According to Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dictionary of Military Terms… “Terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
Using the above definition, a ‘terrorist’ could therefore be defined as someone who uses unlawful violence (or threatens to use unlawful violence) in order to achieve political, religious or ideological goals.
Many thousands of innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured as the direct result of the US-led invasions of their countries. They were not terrorists… they weren’t responsible for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks… they weren’t supporters of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. They were innocent civilians who were desperately trying to live their lives as best they could, in conditions most of us would consider to be ‘atrocious’.
The Invasion of Iraq by US-led coalition forces went ahead, against the majority of the international community, and was clearly in breach of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. As such, it can generally be accepted as being ‘a Breach of International Law’.
The question should now be asked... Was the Invasion of Iraq, an Act of Terrorism? Was it a calculated use of unlawful violence, intended to intimidate Iraq, in pursuit of President George W. Bush’s political, religious, or ideological goals?”
I believe it was!!!
2006-08-02 22:44:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by I_C_Y_U_R 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
And the Kennedys. Kennedy exchange right into a Hitler appeaser. He exchange into an envoy to good sized Britain. FDR fired him. He owned Nazi shares to boot. Now,no person had OBL. Afghanistan exchange into funded ,beginning up in 1979. The chilly warfare exchange into nonetheless on. OBL fought the Russians and joined together with his very own funds. throughout the Bosnian warfare,Al Qaeda operatives have been over there scuffling with the Serbs. So,ought to I say Al-Qaeda exchange into in the back of Clinton to boot. thank you for enjoying. attempt analyzing some thing else to boot MoveOn.Org memoes.
2016-10-01 10:19:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Heh....this is just another way liberals try to antagonize Bush.....only the kool-aid drinkers of America would believe something as foolish as this
2006-08-02 22:37:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Behind the curtain, America supports conflicts because for conflicts they need weapons. US happens to be a major makers of weapons.
2006-08-02 22:51:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by SreeNadh 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't know.....but it seems that behind every Bush is a Cheney and Rumsfeld.
2006-08-02 22:28:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by aap36rob 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
my belief is that after every terrorist is a politician...........
everyone of them is the reason for terrorism..............
and the biggest country that is promoting terrorism is America............
America is providing all the money and weapons to the Islamics.....with wich they are killing each other and innocent people.........
I do not understand how can one be so brutal...........
I wish them hell........
and exactly the same kind of Death that they give to others..........................
2006-08-02 22:36:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Babe 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
behind every terrorist is a koran saying to kill innocent people.
2006-08-02 22:25:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by glock509 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
of course not, behind a womans skirt or child is a hezbolla member tho
2006-08-03 00:07:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by sealss3006 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't quite your day job as an "idiot", when Hillary roars in, in 2008 (I'm sure you'll vote for her because, after all, you are an idiot), you'll be wishing Ol' GW was back !
2006-08-02 22:28:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
ITS TRUE AND BEHIND EVERY BUSH IS ISRAEL
2006-08-03 00:55:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by linaazmy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