If an Iraqi who's family was murdered by America comes here for revenge...

[NNN0LHI]

Poll question: If an Iraqi who's family was murdered by America comes here for revenge...

...would you consider that person to be a "terrorist"?

[ecstatic]

Yes, because many people would be forced to suffer

due to the actions of a select few. If he specifically found GWB, handled his business, and then left, then that would be something entirely different.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. Yes. Terrorism is not defined by the justness of motivation

only by modus operandi. The hypothetic man's grief would be a mitigating circumstance in a hypothetic trial.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Then that would mean that the pilot of the Enola Gay was a terrorist too

Wouldn't it?

Don

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. No. War crime. Different, albeit similarly evil, beast.

A terrorist does not operate in "official" fashion under the orders of a country's armed forces.

Note, I'm not judging evil, only terminology.

[RivetJoint]

7. Or heroic

pilot, depending on how you look at it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. In the context of condemning the act, "war crime" would be more proper

than "terrorism".

I'm being technical in this thread, not judgemental. Let me add Squeech is making a good point below.

[RivetJoint]

12. True, in the context

of condemnation, WC would be a better choice. Squeech has made a good point; a person seeking revenge would just be a criminal in my book.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Who declares what is "official" and what is not?

I am not being facetious. I really don't know.

Don

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. It's a fuzzy line

Although it doesn't get much more "official" than the A-bombing of Japan.

Terrorist acts shadowily, loosely sponsored by the leaders of a nation (like Khadafi used to do) are in a less clear position.

[NNN0LHI]

13. Yes, but how "official" do you think the child who had her eyes melt...

...before the blast wave hit her considered the act of dropping the bomb on her was? Even though you or I can say it was an "official" act, others probably use different words to describe it. Justifiably so too, I think. See what I mean?

Don

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. "Official" doesn't make an act any more or less evil.

It just identifies the source. The invasion of Iraq is "official". The withdrawing of Spanish troops is just as "official". One heinous and one decent act.

[NNN0LHI]

15. I agree with you. It is a fuzzy line. No black and white here

It all depends on ones personal point of view on the subject. To me the person is not a terrorist. The person is a criminal. There is no room for vigilante justice ever, and therefore would if found guilty, the person would suffer the fullest extent of the law on any jury I was sitting on.

Don

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Yes, but I'd understand it.

[Squeech]

3. Disagree

The definition of terrorism that I think the USA is operating on is that the terrorist is trying to effect political or social change through his actions. Or, to put it another way, the terrorist is motivated by a law or social constraint that he feels so strongly about that he's willing to kill people who are not responsible for that law or constraint, and that if that law or constraint were not there, he wouldn't commit his terrorist act. For example, OBL said he attacked us because we had infidel boots on the ground in the holy sands of Arabia, and if we'd left after Gulf War I, perhaps he wouldn't have done it.

Revenge, however, is not a political motive, it's an extreme version of an eye for an eye.

[NNN0LHI]

5. I could not have explained it better n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. A cross between vigilantism and terrorism, maybe

There'd definitely be a thought of "giving the USA a lesson", which could be interpreted as a desire to "educate" them through punishment, hence "effect political or social change". Sort of like we try to do with criminals.

[Bridget Burke]

16. My consideration matters less than the Bush regime's response....

They'd get the go ahead on every last detail they needed. Start up the draft. Send all social program money to the military & security; not that the members of the military would benefit or our security would actually improve. Get rid of the pesky bits of the Bill of Rights.

After all, look what 9/11 did for them. They may be "ignoring" memos this very minute.