[quote="Sadistic-Savior";p="378006"]Why did he say "we" if it was just Bush? Are you trying to say that Bush overrode the rest of America in making this threat?

If not, then the threat was made by us collectively, not by bush alone. Bush does not have dictatorial powers.

None of your other quotes are any different. Bush was speaking as the elected representative of a government, not acting on his own. [quote=Sadistic-Savior";p="378006]a way out.....if Osama says we you would call him a terrorist.....he's the leader.

My only point is that terrorism can be lead to mean almost anyone or any organization. By your "new" definition (it's not really a definition it's just a new meaning for word, look at when the definition was created, 2007, in order to try show how this administration means it, after your new "definition" it says (See also September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, and Basque region.))
You can't disagree with that.

Also, your new definition would implicate the KKK and other organizations inside the US as terrorists, if this is a "war on terror" how come we aren't taking them out? Or is it a "war on Muslim terrorists"?

Name the organizations we're are fight the "war on terror" against. You can't why? Because there is no set objective......making it an endless, unwinable war.

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

I agree. Consider the new and improved definition:

So, if a member of the eco goon squad blows up a government run research facility, hurting no one, it's not an act of terrorism using that definition. Likewise, if no one was in the building in Oklahoma City it wouldn't be terrorism. The target was a government building and its contents and no one would have died. IED's aimed at U.S. military personnel are also not terrorism according to the above. After all, the targets are not civilian. Also note it only says "violence against civilians". It doesn't say INTENTIONAL. The U.S. has killed scores of civilians. We claim it's a mistake, but they are dead just the same.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

We already make that distinction. Thats why we call them Eco-terrorists instead of just "terrorist".

Which is why we call them terrorists and not "suicide bomber terrorists". Because we dont make a distinction.

If it's broad, why use the term "eco-terrorist" at all? If you are making the distinction, it cant be that broad.

Not really. Otherwise we would use terrorism as a synonym for "war", and we dont.

1) It isnt my definition.

2) It isnt new.

So what? How does that change how the word is used?

Which they are. When have I argued otherwise?

Who says we arent? The fact that Muslim terrorists are our current priority doesnt mean that domestic terrorists get a pass.

What leads you to believe that domestic terrorists are getting away with stuff simply because our focus is on foreign terrorists?

It is a war on terrorism in general, and the current focus is on Islamic terrorism, because that is where the vast majority of the terrorist activity is taking place right now. That seems obvious to me.

I would love to if you can translate that sentence for me. I have no idea what it is you are asking.

Because I can't understand what you're saying?

It isnt endless, because the number of enemies is finite. Eventually they will all be assimilated or destroyed.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

This definition doesn't help your case much, we have killed thousands and thousands of civilians.

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

There has always been and always will be some sort of "terrorism" in the World.

I'm not responding to your long posts where you point out grammar mistakes and try to crack funny jokes. If you want to make a point than make it.

Like I have said time and time and time again you can't fight a "war on terrorism" and expect to win. There is no defined target. All the school shooters are terrorists by all of your definitions but we don't go wage war with them, what do we do we take precautions against it (and hardly any at that). If you think you will ever rid the world of terrorism you are deceiving yourself.

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

Simply killing someone doesnt make you a terrorist. Otherwise "killing" and "terrorism" would be synonyms, and they are not.

Did you read the part before the word "civilians"?

We did not deliberately target civilians with our violence. It was not calculated AGAINST them. Their casualties were unintended.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists deliberately target civilians.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

US has been a rouge nation and a state sponsor of terrorism for some time now.

calculated use of violence, so targeting buildings with bombs is not calculated?

Where in the definition does it say deliberately?

__________________
Most people think Great God will come from the skies But if you know what life is worth You will look for yours on earth And now you see the light You stand up for your rights

You have no way of knowing that.

But it is irrelevant even if true; the war will only continue so long as we percieve it as a national threat. Eventually there will come a time when we no longer percieve terrorism as a national threat. The war will end at that time.

"Indefinite" and "Permanent" do not mean the same thing.

No one is forcing you to respond to my posts at all. Long or otherwise.

The response to your grammar mistakes were not intended for humor or to insult you. I wanted to clarify your question before answering it. I wanted to eliminate the possibility of a misunderstanding. Wasnt that nice of me?

I disagree. That position is myopic and naive. It is like saying that we shouldnt fight racism because racism will always exist.

There's lots. Al-Queada. The Taliban. Hezbollah. Those are the most famous, but I am sure there are others.

Sure we can. But our resources are finite. Since Islamic terrorist pose a larger threat, we allocate a larger portion of our resources to them. That doesnt make sense to you?

Either way, the alternatives are worse. This is preferrable to doing nothing, or relying on diplomacy (which is the same as doing nothing).

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Not unless your intention is to kill the civilians inside.

Calculated use of violence against a building is not the same as calculated use of violence against civilians who may be inside. Killing someone accidentally is not the same as killing someone deliberately. Intent matters.

When it says "calculated". Unless you can explain how you can commit calculated violence against someone without doing so deliberately.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?