Is 'terrorist' the correct and appropriate label for these delusional criminal thugs?

I'll accept that potentially one of them was brainwashed in to actually carrying it out based on such reasons. I will not accept that it was the reason behind the plot, or the motive behind those who planned and organised the attack.

If they take aggressive action against innocent civilians for political or social ends, they're terrorists. End of.

No, I don't think so, but that's beside the point. Even if it had - that doesn't make it our fault. Our foreign policy is OURS.

For a while, President Bush used the label terrorist to describe any Iraqi fighting off our invasion.

You seriously think that a compromise, or even an actual attempt of a dialogue, is possible with people who believe that all of their actions are divinely warranted?

Well, their foreign policy decision was to come bomb you.... Does that justify it?

'Your' foreign policy, as you put it, involved bombing and killing 'them'. So, yeah, I think they have some say in how they will take that.... It seems rather obvious.

In a word, yes. I don't think it matters what their motivation is, or whether or not they believe a god is behind their motives, if they have things they want so badly they're prepared to kill and die for them, we should at least attempt diplomacy to limit loss of life. Did anyone watch Question Time the other day? The one with the students? I thought Davina McCall made some excellent points, though perhaps not expressed in the most articulate way, especially about the IRA and how it wasn't so very long ago that people were resolutely against negotiation with them, accepted that they would always fear bomb attacks in London, and could never envisage a peace agreement.

Of course it matters, how do you intend to engage in a debate with people who have a full conviction that they've got God on their side? What compromise would they be willing to agree with you on?

Despite his admittance?

You obviously know the real reason, so hare it with us...

If the US bombs a radio station or a power plant, completely run by civilians, is that terrorism?

The use of the word terrorist is totally subjective and is basically rhetoric used to distort what is really going on.

Well, their foreign policy decision was to come bomb you.... Does that justify it?

'Your' foreign policy, as you put it, involved bombing and killing 'them'. So, yeah, I think they have some say in how they will take that.... It seems rather obvious.

I didn't say it was justified, the point is that it can be made by each State.


Our foreign policy was to remove Saddam, not to kill "them". 98% of the killing of civilians in Iraq is done by Islamic terrorists - whilst our troops try and protect them. And then Islamic terrorists come here and bomb us because people are dying in Iraq? That makes no ****ing sense at all.

Are they killing civilians specifically for political or social ends? Or are they hitting a strategic target (staffed by civilians) for some other purpose?

Lol, seriously, if you believe this....... then you are the stereotypical Bush supporter.

I wouldn't go as far as 98%, but it's pretty damn clear that all of the "spectacular" attacks (i.e. the massive suicide bombings, large-scale attacks on mosques, murder of tribal chiefs) are carried out by Islamists. The Shi'a militias and the Sunni militants generally specifically target members of the opposite sect, including civilians. In mixed areas (Baghdad, Kirkuk, etc.), these are the people responsible for probably a majority of the deaths. But elsewhere, especially in much of the "Sunni triangle", Islamists are doing a vast majority of the killing. Also, unlike the militias and militants, whose goal is ethnic cleansing, the goal of the Islamists is simply violence for violence's sake.

Wrong. In 2005, the Iraq Body Count group and Oxford-based academics reported that 37.3% of casualties were directly killed by US forces. 35.9% by criminals (common criminals taking advantage of the chaos, NOT politically motivated militants) 9.5% by anti-occupation forces (ie the resistance), 2.5% by a combination of US and anti-occupation forces, 2.5% by assorted military activities, 1.3% by 'terrorists', and 11% by unknown agents. Thus the greatest single direct killer was the US military. The least prevalent killer was terrorism. Next time do your research before preaching about 98% etc.

I have friends in the military that are in Iraq as we speak. One of my 'friends' brags that he has a confirmed kill count over 150.... I don't feel like searching for statistics, but look at Cage's post. The information he provided seems to pretty much go along with what I have been hearing.

Oh, my fav professor Andrew Reynolds, is now the senior election advisor for the UN and the lead architects for Iraq's electoral system!! He seems to pretty much say the same thing.
check him out http://www.gov.an/ccg/home.nsf/vImagesW/CV+Andrew+Reynolds/$FILE/CV+Andrew+Reynolds.pdf

Wrong. I

Well, the Pentagon is a military target and the World Trade Center was not some random meaningless target, both were very selective and strategic, so does that mean the 9-11 attacks were not terrorist attacks.

Your definition only applies to how you interpret it and does not mean there is some homogenous definition out there.

Lol, seriously, if you believe this....... then you are the stereotypical Bush supporter.

1.3% by terrorists?! They must be on the same drugs the Lancet guys are. Not buying that **** for a single second. You're trying to tell me that those spectacular car bombings that kill dozens of people almost every day are only 1.3% of deaths? Yeah, someone's lying here, and it isn't me.

I have friends in the military that are in Iraq as we speak. One of my 'friends' brags that he has a confirmed kill count over 150....