<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> don't think anyone argues that terrorism shouldn't be stopped. But metaphorically, we're throwing water on a grease fire. We need to snuff the fire, not spread it. Offensive war, whether it's called pre-emptive or not, is still just creating and spreading more terrorists. <p><hr></blockquote><p> That makes way too much sense. You must be a bobblehead.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I don't think anyone argues that terrorism shouldn't be stopped. But metaphorically, we're throwing water on a grease fire. We need to snuff the fire, not spread it. Offensive war, whether it's called pre-emptive or not, is still just creating and spreading more terrorists.<p><hr></blockquote><p>It would appear, that regardless of what you think, there are some that argue that terrorism shouldn't be stopped.<br><br>If we lived in a metaphorical world, terrorism could be explained and reduced to a "nuisance". We could all be "Betty Crocker", astute to the inherent combustible nature of animal fat and the proper technique of pre-emption or extinguishing of such flair-ups.<br><br>In reality, the proponents of terrorism are hell-bent on the notion that the grease be applied to their squeaking wheel. Unfortunately after they blow them up, they realize that they have destroyed their squeaking wheel and have to recruit a new one.<br><br>The spread of this grease fire is based in the water of education, as is it's quencher.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there are some that argue that terrorism shouldn't be stopped.<p><hr></blockquote><p>who?<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there are some that argue that terrorism shouldn't be stopped.<br><br><br>who?<p><hr></blockquote><p>bobble-bobble...bobble-bobble...<br><br>Abu Nidal organization, Abu Sayyaf Group, Armed Islamic Group, Aum Supreme Truth, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, HAMAS, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizballah, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Japanese Red Army, Al-Jihad, Kach and Kahane Chai, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, National Liberation Army, The Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, al-Qaida, <br>Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front, Revolutionary People's Struggle, Sendero Luminoso, Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement<br><br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

while i don't agree with your "evidence" i also have never seen anyone supporting or representing any of those groups in our discussions. in essensce, you're creating a straw man to give credence to your position. and, even if those groups don't think we should fight "our" definition of terrorists, i am willing to bet that some of those groups think terrorism should be stopped and they might even see the U.S. as a terrorist state. your definition of terror is not necessarily the same as theirs.<br><br>nice to see the groups you named are all significant. i grabbed one at random and:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The Revolutionary Organization 17 November, based in Greece, was one of the most active terrorist groups in Western Europe in the 1980’s. The group's name derives from the November 17, 1973 student uprising in Athens that was violently quelled by the military junta ruling Greece at the time.<br><br>17 November is a violent Marxist-Leninist organization. It's ideology is anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-United States/NATO. The group has been critical of the Greek government for not addressing issues such as the situation in Cyprus, the presence of US bases in Greece, and Greek membership in NATO and the European Community.<p><hr></blockquote><p>are they even still a group or have they just stopped using violence in the last 10 years?<br>another one at random: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Kach (Hebrew for "Only Thus") was founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane. The stated goal of Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means "Kahane Lives," (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both organizations were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli Cabinet in March 1994. This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosqueand their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Goldstein was affiliated with Kach.<p><hr></blockquote><p>have they done anything in the last 10 years?<br>Sendero Luminoso? <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Although considered a legitimate insurrection by some and a repressive, reactionary movement by others, no one can deny the violence and bloodshed directly and indirectly attributed to the emergence of Sendero Luminoso. With the beginning of the urban strategy in the late 1980s and the involvement in the coca trade in the Upper Huallaga Valley soon after, it seemed all of Peru was a war zone. Flagrant human rights abuses by the military and its U.S.-trained counter-guerrilla forces (Sinchis) and the numerous killings of independent grass roots organizers, local politicians and unsympathetic civilians by Sendero Luminoso left the people of Peru caught in the middle.<br><br>Then on September 12, 1992 Presidente Gonzalo (Guzmán’s nom de guerre) was captured during a raid of a safe house in Lima. Considerably weakened, Sendero has lost much of its role in determining the future of Peru. <p><hr></blockquote><p>what have they been up to in the last 10 years?<br><a href="http://www.ict.org.il">source for quotes</a><br>many of these groups are a nuisance to the country in which they reside, but most are hardly the global terrorists that we currently battle (not counting the distraction in iraq where we're losing the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of the population in the middle east).<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>while i don't agree with your "evidence" i also have never seen anyone supporting or representing any of those groups in our discussions. in essensce, you're creating a straw man to give credence to your position. and, even if those groups don't think we should fight "our" definition of terrorists, i am willing to bet that some of those groups think terrorism should be stopped and they might even see the U.S. as a terrorist state. your definition of terror is not necessarily the same as theirs.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So, in Clintonesque essence, you want to redefine the word terrorism.<br><br>That "straw man" is not only frightening but also dangerous. <br><br>ter·ror·ism<br><br>The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.<p><hr></blockquote><p>and, you don't see how some people in the world might think that trying to force a democracy on a country, without UN support, might fit into that definition?<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and, you don't see how some people in the world might think that trying to force a democracy on a country, without UN support, might fit into that definition?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I see how some dictators, their appeasers and cohorts might think that freedom is a forced form of democracy. Defining that as "terrorism" would be a generous stretch of tolerance, indicating a loose approximation of character. <br><br>The UN is incredible and I mean that in the most negative way.<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust