Quote:
Originally posted by Me and Me
The U.S. said that all countries that support terrorism are terrorist organisations, and they believe in attacking countries that supposedly support terrorism and they believe in striking them first without provocation. So according to those regulations the attacks on the WTC were under the accepted standards that the U.S. has said and follows. So on sept 11, a country with a terrorist supporting govt was struck.
Are you guys for or against terrorist nations being attacked?
Calling all apologists, word twisters, and back pedalers. hahahaha
|
Do you have a quote showing that government officials said any countries that support terrorism are themselves terrorists? If so, I agree that the U.S. is wrong here--"terrorist" should be reserved for those who target civilians and not stretched beyond that very simple definition. However, even if the U.S. did say that, I'm certain they didn't say that civilians living in a country that supports terrorists are themselves terrorists and thus are legitimate targets. So, the logic of the U.S. still would not justify targeting civilians, which is what happened on Sept. 11.
By the way, you never responded to my questions on the last page. If you want to disagree with my idea that it is meaningful to distinguish between policies that target civilians and policies that don't, then please do so.
04-04-2003, 10:43 AM
