Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Recent Posts


Abrahamic Religions' debt...
Today at 08:22 PM

Why did you leave Islam
Today at 08:20 PM

Gaza
Today at 08:11 PM

Any ex-converts here?
Today at 07:59 PM

Anyone from the UK?
Today at 05:48 PM

Night of laila tul qadar
Today at 05:15 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
Today at 04:13 PM

CEMB Greatest Hits - post...
Today at 04:11 PM

Music that moves you
Today at 04:07 PM

Things that annoy me abou...
Today at 03:52 PM

Islam empowered me! women...
by Jedi
Today at 03:41 PM

ISIS take Mosul
Today at 03:40 PM

Donations

Kitty is lost

Theme Changer

 Topic: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi

 (Read 3868 times)
  • 12 3 ... 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     OP - February 21, 2012, 04:30 PM

    Americans .. Go burn   women  kill women   but dammit stop burning  Quran..  finmad finmad


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uErNm7NHXI


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2MYPvQXgk

    ALL AMERICANS ARE JUICE..



    Freedom of Expression is a Fundamental Right  
    Release The bloggers from Jails.  Protect The Bloggers from  Baboons
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #1 - February 21, 2012, 06:54 PM

    NATO/US are fucking stupid, as if desecrating the Quran is any more of an insult to muslims than occupying their countries, bombing their mosques, cities and people  Roll Eyes
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #2 - February 21, 2012, 11:32 PM

    News flash!! Muslims angry about something.
    Meanwhile in Syria... no one protesting for them. No Jews or infidels involved, don't care.

    ***~Church is where bad people go to hide~***
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #3 - February 21, 2012, 11:37 PM

    NATO/US are fucking stupid, as if desecrating the Quran is any more of an insult to muslims than occupying their countries, bombing their mosques, cities and people  Roll Eyes

    NATO are smart enough to realise that when you have an angry crowd protesting about Qurans being desecrated, maybe that crowd is pissed about Qurans being desecrated (or about rumours thereof).

    The fact that some Muslims may also be pissed about other things doesn't change the above.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #4 - February 21, 2012, 11:40 PM

    News flash!! Muslims angry about something.
    Meanwhile in Syria... no one protesting for them. No Jews or infidels involved, don't care.


    Perhaps you should take your head out of arse, only a suggestion  Smiley

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2011%E2%80%932012_Syrian_uprising


    NATO are smart enough to realise that when you have an angry crowd protesting about Qurans being desecrated, maybe that crowd is pissed about Qurans being desecrated (or about rumours thereof).



    What about when they have an angry crowd telling them to GTFO? Negotiate with "terrorists" ? Or attempt to and fail, lulz.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #5 - February 22, 2012, 12:01 AM

    ''Perhaps you should take your head out of arse, only a suggestion  ''

    Lol @ Aphrodite

    Yes Muslims don't care about innocent woman and children being butchered by the evil Assad regime, Sakura02, *rolls eyes*
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #6 - February 22, 2012, 12:04 AM

    What about when they have an angry crowd telling them to GTFO? Negotiate with "terrorists" ? Or attempt to and fail, lulz.

    Which was not what the article was about. The article was about a specific incident.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #7 - February 22, 2012, 12:24 AM

    What about when they have an angry crowd telling them to GTFO? Negotiate with "terrorists" ? Or attempt to and fail, lulz.

    Oh and given the behaviour of the Taliban I think it is fair to describe them as terrorists, unless you wish to claim that things like bombing girl's schools fall under legitimate freedom fighter tactics.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #8 - February 22, 2012, 12:44 AM

    Oh and given the behaviour of the Taliban I think it is fair to describe them as terrorists, unless you wish to claim that things like bombing girl's schools fall under legitimate freedom fighter tactics.


    Yes, of course bombing any civilian targets deliberately is an act of terrorism, I try to avoid using the term "terrorists" because its too politicised, hence the quote marks. In the case of Afghanistan there are pro-govt. militias (not to mention the afghan army and NATO) that deliberately attack civilians, are you going to say they're "terrorists" too?



    I'm probably going to get called a Taliban sympathiser or something here, but anyway. Last summer I was in Pakistan for just over a week I stayed in and around the Peshawar region, I saw with my own eyes schools being taken over by security services using them as security bases--they then claim it was a bombing of a school when its attacked  Roll Eyes I don't believe the Taliban are pro-womens rights but I don't think they're the anti girls education monsters they're made out to be. 
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #9 - February 22, 2012, 12:49 AM

    Yes, of course bombing any civilian targets deliberately is an act of terrorism, I try to avoid using the term "terrorists" because its too politicised, hence the quote marks. In the case of Afghanistan there are pro-govt. militias (not to mention the afghan army and NATO) that deliberately attack civilians, are you going to say they're "terrorists" too?

    Depends on the aims of the attack. If that aim is to target militants and civilian deaths are a side effect then no, I wouldn't call it a terrorist attack as such. Yes, I realise things get murky in practice. War is always like that.



    Quote
    I'm probably going to get called a Taliban sympathiser or something here, but anyway. Last summer I was in Pakistan for just over a week I stayed in and around the Peshawar region, I saw with my own eyes schools being taken over by security services using them as security bases--they then claim it was a bombing of a school when its attacked  Roll Eyes I don't believe the Taliban are pro-womens rights but I don't think they're the anti girls education monsters they're made out to be.

    Given the Taliban's record on women's rights, what makes you think they are in favour of educating girls?

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #10 - February 22, 2012, 01:25 AM

    Depends on the aims of the attack. If that aim is to target militants and civilian deaths are a side effect then no, I wouldn't call it a terrorist attack as such.


    So its ok to say bomb a family home from the air to get a few militants who are in there with their family?


    Given the Taliban's record on women's rights, what makes you think they are in favour of educating girls?


    Statements from people/organisations that aren't full of shit, Taliban statements (throw out the religious rhetoric and exaggerated claims of attacks and you have some truth, well more truthful than what NATO says) my family and my enquiring mind.

    "Taliban ready to lift ban on girls' schools, says minister"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/taliban-lift-ban-girls-schools

    "The Swede Who Convinced Taliban To Allow Girls Schools"
    http://www.rferl.org/content/swede_who_convinced_taliban_to_allow_girls_schools/24454456.html


    There's a lot of bullshit out there spewed by a lot of people, fortunately the Afghan people can see past it  Smiley

    Remember that girl on the front of Time's magazine?

    "Taliban dismiss Time cover as 'desperate propaganda' "
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVyU2pZmx-oNvP0P3My43OZkMDjw

    Full Taliban statement:
    http://theunjustmedia.com/Afghanistan/Statements/August10/Response%20of%20the%20Islamic%20Emirate%20of%20Afghanistan%20regarding%20a%20picture%20published%20by%20Times%20magazine.htm

    RAWA agrees with the Taliban
    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/08/29/is-time-s-aisha-story-fake.html
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #11 - February 22, 2012, 01:36 AM

    So its ok to say bomb a family home from the air to get a few militants who are in there with their family?

    Sometimes, yes.


    Quote
    Statements from people/organisations that aren't full of shit, Taliban statements (throw out the religious rhetoric and exaggerated claims of attacks and you have some truth, well more truthful than what NATO says) my family and my enquiring mind.

    "Taliban ready to lift ban on girls' schools, says minister"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/taliban-lift-ban-girls-schools

    "The Swede Who Convinced Taliban To Allow Girls Schools"
    http://www.rferl.org/content/swede_who_convinced_taliban_to_allow_girls_schools/24454456.html


    There's a lot of bullshit out there spewed by a lot of people, fortunately the Afghan people can see past it  Smiley

    Remember that girl on the front of Time's magazine?

    "Taliban dismiss Time cover as 'desperate propaganda' "
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVyU2pZmx-oNvP0P3My43OZkMDjw

    Full Taliban statement:
    http://theunjustmedia.com/Afghanistan/Statements/August10/Response%20of%20the%20Islamic%20Emirate%20of%20Afghanistan%20regarding%20a%20picture%20published%20by%20Times%20magazine.htm

    RAWA agrees with the Taliban
    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/08/29/is-time-s-aisha-story-fake.html

    I don't remember the Time cover, but the stuff about schools is interesting.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #12 - February 22, 2012, 02:05 AM

    Sometimes, yes.



