Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (16307)	4/7/2006 12:01:29 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541894

Don't forget whippings: Message 22333646 Don't they still stone people as well?

To: Ilaine who wrote (16307)	4/7/2006 12:07:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541894

Traditional or not, if they kidnap and behead civilians I'd call them terrorists. If the motive was purely financial, or they had a personal issue with the specific kidnap/murder victim then I'd call them criminals, but if its to inspire terror then they are terrorists. The "non-terrorist insurgents" would be those that limited there attacks to American forces, allied forces (British, ect.) Iraqi government forces. Maybe you can also toss in private security forces and armed Iraqi militia members (but if you just focus on the last group would you even be an insurgent?). Basically if you go after armed people who are part of the conflict, and you never target civilians then you probably don't fit the definition of terrorist. Note 1 - Never targeting civilians does not equal never killing civilians. 2 - Civilians are loosely defined for purposes of the statements above as people who are not part of the conflict, present no threat, and you have no reason to think they present a threat. If need be I could try to come up with a more precise definition but I think that will do.