English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-08-10 20:06:44 · 8 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Politics & Government Politics

Well by definition any country [including America] that has killed civilians is guilty of commiting terrorism .
By far if we follow this definition we find that America is the greater condoner of terrorism .

But since you dont see americans wailing about callling each other terrorists surely this wouldnt be considered the definition .

2006-08-10 20:17:19 · update #1

Bc if you can then why dont you :) . those cources seem legitimate .

2006-08-10 20:22:21 · update #2

8 answers

a simple picture worth a thousand words.

http://www.halturnershow.com/IsraeliAtrocities.html
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archiv...

http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.org

http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/crim...
http://www.countercurrents.org/palestine.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9381

http://www.ntcsites.com/palestine/photogallerysabrashatilahmassacre/

http://www.thewall.org.uk/images/content/landloss-

http://www.angelfire.com/ia/palestinefoe...

http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca....

2006-08-10 20:08:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

i would say a terrorist is at bare minimum, a person who injures or kills civilians because he desires to change or comment on a political/social situation. he instills terror to get his way.

it's hard to tell precisely where the boundaries of the definition are. i would also say there's a threshhold where someone is not a terrorist simply because he hates or belongs to a particular ideology, or simply because he kills a couple of people... that's still just a mass murderer, right? i also think you can't call someone a terrorist who only attacks soldiers or armies. it has to be civilians, folks just minding their own business. i think you could have soldiers and armies that behave like terrorists, but i'm not certain. i don't think it should be limited to small, secret groups... it describes a behavior, not a people. for example, the germans had a practice when they occupied belgium, where they killed 10 belgians for every 1 that resisted. that seems like terrorism, because it was to instill terror.

2006-08-11 03:08:37 · answer #2 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 0 0

Terrorism: 1. Invading weak countries like Afghanistan, Iraq,
Palastene, Lebenon, killing millions of innocent
citizens, causing grave harm to billions of citizens.

2. Threatening their own people by self conducting
9 / 11, Train Blasts, alleged Terrorist Plots, etc.,

Worst-Terrorist: Ehud Olmert, George W Bush, Tonny Blair

2006-08-11 03:24:56 · answer #3 · answered by bharathghf 2 · 1 0

ask W.Bush i think the government whom lead the entire countries sank into civil war (Iraq,Afaganstan)this create terrorism for the nation of this counteries become agrudge the war of terro.is american bropaganda to control the world!

2006-08-11 03:44:35 · answer #4 · answered by am amin 1 · 0 0

Innocent can piss off for his propoganda he spews. Most of those links are 3rd rate websites created by hacks like himself. II could list about 10 source to support the Israelis side, but what's the point?

2006-08-11 03:18:09 · answer #5 · answered by haterade 3 · 0 1

An abominable act carried out by a cowardly despot and his equally despicable cronies

2006-08-11 03:14:23 · answer #6 · answered by witchfromoz2003 6 · 0 0

If one didn't know, one would look it up in the dictionary. We got 'em online. Looking for opinions? There are no valid ones here.

2006-08-11 03:11:00 · answer #7 · answered by davetheguitarplayer 2 · 0 0

BULL$HIT !

2006-08-11 03:10:05 · answer #8 · answered by pickle head 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers