angelo
Deleted
What your little cartoon leaves out is the fact that 99% of terrorist , are muslim men!
-
Features
Europe submits voluntarily
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
- Status
What your little cartoon leaves out is the fact that 99% of terrorist , are muslim men!
angelo
Deleted
Idiot expresses minority opinion - claims majority support for it.
More at the top of the hour.
It will be the majority opinion in a matter of decades as more and more Muslims from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia etc., known for very radical Islam, keep coming in huge numbers.
No, it won't.
That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
Try harder. Thinking may be difficult, but it is essential to avoid ridicule.
You want evidence? There is abundant evidence if only you open your eyes!
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/
untermensche
Contributor
The US attack of Iraq was a massive act of terrorism.
Not ordered by a Muslim.
Ordered by a Christian who said his god told him to do it.
Sure. If we ignore all the terrorism from the West, all the terrorism from Israel, if we label resistance to oppression as terrorism, we could ignorantly think that terrorism is only a Muslim problem.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Technically the definition of "terrorism" includes that it is performed by non-state actors. State actors commit war crimes instead.
untermensche
Contributor
Terrorism pertains to whatever entity carries it out.
The use of illegitimate force to achieve a political goal.
To attack another nation that is not attacking anyone to overturn it's government is textbook terrorism.
To round up people and torture them all in the hope that a few may know something is terrorism.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
English and untermenscheish disagree with each other on the definitions of the words.
untermensche
Contributor
Justice and you disagree with one another.
A deliberate unprovoked attack to overturn a government is terrorism.
Just because it is a huge act of terrorism doesn't make it more than terrorism.
Massive terrorism is terrorism.
War crimes are when two nations are at war, not when one very powerful nation is attacking a much weaker nation at will.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Look, Assault and Burglary are different things yet they are both crimes. Saying a burglar only did burglary and not assault is NOT the same thing as saying he didn't do burglary.
When done by a private party it is terrorism, when done by government it is an act of war. That's the nature of the definitions of the words.
Maybe this will help you.
Or an ESL class.
When done by a private party it is terrorism, when done by government it is an act of war. That's the nature of the definitions of the words.
Maybe this will help you.
Or an ESL class.
untermensche
Contributor
When done by humans it is terrorism.
When it is state terrorism it is the worst case.
Terrorism is what is done.
Not who does it.
Basically you are making the absurd claim that governments cannot commit terrorism.
Your head being up the ass of some government "leader" doesn't change what things are.
When it is state terrorism it is the worst case.
Terrorism is what is done.
Not who does it.
Basically you are making the absurd claim that governments cannot commit terrorism.
Your head being up the ass of some government "leader" doesn't change what things are.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
That's your definition.
Here in the real world, when done by the state, when speaking English, it is a war crime.
Here in the real world, when done by the state, when speaking English, it is a war crime.
untermensche
Contributor
Bullshit.
Your claim that governments cannot commit terrorism is total bullshit.
It is a claim you pulled out of your ass.
No moral person believes it.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Learn English.
So according to untermensche, knowing English and using it properly is a moral failure.
untermensche
Contributor
Terrorism is the act not the actor.
Learn English.
Learn English.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
The legal definition of terrorism speaks otherwise, which is why there is a set of crimes called "war crimes". Learn English.
Why do you refuse to use the term "war crime"? What is so offensive about it to you? Why won't you call a war crime a war crime?
untermensche
Contributor
Here's the US Army's definition of terrorism.
https://dema.az.gov/sites/default/files/Publications/AR-Terrorism%20Definitions-BORUNDA.pdf
Terrorism is not defined by who does it.
It is defined by what is done.
- - - Updated - - -
Terrorism is defined by what is done not by who does it.
Anybody can do it.
https://dema.az.gov/sites/default/files/Publications/AR-Terrorism%20Definitions-BORUNDA.pdf
Terrorism is not defined by who does it.
It is defined by what is done.
- - - Updated - - -
Terrorism is defined by what is done not by who does it.
Anybody can do it.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
If you read the definition, it is unlawful violence or threat of violence. The key word is "unlawful". Even when a government is completely and utterly morally wrong, what they do is lawful by definition since they are the government. That is why we have the term "war crimes" which is a term that strikes terror into your tender little grievance-studies saturated heart.
untermensche
Contributor
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Which means you now agree with me that terrorism is done by non-state actors and war crimes are done by state actors. You finally came around to common sense.
Why do you find the term "war crime" to be so hard for you?
untermensche
Contributor
Your love of government has you now saying they cannot break laws.
They can break any laws and they can commit any act. That is why government leaders were imprisoned after WWII. Because they committed crimes.
Governments can commit any crime. Including terrorism.
Your worthless claims have not convinced me.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't agree at all.
The definition clearly defines what is done.
And since states can commit unlawful acts, they can do things against international law, they can commit terrorism.
You cannot read.
They can break any laws and they can commit any act. That is why government leaders were imprisoned after WWII. Because they committed crimes.
Governments can commit any crime. Including terrorism.
Your worthless claims have not convinced me.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't agree at all.
The definition clearly defines what is done.
And since states can commit unlawful acts, they can do things against international law, they can commit terrorism.
You cannot read.
untermensche
Contributor
A war crime is not necessarily something done by a government.
A private on his own can commit a war crime.
Or can be used as a tool to commit a huge act of terrorism.
A private on his own can commit a war crime.
Or can be used as a tool to commit a huge act of terrorism.
- Status