    Why not all the time?

    I don't remember the Time cover, but the stuff about schools is interesting.


    It was a disgusting piece of propaganda based on lies, guess its no different to the criminals in Washington.

    Quote
    What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan



  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #13 - February 22, 2012, 02:14 AM

    Why not all the time?

    Because I think it is preferable to avoid killing non-combatants unless there is a good reason to accept their deaths. Obviously "good reason" is going to be debatable, but standard military practice for western forces is to at least attempt to minimise civilian casualties.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #14 - February 22, 2012, 02:38 AM

    Uh huh, actions speak louder than words. Every army in the world probably claims to try to avoid civilian casualties---right before they shell an entire neighbourhood or drop those cluster munitions onto villages. Not saying they (NATO/US) want to butcher every civilian they find, far from it, I just think they brush them to a side, almost dehumanising people especially when its us filthy brown people who don't want to be colonised again grin12
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #15 - February 22, 2012, 02:42 AM

    Ok, cool. So given that you have no emotional attachment to the Pakistani military grin12 I'm sure you are only all too keen to lambast them for every action they have ever undertaken that resulted in civilian deaths, and to do this with the same enthusiasm that you show when lambasting western forces.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #16 - February 22, 2012, 02:58 AM

    Yes and I did criticise them earlier in this thread  Tongue  Talking to conspiracy crazed nationalists helped me realise the pakistan army is no different to the "British Indian Army" so fuck 'em  grin12
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #17 - February 22, 2012, 03:03 AM

    By the way, the Guardian published another article about schools in Afghanistan, some  eleven months after the article you linked to.

    Kabul 'agreed deal with Taliban' to end attacks on schools, report reveals

    In a nutshell, the Taliban position seems to be that they will tolerate girl's schools (how fucking noble of them) but will not make any official statement in favour of such schools.

    They also demand that such schools be run exactly the way they want them to be run, or they will bomb the crap out of them.

    You'll have to forgive me if I do not find this reassuring, and still regard the Taliban as terrorists.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #18 - February 22, 2012, 03:29 AM

    Thats what they've been saying for well almost two decades now. They didn't like the curriculum that was present during their rule because it was what the commies left over, they wanted a saudi type curriculum but they refused to help because they had disagreements over OBL.

    lol, no need to apologise. I get it, bombing schools makes you the bad guys (rightly so) supporting, funding and arming people from Libya to Afghanistan who bomb civilians, torture and have no respect for human rights at all makes you the good guys  Wink
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #19 - February 22, 2012, 04:08 AM

    Because I think it is preferable to avoid killing non-combatants unless there is a good reason to accept their deaths.


    And if the war is unjust? Are there any circumstances in an unjust war under which collateral damage by the aggressor is acceptable?

    Quote
    standard military practice for western forces is to at least attempt to minimise civilian casualties.


    Mostly, in the current conflicts, yes. In WWII or Vietnam that wasn't necessarily the case though, and I expect it may not be again in the foreseeable future.

    But more to the point of the "terrorist" distinction vis-a-vis (Western) conventional militaries. While I do accept there is a moral distinction (provided the ends are just) between collateral damage in a military strike and maximizing civilian casualties/specifically targeting civilians, I think Aphrodite is correct that the terrorist label is so highly politicized as to not be useful for objective definition when discussing insurgencies.

    For example-- Timothy McVeigh, when bombing the OKC Federal building, caused a lot of civilian casualties, which he referred to as "collateral damage," and I would argue that if he is to be believed that the civilians were not the primary targets but rather the Federal agents, that the civilian casualties would indeed be collateral damage as it is understood in a military context. Apart from the ends being sought, and the military chain of command/state authority, is there really much difference, morally, between what he did and what a B-29 crew carpet-bombing factories and infrastructure in civilian areas of Berlin? Yet we casually call McVeigh a terrorist, but wouldn't think of labeling the bomber pilot as such. The IRA/INLA are another good example-- only a handful of their attacks specifically targeted civilian lives, most of the civilian lives taken by IRA attacks during The Troubles and before could also arguably be considered collateral damage. I think the term terrorist is indeed problematic and I don't think someone using scare quotes when mentioning the term is off-base.

