Do you believe in terrorism?


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Is an act which meets your definition of terrorism ever morally justifiable?

Poll ended at Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:21 am

Yes
2
14%
No
12
86%
 
Total votes : 14

Do you believe in terrorism?

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:21 am

Here are ten questions that I came across a few years ago that will make you think about how you REALLY feel about terrorism.

What is terrorism?

1. Does it matter if the victims are soldiers or civilians?
2. Does it matter if the act happen on military or public areas?
3. Does it matter if it happens during war or peacetime?
4. Does it matter if the act is performed for a good cause?
5. How do you define a good cause?
6. Does it matter if those responsible for the attacks are oppressed on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity?
7. Can governments perform acts of terror or only non-government groups?
8. Does the threat of attack qualify as 'terrorism' or must the attack actually take place?
9. What are the differences between acts of war and acts of terrorism?
10. Is an act which meets your definition of terrorism ever morally justifiable?




My answers

1) Yes, terrorism must involve civilians or off-duty soldiers.
2) No, if the act is directed at on-duty military personnel in areas that are devoid of civilians, then the act can not be considered terrorism.
3) No
4) No, because “good cause” is in the eye of the beholder.
5) See answer #4.
6) No
7) Yes, F-15's are just as deadly as suicide bombers. Dead is dead.
8) The act must take place.
9) In war, the goal is to diminish your enemy's war-making capability. Therefore, the target must be a military target or military-related infrastructure, such as a bomb factory. However, with terrorism the goal is to intimidate, coerce or break the will of a government or a political movement.
10) Absolutely
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:03 am

Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror', as opposed to 'fighting a wrong' (as perceived by the doer). Righteous revolutions or insurgencies should never resort to terrorism, which perforce involves innocent civilians (soldiers cannot be terrorized - imminent death is pretty much horrible enough).

[notice that dropping the A-bomb was indeed terrorism, which paradoxically was the most expedious way to end WW2]
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:17 am

Marlow wrote:Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror', as opposed to 'fighting a wrong' (as perceived by the doer). Righteous revolutions or insurgencies should never resort to terrorism, which perforce involves innocent civilians (soldiers cannot be terrorized - imminent death is pretty much horrible enough).

[notice that dropping the A-bomb was indeed terrorism, which paradoxically was the most expedious way to end WW2]

Most people I've discussed this with, struggle to maintain their consistency and usually end up contradicting themselves. A few years ago, I heard a motivational speaker say something profound that I'll never forget: You never compromise your true moral principles. You only find out what they are.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:23 am

Can you be a terrorist in war time? I'd say that makes the definition a little too broad.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:38 am

jazzcyclist wrote: You never compromise your true moral principles. You only find out what they are.


Excellent - I'm using that in class.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Daisy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:43 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: You never compromise your true moral principles. You only find out what they are.


Excellent - I'm using that in class.


I thought you taught English?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:52 am

Daisy wrote:Can you be a terrorist in war time? I'd say that makes the definition a little too broad.

My answer to question #3 is "no", which means that my answer to your question is "yes".
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:56 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:Can you be a terrorist in war time? I'd say that makes the definition a little too broad.

My answer to question #3 is "no", which means that my answer to your question is "yes".


I noted your answer which is why I asked. Who are the terrorists? The invaders or the resistance? Maybe both? I can agree that war involves terror.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:07 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:Can you be a terrorist in war time? I'd say that makes the definition a little too broad.

My answer to question #3 is "no", which means that my answer to your question is "yes".


I noted your answer which is why I asked. Who are the terrorists? The invaders or the resistance? Maybe both? I can agree that war involves terror.

We invaded Iraq. We're still at war with Iraq. However, if some member of the Iraqi resistance detonated a bomb at the capital building in Washington D.C., I would call it terrorism. But that's just me.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:13 am

Daisy wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: You never compromise your true moral principles. You only find out what they are.

Excellent - I'm using that in class.

I thought you taught English?

??!! The subject of that quote CONSTANTLY comes up in our studies!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Daisy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:18 am

Marlow wrote:??!! The subject of that quote CONSTANTLY comes up in our studies!

I'm pulling your leg. But it does sound more like philosophy. I guess it all depends which book you're assigning. Where do you draw the line between an English class and a civics/religion/politics/philosophy class?

jazzcyclist wrote:We invaded Iraq. We're still at war with Iraq. However, if some member of the Iraqi resistance detonated a bomb at the capital building in Washington D.C., I would call it terrorism. But that's just me.


Are we at war with or an occupying force in Iraq? I'm assuming officially not, despite the press. So I agree that would be terrorism.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:51 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:We invaded Iraq. We're still at war with Iraq. However, if some member of the Iraqi resistance detonated a bomb at the capital building in Washington D.C., I would call it terrorism. But that's just me.


Are we at war with or an occupying force in Iraq? I'm assuming officially not, despite the press. So I agree that would be terrorism.

Officially, France was no longer at war with Germany once the Nazi's cut a deal with the Vichy government, and therefore the German troops were no longer an occupying force. This would mean that the Maquis were terrorists by your reasoning. Also, officially the Israelis are an occupying force in the Palestinian territories, which would mean that Hamas is not a terrorist organization by the same reasoning. I guess it all depends on what you call an occupying force. The U.S. is an occupation force in Iraq and Afghanistan, IMO.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:02 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Palestinian territories, which would mean that Hamas is not a terrorist organization by the same reasoning. I guess it all depends on what you call an occupying force. The U.S. is an occupation force in Iraq and Afghanistan, IMO.

I agree it is all very murky.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:29 am

The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:36 am

lonewolf wrote:The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."

Bingo! But you must also be willing to apply your own definition consistently.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:39 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."

Bingo! But you must also be willing to apply your own definition consistently.

The problem is, of course, is that if MY side does it, it's not terrorism, but if the other side does it, it is terrorism.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby lonewolf » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:46 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."

Bingo! But you must also be willing to apply your own definition consistently.

The problem is, of course, is that if MY side does it, it's not terrorism, but if the other side does it, it is terrorism.


Therein your defintion.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:09 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:The key to this is the qualification "that meets your definition of terrorism."

Bingo! But you must also be willing to apply your own definition consistently.

The problem is, of course, is that if MY side does it, it's not terrorism, but if the other side does it, it is terrorism.

As I quoted on another thread:
George Orwell wrote:All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

Also:
Rush Limbaugh, July 31, 2006 wrote:Here's the thing. And I know some people disagree with me on this that the civilians and the citizens in these tyrannical regimes are irrelevant. But one of the ways -- how do you think a terrorist organization, which cannot compete with us or anybody else militarily, how else does it support itself, how else does it entrench itself? It does so by making the local population depend on its existence, making the civilian population depend on them. Until civilians -- frankly, I'm not sure how many of them are actually just innocent little civilians running around versus active Hezbo types, particularly the men, but until those civilians start paying a price for propping up these kinds of regimes, it's not going to end, folks. What do you mean, civilians start paying a price? I just ask you to consult history for the answer to that.

and:
Osama bin Laden, March 1997 wrote:We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal . . . As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:15 am

Gernany declares war on America. Years later America targets factories that are producing the Nazi war machine for night bombings knowing that innocent Germany citzens will die horribly in the firestorm.....is this terrorism?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:30 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Gernany declares war on America. Years later America targets factories that are producing the Nazi war machine for night bombings knowing that innocent Germany citzens will die horribly in the firestorm.....is this terrorism?

Not according to my definition:
9) In war, the goal is to diminish your enemy's war-making capability. Therefore, the target must be a military target or military-related infrastructure, such as a bomb factory.

The key point is whether or not the civilians were targeted or the war making facilities were targeted. I don't consider an employee in a bomb factory to be a civilian. And I would guess that everyone at the U.S.'s nuclear weapons plants undergoes a thorough background check comparable to what CIA agents go through. And I don't consider CIA spooks to be civilians either, though they wear no uniform.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:56 pm

I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from this video that abortion clinic bombing doesn't meet Sarah Palin's definition of terrorism.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby imaginative » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:37 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: You never compromise your true moral principles. You only find out what they are.


Excellent - I'm using that in class.


I have seen this quote a few times before, and am in violent
disagreement.

Taken too its extreme, this rule would reduce the ``true'' moral
position of almost everyone to an extremely egoistical and
opportunistic level---and it would do so in a manner which is contrary
to what I would consider being the core of true morality and ethics.

This core is the ability to view situations abstractly and neutrally,
and base decisions on what is right and wrong upon rational thought.

Notably, there are models for development of morality used in e.g.
child psychology. The ``true'' morality that would result from the
quoted principle typically corresponds to the very lowest level of
development---found mostly in young children.

On a closely related (but not identical issue): I consider anyone who
approaches right and wrong based on their own expected reactions to be
a hypocrite. (Hypothetical example: If I were starving, I would resort
to robbery; thus, robbery is not immoral if one is starving.) To
instead acknowledge that ones own morality can be imperfect is a sign
of maturity. (...; thus, I am not a perfectly moral human.) In fact, I
would recommend the following alternative to the original quote:

Everyone compromises his moral principles. You only find out too what
degree and under what level of duress.

(Obviously, the above examples are based on the premise that the
apriori view on robbery-while-starving is negative. It is quite
possible that a legitimate opposing view, based on other lines of
reasoning, can be found.)
imaginative
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:36 pm
Location: In an experiment to find out how the human mind works

Postby mojo » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:39 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from this video that abortion clinic bombing doesn't meet Sarah Palin's definition of terrorism.


I was about to post the same link.

Possible next VP won't say bombing and killing innocent people to further a cause is terrorism.

Wow.
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:24 pm

imaginative wrote:On a closely related (but not identical issue): I consider anyone who
approaches right and wrong based on their own expected reactions to be
a hypocrite. (Hypothetical example: If I were starving, I would resort
to robbery; thus, robbery is not immoral if one is starving.) To
instead acknowledge that ones own morality can be imperfect is a sign
of maturity. (...; thus, I am not a perfectly moral human.) In fact, I
would recommend the following alternative to the original quote:

Everyone compromises his moral principles. You only find out too what
degree and under what level of duress.

(Obviously, the above examples are based on the premise that the
apriori view on robbery-while-starving is negative. It is quite
possible that a legitimate opposing view, based on other lines of
reasoning, can be found.)

When I hear people speak of moral principles, it's understood that everyone prioritizes their principles since they will inevitably conflict with each other from time to time. For example, "not stealing" is one of my moral principles. But "not starving to death" is a greater principle. I don't know of anyone who criticized the folks who looted food and water from the stores after Katrina flooded New Orleans, but they certainly criticized the ones who looted TV's.

Even anti-abortion folks like Sarah Palin believe that saving the life of the mother is more important than saving the life of the unborn fetus. However, the other day I had a discussion with a fervent pro-life co-worker who said that he doesn't know how he would feel if his daughter was raped. However, when I asked him whether he believed that fetuses that are the product of rape are as innocent as other fetuses, he said "yes". At that point, he realized that maybe he would have to change his mind about the idea of "abortion being murder".

Nat Turmer was a terrorist according to my definition, but I still haven't met anyone who blames him for doing what he did.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:55 am

Marlow wrote:Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror',


In that case Hallowe'en is a an act of terrorism. I'm sure you understand that you have provided a fairly truncated definition, so may I expand:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Mennisco » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:59 am

mojo wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I could be reading this wrong, but it seems to me from this video that abortion clinic bombing doesn't meet Sarah Palin's definition of terrorism.


I was about to post the same link.

Possible next VP won't say bombing and killing innocent people to further a cause is terrorism.

Wow.


Saw Palin again on tv last night. How many hours left before her ignominious yapper stops bombing our ears?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:00 am

Mennisco wrote:
Marlow wrote:Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror',


In that case Hallowe'en is a an act of terrorism. I'm sure you understand that you have provided a fairly truncated definition, so may I expand:


Nah :wink: Halloween produces neither terror nor horror. It does produce fright occasionally (BOO!). Huge difference.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Mennisco » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:24 am

Marlow wrote:
Mennisco wrote:
Marlow wrote:Of course terrorism is NEVER morally right, because the the word means 'creating terror',


In that case Hallowe'en is a an act of terrorism. I'm sure you understand that you have provided a fairly truncated definition, so may I expand:


Nah :wink: Halloween produces neither terror nor horror. It does produce fright occasionally (BOO!). Huge difference.


You must see nothing but great art wherever you experience Hallowe'en.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby cullman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:43 am

I don't generally use the term terrorist. I prefer to be more specific.

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:03 pm

cullman wrote:I don't generally use the term terrorist. I prefer to be more specific.

cman

Please elaborate.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:21 pm

Mennisco wrote:You must see nothing but great art wherever you experience Hallowe'en.

Ya lost me. Halloween bores me because nothing has 'fright'ed me since I was 12 (other than an occasion startlement from a 'BOO!').
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby cullman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:27 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
cullman wrote:I don't generally use the term terrorist. I prefer to be more specific.

cman

Please elaborate.

I refer to specific groups by their names whether it be Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, IRA, Provisional IRA etc. It means a little bit of homework...but what the hey!

The term terrorism is highly subjective and perjorative. Turn the clock back to December 7, 1941 and I would be an enemy of the government and a terrorist regardless of the origin of my birth and allegiances. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that I would be incarcerated indefinitely without writ of habeas corpus.

cman :)
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:12 pm

cullman wrote:I refer to specific groups by their names whether it be Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, IRA, Provisional IRA etc. It means a little bit of homework...but what the hey!

The word "terrorist" is kind of like the word "alcoholic." Getting drunk every New Year's Eve doesn't make you an alcoholic, and just because an organization has committed acts of terrorism in the past, doesn't make it a terrorist organiztion, IMO. Alcoholics get drunk on a regular basis, not just for special occasions. The U.S. has government has committed acts of terrorism in the past, but I wouldn't call it a terrorist organiztion because that's only a very small percentage of what it does. Therefore, I would call Al Qaeda a terrorist organiztion, but I wouldn't call Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist organiztions, because terrorism is only a small percentage what they do.

cullman wrote:The term terrorism is highly subjective and perjorative. Turn the clock back to December 7, 1941 and I would be an enemy of the government and a terrorist regardless of the origin of my birth and allegiances. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that I would be incarcerated indefinitely without writ of habeas corpus.

cman :)

Why would you have been an enemy of the state and a terrorist back then?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:22 pm

One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby gm » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:32 pm

gh wrote:One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.


Sushi?! That's a great reason for locking people up and throwing away the key ;)
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:53 pm

gh wrote:One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.

Well, you know what they say when you ass-u-me? As for the internment of the Japanese-Americans, isn't that considered a huge Black mark on FDR's record and a mistake that the U.S. government has since apologized and paid restitution for. The thing that bothers me about that is that they didn't put the German-Americans or the Italian-Americans in camps, despite the fact that there were many of them who committed treason.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby cullman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:57 pm

gm wrote:
gh wrote:One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.


Sushi?! That's a great reason for locking people up and throwing away the key ;)

It goes well with bourbon. :P

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby gh » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:05 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
gh wrote:One would assume cman's family tree exhibits a taste for sushi.

Well, you know what they say when you ass-u-me? As for the internment of the Japanese-Americans, isn't that considered a huge Black mark on FDR's record and a mistake that the U.S. government has since apologized and paid restitution for. The thing that bothers me about that is that they didn't put the German-Americans or the Italian-Americans in camps, despite the fact that there were many of them who committed treason.


It's equally a black mark on the Canadians, who did the same thing.

As in the case of that revered scholar, David Suzuki:

http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nomi ... -know.html
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:06 pm

I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:09 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I'm really surprised at the percentage of yes's. I'm guessing that you folks have a much narrower definition of terrorism than I do.


Or they didn't understand the question 8-)
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests