Sure it was, idiot

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal..

It cause nothing but TERROR in Japan and around the world.

Fifty pointless wars.

Ever thought about how many lives would have been lost if the nukes hadn't been dropped?

All depends who makes up that definition and makes it true or not.
Im sure if Jews got atomic bomb dropped on them we would never hear the end of it. Somehow Japas moved on and we don;t hear them bitching about it on every occasion.

Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent ? or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

Really, one of of looking at at.. Oh and how great, that excludes any wrong doing by jewish state or United states. But right below it and more importantly:

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Im sure porno Jew and Super Bozo know a lot more than this idiot but I'll quote this chump anyway. Btw, P-Jew you do have science degree, right?

Sure, if by "they" you mean British Petroleum.

When the Iranians "elected" Mosaddeq, he threw Anglo-Iranian (British Petroleum) out of the country. Anglo-Iranian had controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913, under terms very disadvantageous to Iran, and to top it off, they were also stealing a lot of the oil too.

It wasn't long after Mosaddeq threw them out (and nationalized Anglo-Iranian) that Anglo-Iranian (BP) orchestrated a MI5/CIA coup against him to take back control of the oil. They then installed the Western puppet Shah, and under Anglo-Iranian's orders had Mosaddeq tried as a traitor, imprisoned him for 3 years, and put him under house arrest until his death.

After the Iranians ousted the Shah in 1979, and got back control of their country/oil, they have been fighting to keep it from Western interests ever since.

Now British Petroleum wants control of that oil back. :Graucho

argumentum ad verecundiam.

Ironically.. Perfected by your people.. :1orglaugh

http://www.appletoaster.com/wp-conte...letoaster2.jpg

btw Hoffman is a fucking spook, perfectly qualified to define terrorism.


.

lol @ toaster

not my definition it's what came up when i searched define: terrorist attack

your definition is simplistic and misleading.

it's pointless to argue over since there are literally hundreds of definitions.

Again it isn't my definition. It is the first one I saw the first one Google brings up when I search for a definition of 'terrorist attack'. You're right it is pointless to argue especially when one of us just takes the first one he sees and the other goes out to find one that agrees with what he thinks.

I would be looking to the side giving their missile's religious names as the instigating party. It is time people look at things a bit more objectively. That and calm the fuck down.

There is a staggering difference between a terrorist act and a world war. Defining terrorism as "violent acts which are intended to create fear" is way too vague.

This would mean that any time a husband smacks his wife, it's a terrorist incident - which clearly it is not. At the same time, any type of warfare would be considered a terrorist act. Clearly, during WWII when we bombed a factory that build ball bearings for tanks this was a military action, not a an act of terrorism.

Did it cause terror in Japan and around the world? It sure did. But so did Sputnik.

Last timed I checked Sputnik did not kill thousands of people and damaged lives of unborn generations. Thats like comparing September 11th attack and microwaves. But hey, that GFY - board that is filled with keyboard geniuses.

It sure did.

Very true. If the Iranians kill the Jews and the Jews kill the Iranians, I guess they won't be fighting any more.

I don't recall ever hearing the Prime Minster or President of Israel threatening Iran with it's destruction. Can you show me, from a real news source, where either one said that.

Holy fucking shit - did you really say I need to learn to read? Clearly you didn't read the news yesterday:

(news link)

Trust me when I tell you, I know how to read. I'm pretty fucking confident that I have more college degrees than you.

I was mocking you.

By your definition, smacking my wife is a violent act that puts fear in her. I'm going to do that tonight when I smack her ass with my hand. Does that make me a terrorist?

Its not my definition, you dolt.
Some professor of science defined it for simpletons like yourself. :1orglaugh

And smacking wife is called spousal abuse, but you would call it family therapy and education.... Unless its one of your people that's getting smacked around.

Personally, I'd watch my skies very closely if I was Iran.

The major Western powers have recalled their ambassadors.....and, I presume their families.......and, informed staff members.

If all is too quiet, be sure to watch the skies.

This better not happen because this could divide my beer league soccer team in two factions. Persians and Jews be kickin ass on the pitch.

The original post I quoted you said "terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.". That's just the problem. Terrorism has no real definition, and it's definition changes from country to country and even further depending on what side your on.

But you cannot call a military force bombing a country that it's at war at an act of terrorism. Smacking around your wife is spousal abuse, not terrorism, and bombing a city is an act of war. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack; It was a military strike against a military target. Hiroshima was an Army depot, and Nagasaki had important war related industrial targets including factories building bombs and naval ordnance, as well as other military equipment.

When a military force drops a bomb it's not an act of terrorism, it's a act of war.

Learn the difference.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Here is some examples of Israel threatening Iran:

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/63279.html
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/i...warship-claim/
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/i...hp?q=node/5644
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-06/w...ns?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.infowars.com/israels-peres-threatens-iran/
http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/is...truction/2913/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...396791,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ear-plans.html

Of course Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack, it was a military installation that was attacked. Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have had factories in them that made weapons but just because some guy in New York is making shell casings it doesn't make a nuclear attack on New York and the resulting civilian casualties justified.

An attack on civilians with the intent to terrorize them or their government into doing something is a terrorist attack in war or outside of war it doesn't matter.

Dumbo, Its not me who needs to learn something...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism


Dooooh

http://whatwouldmomsay.com/blog/wp-c...-retarded2.jpg

So because one professor says so I have to believe him?

