 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| "Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message news:Hv2BF5.vt0@lugnet.com... (...) entity? (...) or (...) but if (...) to act (...) organization that (...) are yes, (...) entity, (...) used (...) metaphor. (...) 19th (...) is no (...) be (...) (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) I don't think terrorism is hard to define-- it's just that people use the term incorrectly or indiscriminately and therefore its definition is muddied. Terrorism is the targeted killing of innocent civilians by a person or group in order to (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) All? It's just a wild guess. Of course both sides of a war will present arguments saying they're right, so they won't be of much help. Wars usually begin once conflicting interests can no longer be settled thru diplomatic channels, which are (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| "Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message news:Hv3IF7.BuF@lugnet.com... (...) old (...) terrorism: "act (...) Hmm, by that definition, almost all acts of war are acts of terrorism. It is not practical in a military action to eliminate all (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) The nuance is that terrorism is performed by violence exclusively, but you can break an enemy's morale using other tactics. Not to mention a great deal in fighting a war has to do with destroying the opponents' ability to inflict damage on (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) This is just American popular historical fantasy of the sort the Japanese would be proud of. There was nothing indiscriminate about the targetting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the intent was not taking out factories and infrastructure. (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
