John Kerry: Sadr "Legitimate", Hamas and Hezbollah "sort of" Terrorist

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kucinich
is defined as killing people through certain means.

And that is what this was. Don't try to use bigger words then you know. You are just a youngster who doesn't know any better.

[Kuciwalker]

Fez picks up on Sava's trick

You called him a terrorist because he killed 30 American soldiers. That was your reason. Killing 30 American soldiers is not sufficient to make you a terrorist. Killing 10 million American soldiers is not sufficient to make you a terrorist. Wounding one soldier, using combatants disguised as civilians, is sufficient to make you a terrorist.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Fez picks up on Sava's trick

You called him a terrorist because he killed 30 American soldiers. That was your reason. Killing 30 American soldiers is not sufficient to make you a terrorist. Killing 10 million American soldiers is not sufficient to make you a terrorist. Wounding one soldier, using combatants disguised as civilians, is sufficient to make you a terrorist.

He's a terrorist. He committed terrorist acts by terrorizing Iraqi civilians, killing the legitimate coalition security forces. And Sadr's combatants were disguised as civilians, little boy.

[Kuciwalker]

I NEVER SAID HE WASN'T A TERRORIST.

Get that straight.

I pointed out that the evidence you gave for calling him a terrorist was insufficient.

It's like if you said "the Nazis committed genocide because they killed people" - while I agree the committed genocide, the killing people is not sufficient to make you genocidal.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I NEVER SAID HE WASN'T A TERRORIST.

Get that straight.

I pointed out that the evidence you gave for calling him a terrorist was insufficient.

It's like if you said "the Nazis committed genocide because they killed people" - while I agree the committed genocide, the killing people is not sufficient to make you genocidal.

I said again you are being inadequate. I already said that calling him a terrorist was with sufficient evidence since he used combatants that look like civilians.

You better stop twisting words because it is making you look very bad. Oh well you are too young to know otherwise I guess.

[Kuciwalker]

Hmm, let's look at this conversation:

First, you say "Kerry really ****ed up this time. Sadr's militia killed more than 30 troops."

Then, Floyd goes "Fez, [killing more than thirty troops] doesn't define a terrorist movement." That's completely true.

Then, you respond with a line of 's and "Sadr not a terrorist? What are you on? Sadr is a terrorist and his movement is a terrorist gropu. They killed civilians, they used human shields in cities and they took up positions in cities." Admirably, you avoided your earlier mistake in this explanation of your claim that Sadr is a terrorist, but you missed that Floyd was just pointing out your earlier claim.

(Additionally he claimed that Sadr is not necessarily a terrorist, if his actions were within certain bounds. He was also correct in this, because he never actually stated that Sadr was not a terrorist.)

Then I point out that you didn't address Floyd's point, and you again justify your position that Sadr was a terrorist, again using a correct justification. However, you still miss the point that we are criticising your earlier argument, that Sadr was a terrorist merely because he killed 30 American soldiers. We never disputed your conclusion, just your original justification.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Hmm, let's look at this conversation:

First, you say "Kerry really ****ed up this time. Sadr's militia killed more than 30 troops."

Then, Floyd goes "Fez, [killing more than thirty troops] doesn't define a terrorist movement." That's completely true.

Yes it does, especially when Sadr uses combatants that appear as civilians. That's commonly known and I thought you all would know that so I didn't mention it. That clarifies the situation and shows that Sadr is indeed a terrorist.

Admirably, you avoided your earlier mistake in this explanation of your claim that Sadr is a terrorist, but you missed that Floyd was just pointing out your earlier claim.

My earlier claim was based on commonly known information that I did not mention.

Then I point out that you didn't address Floyd's point, and you again justify your position that Sadr was a terrorist, again using a correct justification.

Again you are making incorrect inferences.

However, you still miss the point that we are criticising your earlier argument, that Sadr was a terrorist merely because he killed 30 American soldiers. We never disputed your conclusion, just your original justification.

I made that statement and I stand by that because I thought it would be associated with commonly known information, that Sadr uses terrorist tactics.

So your argument against me is as usual ****.

[GePap]

Sky, don;t waste time trying to reason with the Fezbot. It is a waste of time.

[Giancarlo]

Shut the **** up, Gepap.

[GePap]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Kuciwalker]

Yes it does, especially when Sadr uses combatants that appear as civilians.

No - yes, it does, if in addition Sadr uses combatants that appear as civilians. If he didn't, then he wouldn't be a terrorist. The fact is, you called him a terrorist because he killed American soldiers, which is insufficient justification. Had you stated that he was a terrorist because he killed American soldiers using combatants disguised as civilians, that would have been sufficient justification. The fact that you assumed we knew he used said combatants does not affect the truth of your statement in any way.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I gotta agree with GePap and Ramo and others on this thread. Sadr's voice IS legitimate! Anyone who truely believes in freedom of speech CANNOT say otherwise without seeming like a big hypocrite! Secondly, it is a 'sort of' terrorist alignment of the newspaper, because it hasn't come out and said it backs terrorism or provided money for terrorism, but tended to back groups which have backed terrorism. Thirdly, Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization.

run to a crowded theater and shout fire please. Free speech protects you from being prevented from saying something, it makes no provision for what happens after you say it. This guy has incited violence and had lies printed, neither of which is protected last time I checked.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Yes it does, especially when Sadr uses combatants that appear as civilians.

No - yes, it does, if in addition Sadr uses combatants that appear as civilians. If he didn't, then he wouldn't be a terrorist.

But he did.

The fact is, you called him a terrorist because he killed American soldiers, which is insufficient justification.

Actually you are being inadequate again. I state that on the presumption people would know the tactics that Sadr has used.

You're an idiot.

[Sovereign]

I label people or groups that use innocent people to kill people and / or destroying property in the process, terrorists.

The innocent people like women and children are forced to be human sheilds, or are forced to don bombs on their personas.

That sort of thing makes the person or group responible terrorists. If they did not use such methods or tactics, then they would be considered militia or gurriellas.

[Pax]

1. The problem with Kerry an Iraq is that I can't imagine any democrat and most republicans who would have decided to invade Iraq. Yet, there we are and even if you think we should not be there we have already committed ourselves to the game. America does not want to lose face and leave without saying we won. So far we've only lost one war and people still won't admit to that(we left 2 years before the fall of Saigon). If you are Kerry it would be hard to always have to go between what you feel is right and what you feel you need to say to get in the whitehouse. It's easy for Bush to point to the mixed things that other politicians are saying. If they say even the smallest criticisms of his policies then they hate freedom, hate america, love terrorists, or are just plain pinko communists.

2. How are these people pretending to be civillians. They don't own uniforms. They wear the same clothes as the civillians because that is what they have. I also cannot except that in a war declared on Iraq by the U.S. that people firing on American soldiers on their home soil could be considered terrorism. These people have obviously not conceded defeat. Calling these people terrorists is calling the french resistance in ww2 terrorist.

3. Hezbollah was not responsible for the world trade bombing. We need to focus on one group at a time. Right now we need to get AQ out of the way. Think about if we would have focused on AQ instead of diluting our efforts on Iraq. Would the recent tragedy have happened in Spain? As has been said we need to stay the course. What's the course? Iraq or AQ. How much is said about AQ. Why is the focus on Iraq? Do we have more troops in Iraq or Afghanistan? Where is OSL?

4. Lastly, Free Press is a cornerstone of democracy! It the same thing that allows people on this site to speak out. Just because we don't like the message does not give the right to shut it down.