|
|
 | | Re: Debunk this?
|
| Hello Chris, (...) I like this question, and I'll try and answer it for Germany, where I live. We observe international law. We do not use military violence to change the world, except in cases sanctioned by UN. That seems pretty solid to me, in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Debunk this?
|
| Hello Chris, (...) If you need the fact that they are terrorists to validate your argument, you may decide to change NEVER instead of slowly ... Greetings Horst (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Debunk this?
|
| Hello David, (...) One, that makes us (you, me, the US, Israel, ... pick whoever you like best) the good guys? Good idea, that's what we usually do in such cases ... we create a reality distortion field. BTW, I don't see this definition makes ALL (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Debunk this?
|
| Hello Dan, (...) What if they just THINK he has info about it? If you really think this idea to the very end, I think you will prefer to live in a constitutional state. (...) ^^^^^^ "could potentially" probably would be more realistic ... Greetings (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Debunk this?
|
| Hello Chris, (...) Thanks :-) (...) No. And is Terrorism only about "innocent civilians"? No. And now it gets a bit harder for some of the guys who thought they were out ... ;-> (...) I'd say no (as above), no (missing the "unlawful" attribute; that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
