[OT] Why are the terrorists being called militants ?

This must be the Jerry-exception :)

Are you claiming that the federal government instructed you to fraudulently label and ship rocket motors as, "model aircraft parts"?

Who were these "papers", issued to?

It's obvious to most, that it is in fact, jerry, who is the one who fails the "smell" test.

Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket- snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Ever read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross? It's a great read,especially if you don't like BATF-troop.

Well that's bound to happen when you slap on a couple of coats of the Aqua Velva.

Personally, I'm Hai Karate type of guy but then again, I voted for Ventura :)

Ted Novak TRA#5512

Got a copy on the bookshelf behind me.

- Rick "Avid reader" Dickinson

Jerry replied:

Please show us the government document which states that you can label a shipment of rocket motors as "model aircraft parts".

Add to that, anyone that hides their face while talking on camera, especially as they murder, is a terrorist and a coward.

Randy

Many in US law enforcement do just that.

If a US "good guy" uses terrorist methods, is he a terrorist?

If a member of a terrorist organization is uniformed and fighting in a conventional battle against US troops, is he then a terrorist?

snip

Since this thread is now about a mile long, I assumed anyone reading it would understand that most of the replies were directed toward those going on middle east tv and and broadcasting a beheading and that we all understood that's what was being discussed. Sorry you missed it, I'll try to make my responses more plain in the future.

Randy

Are you refering to Bush, or Ashcroft?

No. The reason the Bush administration can get away with treating the "illegal combatants" as they do is that they were NOT uniformed soldiers in a declared war, thus not subject to the Geneva convention. Terrorists are similarly unprotected.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

My questions were rhetorical. The point is that "terrorist" is not a clearly defined and well understood classification. It is essentially a political buzz word that politicians use to demonize the enemy. Other terms used are communist, dictator, extremists (including left winger, right winger), ethnic cleanser, and most recently, generic "evil doers".

The Geneva Conventions are agreements between civilized sovereign nations about how honorable men should behave in war. It is harder to address rules for combatants that are not tied to a sovereign nation but perhaps tied to an idealism, or religion, or criminal interest that transcends a sovereign nations. Even Saddom's regime is/was the Bathe Party, which is a mid-east political party that extends to several nid-east nations. So to get Saddam and his regime, does one need an old Russian style political purge of the entire region? A declared war between say the US and Nazi Germany is a clear cut confrontation, but that is rare in the real world.

Now present day terrorists may not be covered by the Geneva conventions, but the US as the sole superpower, defender of freedom, and all around good guys, should set the example and treat them better than they deserve.

Alan

I agree, and there are practical reasons to do so as well. Failure to treat captured terrorists (or terror suspects) according to the Geneva Convention. virtually ensures that the bad guys will treat captured/kidnapped soldiers and civilians even worse.

RAY,

What is worse than BEHEADING?

Dennis

The terrorists didn't start beheading people until the news of prisoner abuse hit the media.

BTW, from what I've read, Saddam's people came up with all sorts of things worse than beheading. Like shoving a woman's face into powerful acid and then letting her slowly die.

Reading 10 years of Jerry's posts.

You know what? They served their purpose.

You know what a killfile is.

Jerry