If that's the case, then every bomb any country has ever dropped has been a terrorist act - and a lot of people are in trouble.

Every bomb with the intention to kill and terrorize civilians is a terrorist attack.

Oh no, no, no, no... Because you said it WE have to believe it. Remind me what kind of degree in Political Science you have? Oh wait, your degree came with catchy phrase "Would you like some fries with that ?". :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Good bye, I'm done with you.

You would think that grown adult can make connection between two words containing the same root. Terror - Terrorism. But not here, not on this board. Its a bout smacking your wife. Unfucking real. :1orglaugh

[QUOTE=moeloubani;18596530]:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Here is some examples of Israel threatening Iran:

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/63279.html
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/i...warship-claim/
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/i...hp?q=node/5644
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-06/w...ns?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.infowars.com/israels-peres-threatens-iran/
http://rinf.com/alt-news/politics/is...truction/2913/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...396791,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ear-plans.html


LOL, threatening to attack Irans nukes if they continue development. Iran has many many times called for the complete desruction of Israel. Why don't you post links to all of those stories?

Israel will attack Iran. There is no question about that . I think their announcements of it was so the world doesnt go apeshit on them when they make a large part of Iran a parking lot.

If your next door neighbor told you many times he will kill you and your family, then you see him installing a loaded cannon pointing at your house wouldnt you blow his cannon to hell before he finished pointing it at you? Stupid anolgy but you get it.

[QUOTE=Choker;18596603]I'm sorry complete destruction of Israel? When did Iran call for that?

If my next door neighbor had nuclear weapons pointed at me and all I had was that loaded cannon am I really a threat to him?

That said Iran never said the wipe Israel off the map thing. It was an error in translation and that correction has been made many, many times.

Why let the people choose? Why not let land owners choose? The jews want to buy the land fair and squarely.

Living under muslim rules often sucks.

I would be for palestinian if they want monetary compensation for their lost land. I would side with palestinian if they allow jews to buy land and do biz in palestinian.

The issue is not one sided. While not perfect, Israel is not too discriminatory. Arab in Israel earn more than arab in arabs. In Palestines, jews can't even live. If I have to choose between an inch of land going to Israel or going to Palestine, it's an obvious choice.

For the PRIVATE ownership I'd go for palestinians. But jews wanna buy land anyway and it's up to individual palestinians if they want to sell. But it's POLITICAL ownership, and not private ownership they're fighting about. For the POLITICAL ownership, I'd go for Israel.

In Palestine Jews and Arabs lived side by side until the Jews wanted to change the country into two separate states. There were even Jewish travel agencies that pushed Palestine as a tourist destination before it became Israel. The reason that the Palestinians don't live side by side with the Israeli isn't because the Palestinians don't want them living there, it is because Israel gives them benefits for living in Israel. That said, there are tons of Jews living inside the Palestinian territories in settlements across Palestine.

An Arab in Israel will earn more in Israel than in Palestine because Israel doesn't give Palestinians a chance to let their economy flourish. Palestinians don't have equal rights to Israel so the idea that Israel isn't discriminatory is just wrong. There are roads that are Israeli only that Palestinians aren't allowed to use, there are areas where Palestinians aren't allowed to live, marriages between an Israeli and a Palestinian aren't even recognized in Israel.

About selling land to each other, I can't just sell the land my house is on here in Canada to another country. That isn't how it happens, I can sell the house and land to another person but the land is still on Canadian ground.

There are clear boundaries that almost everyone in the world (except Israel) feels that Israel and Palestine should follow. The Palestinians are happy with what the world wants, it is the Israelis that constantly refuse and reject negotiations based on those 1967 borders.

[QUOTE=Choker;18596603]That's a good analogy if you don't take into account that you too already have your own cannons aimed at them.

In fact, that's how peace are maintained. People aimed cannon to each other that we're all sure that it's not toward our best interest to strike.

That being said, Iran is not a democracy. Their leaders don't give shit about destruction of their people.

This is also misleading. Arab riots against jews are around long before the foundation of Israel. Holocaust is a message that you need more than money to hang out. You need power. And muslims are power hungry. That's why they're not as advanced as western europe now. They're too busy fighting each other rather than inventing better iPad. No wonder jews don't want to be ruled by them.
The fact that it's still on Canadian ground is a minor issue. If Israel buy the land and most of the land are bought by jews anyway, hy can't they make the rules, such as rules legalizing prostitution?

That is exactly where the problem is. If you earn money honestly and buy land fairly, you are still ruled by assholes who out of a whim can seize your land. So it has to be done the hard way.

I am actually on the palestinian side when it comes to the private issue of the land. In ideal world, the land should still privately owned by palestinian that can then sell the land at market price to jews or live there if Israel's government allow it, which Israel should do once peace is established.

However, on political issue of the land, I am definitely pro Israel.

Supporting palestinian means agreeing to those who wants to prohibit porn. That's just unthinkable. Another piece of land porn free. You really want that?

Why should we favor a muslim ruled land over a relatively free liberal land in Israel? You think you can watch porn in muslim countries? C'mon. If people want to play tough on others, why should we support them? Anyone opposing porn is the bad guy.
The arab has no compunction to break the boundary when they think they have the upper hand. The war is not one sided. The arab eagerly fight too, except Lebanon.

Let them. While any loss of life is uncalled for.. I cant help but see a slightly brighter economic future. I wont even explain my reasons because they may seem anti-semetic to some but Isreal has to go for this world to balance out financially and to bring more peace.