[br`lorance]

Whose definition of terrorist ? According to the State Department ?

how about Webster's
The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives The organized recourse to violent and illegal acts with the view to creating extreme fear, social dislocation, intimidation, heavy destruction or governmental disorganization, for political, extremist or personal gain.

[DeilMikina]

okay, let’s try again.

washingtonpost.com

this is a very powerful, saddening, and infuriating story about the blackwater shooting incident in iraq several days ago. it differs from most in that it actually talks about the victims, which is why i think it’s worth reading, and also worth finding out what supporters of the war have to say in response to it.

Got any articles regarding Unity Resources Group?

[TaxSheemaSter]

usmc711;
The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments. Police forces and armies.


The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives Invasions without United Nations authority.


The organized recourse to violent and illegal acts with the view to creating extreme fear, social dislocation, intimidation, heavy destruction or governmental disorganization, for political, extremist or personal gain. The economic terrorisation and disruption of the elected government of Palestine.

[ZIDouglas]

Police forces and armies.

WTF?? elaborate please

Invasions without United Nations authority.

Didn't need UN authority. Any one who thinks so is ignorant of the facts

The economic terrorisation and disruption of the elected government of Palestine.

How is this relevant to the blackwater discussion? Oh wait nothing at all. I should really stop asking questions that I already know the answer to.

[Shark&Nike]

Didn't need UN authority. Any one who thinks so is ignorant of the facts Nonsense. The UN Secretary General himself advised that it was illegal.

That's not the point though. The point is that definitions of 'terrorism' are ambiguous.
Is the IOF a terrorist force ? Of course it is. The coalition in Iraq ? Certainly, even with a dubious remit from the UN . And so on.

[nerohedfrs]

Nonsense. The UN Secretary General himself advised that it was illegal.

Then he should pick up a history book and find out when the war started. He will also find out that the war never ended. what took place was a cease fire agreement that Iraq did not honor. And thus the combat continued.
That's not the point though. The point is that definitions of 'terrorism' are ambiguous. only for those who desperatly want to twist the definition to fit there cause

Is the IOF a terrorist force ? Of course it is. IFO? The coalition in Iraq ? Certainly, even with a dubious remit from the UN . And so on. Just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard

[bubbachew14]

Then he should pick up a history book and find out when the war started. He will also find out that the war never ended. what took place was a cease fire agreement that Iraq did not honor. And thus the combat continued. I'm certain that he was in possession of all the relevant facts and legal advices. He was, after all, the General Secretary of the United Nations. When he said that the invasion was illegal that's what he meant.
What's your qualification for telling him that you are right and he was wrong ?

only for those who desperatly want to twist the definition to fit there cause Which is everybody. Like I said, terrorism definitions are ambiguous. You don't like them applied to your army ? Of course you don't. They do fit though.

IFO? Israeli Occupation Force.

Don't tell me, the Israelis aren't occupying anything, right ? Lol.

[PebydataFeents]

I was unaware that the Secretary General of the UN was a one-man judiciary.

Wow, you learn something new every day. Often, though, it's just learning of another area where Cyberia is detached from reality.

[GrottereewNus]

I was unaware that the Secretary General of the UN was a one-man judiciary.

Wow, you learn something new every day. Often, though, it's just learning of another area where Cyberia is detached from reality. I think you are overdoing the practice at being daft. You're already pretty skilled at it so it's unnecessary.

Annan's opinion carries more weight than yours . Internationally it carries more weight than Bush's. He meant that, should America ever come before the international courts over Iraq, America would lose.

[xT0U3UGh]

I'm certain that he was in possession of all the relevant facts and legal advices. He was, after all, the General Secretary of the United Nations. When he said that the invasion was illegal that's what he meant.
What's your qualification for telling him that you are right and he was wrong ?

If what he said was truth then charges would be brought up and sanctions put in place. All the world leaders would be up in arms threatening to attack and placing embargoes



Which is everybody. Like I said, terrorism definitions are ambiguous. You don't like them applied to your army ? Of course you don't. They do fit though. only in your warped world


Israeli Occupation Force.

Don't tell me, the Israelis aren't occupying anything, right ? Lol. Never claimed it was not. I simply did not know was you were referring to in the acronym ISO

[BruceCroucshs]

I think you are overdoing the practice at being daft. You're already pretty skilled at it so it's unnecessary.

Annan's opinion carries more weight than yours . Internationally it carries more weight than Bush's. He meant that, should America ever come before the international courts over Iraq, America would lose.

what is even more daft is your sole reliance in Annan's opinion concerning the war. in fact his checkered past with the oil for food scandal in proof enough to not believe anything he has to say about Iraq

[bMc8F9ZI]

Then he should pick up a history book and find out when the war started. He will also find out that the war never ended. what took place was a cease fire agreement that Iraq did not honor. And thus the combat continued.

This is a patently false argument. The authority the US had to start hostilities against Iraq in the first place came from the UN. It was consequently the UN's prerogative to order the US to cease hostilities. And they did.

[dietpillxanaxaxx]

This is a patently false argument. The authority the US had to start hostilities against Iraq in the first place came from the UN. It was consequently the UN's prerogative to order the US to cease hostilities. And they did.

The authority did not come from the UN. The war was sponsored by the UN and the cease fire was sponsored by the UN but the ultimate decision was the US's.

[+++Poguru+++]

usmc711;
If what he said was truth then charges would be brought up and sanctions put in place. All the world leaders would be up in arms threatening to attack and placing embargoes You clearly don't know how the UN works in relation to America's power within it.


what is even more daft is your sole reliance in Annan's opinion concerning the war. in fact his checkered past with the oil for food scandal in proof enough to not believe anything he has to say about Iraq
46 Minutes Ago 11:00 AM Now you are rambling. Annan was never implicated in anything. Even if he was your statement borders upon the stupid. It's a logical fallacy.

[mr.memo]

The Afghan authorities have shut down two private security contractors after illegal weapons were found during raids on their offices.

More than 80 illegal weapons were found during raids on the offices of the Watan and Caps contractors in Kabul, said General Ali Shah Paktiawal, an Afghan police official.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...765CEFFEBB.htm Families of Iraqis who died in a shooting involving Blackwater USA contractors in Baghdad have sued the company, saying the firm violated US law and fostered a culture of lawlessness among its employees.

A US rights group announced on Thursday it was filing a petition against Blackwater on behalf of a survivor and the families of three victims.


The petition in the US District Court in Washington DC accuses Blackwater of murder and war crimes and seeks unspecified damages in the deadly September 16 shootout in Baghdad, the Centre for Constitutional Rights said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...21C6E6E81C.htm What a pity that it takes an atrocity with so much loss of life before people make a stand against corruption. The 'Guardian' newspaper ran an exposee on 'security' companies months ago. Everybody yawned.

[nicegirlflor]

The war was illegal and was not sanctioned by the UN. I couldn't be arsed proving it for the fifth time.

Now Bush can't get brought up infront of the ICC because the US didn't sign the agreement. Seemingly a US citizen can't commit a war crime...

[craditc]

you’re claiming to no investment in this issue? that surprises me. first, i’d expect most people to have a powerful, visceral reaction to a story of this sort.

I would only expect that from people who do not have enough reasoning skills to understand that an "appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy.

[Zenunlild]

The war was illegal and was not sanctioned by the UN. I couldn't be arsed proving it for the fifth time.

Now Bush can't get brought up infront of the ICC because the US didn't sign the agreement. Seemingly a US citizen can't commit a war crime...

That raises an interesting question of jurisdiction and what it means for something to be "illegal".

In the US its illegal to sell marijuana, but in some nations it's not. Yet I don't think we'd say that the citizens of those nations are breaking US law when they sell marijuana to one another in their own country.
If the US hasn't signed up to submit itself to the legal authority of the ICC, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about them doing something "illegal", since that implies that are part of that legal system.
A nation's acts might be imperialistic, aggressive, dangerous and exploitive (and perhaps rightly opposed for those reasons)...but "illegal" seems a bit of a stretch. It requires an explanation of which legal code is being broken and why the given jurisdiction should extend to the nation in question. IMO, the term "international law", and the legal terminology associated with it, implies a connection with national laws which is tentative at best.

[CuittisIL]

That raises an interesting question of jurisdiction and what it means for something to be "illegal".

In the US its illegal to sell marijuana, but in some nations it's not. Yet I don't think we'd say that the citizens of those nations are breaking US law when they sell marijuana to one another in their own country.
If the US hasn't signed up to submit itself to the legal authority of the ICC, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about them doing something "illegal", since that implies that are part of that legal system.
A nation's acts might be imperialistic, aggressive, dangerous and exploitive (and perhaps rightly opposed for those reasons)...but "illegal" seems a bit of a stretch. It requires an explanation of which legal code is being broken and why the given jurisdiction should extend to the nation in question. IMO, the term "international law", and the legal terminology associated with it, implies a connection with national laws which is tentative at best.

Okay, that's an interesting question.

US CODE: Title 18,2441 relates to War crimes, including those committed by US armed forces personnel or US citizens in any country. It appears to be based on the Hague Convention. I have not read it fully to check its applicability to the case at hand, but it appears from a quick browse of the document that it is of relevance to your question.

US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes

Tethys

[amotoustict]

Okay, that's an interesting question.

US CODE: Title 18,2441 relates to War crimes, including those committed by US armed forces personnel or US citizens in any country. It appears to be based on the Hague Convention. I have not read it fully to check its applicability to the case at hand, but it appears from a quick browse of the document that it is of relevance to your question.

US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes

Tethys

As a US Code, it would be tried in a US court. The jurisdiction rests there, if the military doesn't try the perpetrator first under it's code of justice. No other court has jurisdiction.