>
>>> Which by the way is the question you still haven't answered. Are
>>> people fighting against a foreign force occupying their country by
>> definition terrorists?
>>
>
> Depends on the objective.
That is a no.
> If they�e fighting for the freedoms and rights of
> their fellow citizens than they are freedom fighters.
Foreign occupation, still no general elections, no visible
movement on the souvereignty of Iraq (with the US being the main
opponent to speeding it up) etc.
I can imagine many people think the US needs some encouragement.
> If they are fighting a force that just ended 25 years
> of tyranny. An international force that built more
> schools and hospitals then they�e had in 25 years.
> I� have serious questions about their motives and
> probably go with terrorist.
I would put the criteria slightly differently. I feel the way you
are putting them, essential terms as "liberty" and
"self-determination" are replaced with "schools" and "hospitals".
I consider that a bad trade.
How many times do I have to ask before you will explain what
"anti-Israel" means? I must say I am quite disappointed by your
current way "to suggest things but not actually prove anything
just plant the thought in your mind".
Jochem
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