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #20 - February 22, 2012, 04:36 AM


    For example-- Timothy McVeigh, when bombing the OKC Federal building, caused a lot of civilian casualties, which he referred to as "collateral damage," and I would argue that if he is to be believed that the civilians were not the primary targets but rather the Federal agents, that the civilian casualties would indeed be collateral damage as it is understood in a military context. Apart from the ends being sought, and the military chain of command/state authority, is there really much difference, morally, between what he did and what a B-29 crew carpet-bombing factories and infrastructure in civilian areas of Berlin? Yet we casually call McVeigh a terrorist, but wouldn't think of labeling the bomber pilot as such. 

    Yap....Timothy McVeigh  was Christian saint where as B-29 crew carpet-bombing factories and infrastructure in civilian areas of Berlin were the biggest terrorists ., And Raccoon your brain is programmed to think "Love means rape and Rape means Love"


    So what do you think about Our Khan here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=X0Mma7aLfeE
     

    Freedom of Expression is a Fundamental Right  
    Release The bloggers from Jails.  Protect The Bloggers from  Baboons
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #21 - February 22, 2012, 06:04 AM

    And if the war is unjust? Are there any circumstances in an unjust war under which collateral damage by the aggressor is acceptable?

    I think one could easily concoct such a theoretical circumstance, and it may even occur in practice.

    However, I fail to see what that has to do with Afghanistan. Now if we had been talking about Iraq...........

    Even there it gets messy. The current US administration inherited the mess from a previous administration, who really were a pack of idiots. I very much doubt Iraq would have happened except under that perfect desert storm of stupidity known as the Bush Administration. Once you're in there though, things get complicated, regardless of how you got there. Commanders have a responsibility to their troops, who are people too (in case anyone forgot that detail). Troops generally aren't keen on suicide, nor is there any reason why they should be. Being all perfect and idealistic about it is easy when it's not your arse on the line.


    Quote
    Mostly, in the current conflicts, yes.

    I believe we are discussing current conflicts.


    Quote
    But more to the point of the "terrorist" distinction vis-a-vis (Western) conventional militaries. While I do accept there is a moral distinction (provided the ends are just) between collateral damage in a military strike and maximizing civilian casualties/specifically targeting civilians, I think Aphrodite is correct that the terrorist label is so highly politicized as to not be useful for objective definition when discussing insurgencies.

    I don't mind if the two of you have that opinion. Personally I'm still fine with the term for some purposes.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #22 - February 22, 2012, 07:08 AM

    So its ok to say bomb a family home from the air to get a few militants who are in there with their family?


    Statements from people/organisations that aren't full of shit, Taliban statements (throw out the religious rhetoric and exaggerated claims of attacks and you have some truth, well more truthful than what NATO says) my family and my enquiring mind.

    "Taliban ready to lift ban on girls' schools, says minister"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/taliban-lift-ban-girls-schools

    "The Swede Who Convinced Taliban To Allow Girls Schools"
    http://www.rferl.org/content/swede_who_convinced_taliban_to_allow_girls_schools/24454456.html


    There's a lot of bullshit out there spewed by a lot of people, fortunately the Afghan people can see past it  Smiley

    Remember that girl on the front of Time's magazine?

    "Taliban dismiss Time cover as 'desperate propaganda' "
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVyU2pZmx-oNvP0P3My43OZkMDjw

    Full Taliban statement:
    http://theunjustmedia.com/Afghanistan/Statements/August10/Response%20of%20the%20Islamic%20Emirate%20of%20Afghanistan%20regarding%20a%20picture%20published%20by%20Times%20magazine.htm

    RAWA agrees with the Taliban
    http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/08/29/is-time-s-aisha-story-fake.html

    what kind of links are those Aphrodite?  Do you even know anything about Afghanistan??  Do you know when Taliban ruled Afghanistan??  You are picking news clips way after Taliban gone from the power

    1). "Taliban ready to lift ban on girls' schools, says minister"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/taliban-lift-ban-girls-schools      .. That is 2011..

