircraft carriers and the level of control governments have now mean that there is no longer such a thing as a group of people being able to engage its government on the battlefield. Not in the first world, at least. And as such, definitions must change. Targeting a population is terrorism, targeting a government isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree that Hamas are terroristsThey have targeted innocent civilians for years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That I do. And the Israeli government is a terrorist state also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats where we differ. Although I don't agree with the civilians being killed I see the Israelis as acting to defend their people and Hamas firing rockets from civilian areas and telling them not to leave areas that Israel have said they will target in order to get more sympathy. They are deliberately killing Israelis and ensuring their own civilians are caught up in it to get sympathy. Why else would they fire rockets from the roofs of schools (which has been filmed)?
posted on 1/8/14
"In general I'd be wary of a political body's list of terrorist groups."
this I can agree on
posted on 1/8/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 45 seconds ago
"Well that is the definition of the word..."
I don't think you would find a single person agreeing with the Oxford definition in the streets. They probably need to do an edit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop.
posted on 1/8/14
"But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop."
we finally agree on something
posted on 1/8/14
So you don't think people who attack innocent civilians without any military target are terrorists then? There is no hope for you.
........................................
Gooner you can't seem to understand a single one of my posts.
Let me ask you a question. Where in the definition of the word terrorist does it mention civilian casualties?
Where?!
I wasn't saying Hamas aren't terrorists you blithering idiot I was saying they were, as well as any non government group that uses force or violence to achieve their will.
I have this bad habit of actually using words by their actual meaning rather than whatever happens to fit my world view, so thanks for the pity.
...................................
What was 53 years ago?
.....................................
'67 war.
Giroulski I wouldn't mind if they actually changed the meaning of the word.
But as it is any organisation, no matter how good and how cleanly they do it, will be branded a terrorist organisation (accurately) by the government they are fighting. No matter how evil that government is. People will probably side with the evil government purely on the basis of that word.
That is the problem with the word terrorism at the moment.
(your other post)
Don't get me wrong they keep making gains but a peace deal would concrete in place whatever they get out of the deal, this open ended strategy of continuing what their doing is always under risk from a change in public opinion (specifically in the USA) and the weakness of the Arab countries around them. In a few decades they could end up regretting this wasted opportunity!
Its hard to decide what came first, the fertility or the massive amount of killing over the fertile land... maybe they slowly developed side by side...
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
but they didn't turn to terrorism
they fought Naz i soldiers and attempted to hurt the naz i war effort, not German women and children on buses and in markets
this effort to say everyone is a terrorist (therefore no one is a terrorist) is incredibly weak
.........................................
It has been a brilliant effort by Western governments in recents years I don't doubt but that doesn't change the bloody definition of the word.
Changing the word simply to suit western political tastes is not how it bloody works.
The founding fathers and the WW2 resistance movements were very much terrorist movements, freedom fighters are pretty much terrorists, its difficult to be a freedom fighter without actually being a terrorist.
Yes the West has used some great propaganda to confuse this issue for their own purposes but that doesn't mean we should follow them blindly because they have only done it out of self interest!
posted on 1/8/14
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 1 minute ago
67 war was 53 years ago?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay my bad, i added the 3 to 50 instead of taking it away!!
My bad.
47 years.
posted on 1/8/14
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine (U5768)
posted 16 seconds ago
So you don't think people who attack innocent civilians without any military target are terrorists then? There is no hope for you.
........................................
Gooner you can't seem to understand a single one of my posts.
Let me ask you a question. Where in the definition of the word terrorist does it mention civilian casualties?
Where?!
I wasn't saying Hamas aren't terrorists you blithering idiot I was saying they were, as well as any non government group that uses force or violence to achieve their will.
I have this bad habit of actually using words by their actual meaning rather than whatever happens to fit my world view, so thanks for the pity.
...................................
What was 53 years ago?
.....................................
'67 war.
Giroulski I wouldn't mind if they actually changed the meaning of the word.
But as it is any organisation, no matter how good and how cleanly they do it, will be branded a terrorist organisation (accurately) by the government they are fighting. No matter how evil that government is. People will probably side with the evil government purely on the basis of that word.
That is the problem with the word terrorism at the moment.
(your other post)
Don't get me wrong they keep making gains but a peace deal would concrete in place whatever they get out of the deal, this open ended strategy of continuing what their doing is always under risk from a change in public opinion (specifically in the USA) and the weakness of the Arab countries around them. In a few decades they could end up regretting this wasted opportunity!
Its hard to decide what came first, the fertility or the massive amount of killing over the fertile land... maybe they slowly developed side by side...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean 47 years, easy mathematical mistake. You went backwards from 67, not forwards.
And of course they will. It's just that people these days do not understand the separation of a government and their own interests. Well they do to an extent, but not to great enough of one. We only benefit when our interests and theirs coincide.
I know what you mean, but they will rely on the doctrine of self determination. I mean I'm not happy that they moved to Israel in the first place, but now they're there they're there. They'll apply the same principle to the West Bank. And it will work beautifully.
Probably. I wonder just how many skeletons lie at the gates of the city they all flock to worship at.
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop.
.........................................
Exactly, so if we don't understand the correct definition of the words ourselves we can get carried away with what they say without understanding what is actually going on.
posted on 1/8/14
"The founding fathers and the WW2 resistance movements were very much terrorist movements, freedom fighters are pretty much terrorists, its difficult to be a freedom fighter without actually being a terrorist."
rubbish
twaddle
complete nonsense
posted on 1/8/14
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 6 minutes ago
"But that's the beauty of it. By using a weak definition with strong connotations, governments may freely manipulate the general public's perceptions of events. "Legitimate military targets" is another one. Most people don't realise that means any man of fighting age within a general geographic area (the cables leak a few years back is my source). So when they say they've hit these military targets, it literally could be me sat at my laptop."
we finally agree on something
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hah, our mutual distrust of ruling forces unites us :P
In all seriousness, I think people today come to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict too fresh. They don't understand that this isn't the latest conflict in the area but the continuation of a conflict that has been raging for millennia in some form or another. All that's changed is the banners they fight under.
posted on 1/8/14
"the correct definition of the words "
the correct definition is the one most widely accepted, not what is printed in one companies dictionary
posted on 1/8/14
Do you support all terrorists or just some?
..............................................
Only those with a just cause...
If we are talking as an example, terrorists who blew up the federal building in the USA, McVeigh or something, not at all and I am sure an abortion clinic, or a clinic where abortions take place has been bombed before as well, don't support that. Probably lots of terrorists I don't support...
Though I am not completely sure what that has to do with my criticism of the West confusing the word intentionally for propaganda purposes...
posted on 1/8/14
night
posted on 1/8/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/14
rubbish
twaddle
complete nonsense
...................................
Look I am sorry you feel this way but that is the actual definition of the word. Using the word in such a way will only help the strong and the powerful to keep down the weak because a freedom fighter can always be accurately branded a terrorist.
No matter how righteous their cause is our papers can get away with calling them terrorists (and being accurate when they do) why you think this is a good thing I will never understand...
posted on 1/8/14
Got me there Cal, fair play.
Page 103 of 146
104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108