    2). "The Swede Who Convinced Taliban To Allow Girls Schools"
    http://www.rferl.org/content/swede_who_convinced_taliban_to_allow_girls_schools/24454456.html  .. That is 2012

    Quote


    Again that case of Aisha was from 2010., Indeed her nose and ears were cut of by Taliban ROGUE who happened buy her from her father.. What is your point?? I hope you know what Taliban Movement was and how it started in Land of Pure with American Pure dollars and American weapons, And you should also know that he Taliban    Islamist   political group of   Afghanistan  as an Islamic rule  of Afghanistan from September 1996 until October 2001...

    And Taliban are your heroes?   .. Hmm good know that..  

    Freedom of Expression is a Fundamental Right  
    Release The bloggers from Jails.  Protect The Bloggers from  Baboons
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #23 - February 22, 2012, 07:29 AM

    However, I fail to see what that has to do with Afghanistan. Now if we had been talking about Iraq...........


    Many have argued with varying degrees of credibility that the War in Afghanistan was/is a war of aggression. My personal opinion is that we were justified in invading as retaliation for 9/11, but I hardly see the justification for staying there over a decade.

    Quote
    Commanders have a responsibility to their troops, who are people too (in case anyone forgot that detail). Troops generally aren't keen on suicide, nor is there any reason why they should be.


    Don't really see how that's relevant to this discussion. I'm not blaming the commanders or the soldiers for causing the problem (well except for perhaps certain members of the top brass).

    Quote
    Being all perfect and idealistic about it is easy when it's not your arse on the line.


    Of course. But the point is rebel forces can say the same.

    Quote
    I don't mind if the two of you have that opinion.


    You seemed to raise an objection to it with Aphrodite earlier.

    Quote
    Personally I'm still fine with the term for some purposes.


    I am too, actually, in the sense that I don't object to people using the term for certain insurgent groups, though given the politicization of the term, I respect the decision of those who avoid using it to describe those same insurgent groups.

    Out of curiosity-- how would you define a terrorist organization?

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #24 - February 22, 2012, 07:40 AM

    Don't really see how that's relevant to this discussion. I'm not blaming the commanders or the soldiers for causing the problem (well except for perhaps certain members of the top brass).

    Well in practice they are the ones who will be causing any civilian deaths. My take on your question was to look at it with regard to actual actions on the ground.


    Quote
    Of course. But the point is rebel forces can say the same.

    Yup.


    Quote
    You seemed to raise an objection to it with Aphrodite earlier.

    Well I have a different opinion about the Taliban.


    Quote
    Out of curiosity-- how would you define a terrorist organization?

    The only sensible definition I can think of at the moment is "one that consistently uses terrorist tactics". No organisation is likely to be based on just killing civilians for the hell of it. All will have other motives and aims, so it comes down to tactics IMO.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #25 - February 22, 2012, 07:42 AM

    Begs the question-- what are terrorist tactics?

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #26 - February 22, 2012, 07:48 AM

    Deliberately targeting civilians, particularly en masse, rather than engaging military forces.

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #27 - February 22, 2012, 07:52 AM

    Actually that could be expanded to "Deliberately targeting civilians with lethal force, particularly en masse, rather than engaging military forces or engaging in the non-violent political process"


    Obvious no-brainer example: Want to change the curriculum for girls' schools ==> bomb the school. Yay!

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #28 - February 22, 2012, 07:54 AM

    Deliberately targeting civilians, particularly en masse, rather than engaging military forces.


    So Tim McVeigh and the PIRA and INLA were not terrorists?

    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Americans .. Go burn your women but dammit stop burning Quran.. :finmad: :fi
     Reply #29 - February 22, 2012, 08:00 AM

    McVeigh made no attempt to avoid civilian casualties, but personally I'd be more inclined to class him as "nutter" than "terrorist".

    The various branches of the IRA sometimes did, and sometimes didn't, attempt to avoid civilian casualties. They also did at times deliberately target civilians. So on balance I think they're a borderline case, but I wouldn't grumble if anyone wanted to call them "terrorist".

    It doesn't matter if the glass is half empty or half full. There is clearly room for more vodka.
  • 12 3 ... 6 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »