A few words from someone who has actually been to Iraq

Matthias Voss wrote:

> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>
>> You expect that the BBC will be unbiased? That was once true, but has
>> been proven to be no longer true.
>
>
>
> That's every liar's set of problems.
> Add B's where you feel they should fit in.
>
Huh?
> Matthias
>


--
Your ridiculous little opinion has been noted.

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

dazed and confuzzed wrote:

> Matthias Voss wrote:
>
>> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>>
>>> You expect that the BBC will be unbiased? That was once true, but has
>>> been proven to be no longer true.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's every liar's set of problems.
>> Add B's where you feel they should fit in.
>>
> Huh?

L A I B R? L I B A R? B A R L I? B R A I L ? R I A L B?

Damn, what's that spell???

Now gimme an F ..

Matthias

In article <iRQue.10535$pa3.9253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, Lee
Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:

€ "Greg Mossman" wrote
€
€ > "The bombings Wednesday and Thursday served as a chilling reminder of how
€ > potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock patrols by
€ > American and Iraqi troops."
€
€ Terrorists, not militants. Terrorists bomb civilians. Militants target
€ military assets.
€

Is there really a difference in a war zone?

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:iRQue.10535$pa3.9253@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> "Greg Mossman" wrote
>
>> "The bombings Wednesday and Thursday served as a chilling reminder of how
>> potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock patrols
>> by American and Iraqi troops."
>
> Terrorists, not militants. Terrorists bomb civilians. Militants target
> military assets.

Oh, and my quote came directly from FoxNews.com. Blame the conservative
media for their obvious bias.

"Matthias Voss" <spammat.voss@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:d9gqmd$k5d$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
>
> > Matthias Voss wrote:
> >
> >> dazed and confuzzed wrote:
> >>
> >>> You expect that the BBC will be unbiased? That was once true, but has
> >>> been proven to be no longer true.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's every liar's set of problems.
> >> Add B's where you feel they should fit in.
> >>
> > Huh?
>
> L A I B R? L I B A R? B A R L I? B R A I L ? R I A L B?
>
> Damn, what's that spell???
>
> Now gimme an F ..
>
> Matthias
>

F

Alan Street wrote:

> In article <iRQue.10535$pa3.9253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, Lee
> Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> € "Greg Mossman" wrote
> €
> € > "The bombings Wednesday and Thursday served as a chilling reminder of how
> € > potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock patrols by
> € > American and Iraqi troops."
> €
> € Terrorists, not militants. Terrorists bomb civilians. Militants target
> € military assets.
> €
>
> Is there really a difference in a war zone?
yes

--
Your ridiculous little opinion has been noted.

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:240620051426126377%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...

> How so? At what point does killing civilians cross the line from
> militant to terrorist?
>
> Intentional vs. unintentional?
> Unintentional vs. "acceptable collateral damage"
> "Acceptable collateral damage" vs. use of WMD
>
> Where?

It is not possible that you can be this stupid.

In article <0pudnRXcF4H38yHfRVn-pg@comcast.com>, dazed and confuzzed
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:

€ Alan Street wrote:
€
€ > In article <iRQue.10535$pa3.9253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, Lee
€ > Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
€ >
€ > € "Greg Mossman" wrote
€ > €
€ > € > "The bombings Wednesday and Thursday served as a chilling reminder of
€ > how
€ > € > potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock patrols
€ > by
€ > € > American and Iraqi troops."
€ > €
€ > € Terrorists, not militants. Terrorists bomb civilians. Militants target
€ > € military assets.
€ > €
€ >
€ > Is there really a difference in a war zone?
€ yes

How so? At what point does killing civilians cross the line from
militant to terrorist?

Intentional vs. unintentional?
Unintentional vs. "acceptable collateral damage"
"Acceptable collateral damage" vs. use of WMD

Where?

Alan Street wrote:

> In article <0pudnRXcF4H38yHfRVn-pg@comcast.com>, dazed and confuzzed
> <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>
> € Alan Street wrote:
> €
> € > In article <iRQue.10535$pa3.9253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, Lee
> € > Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
> € >
> € > € "Greg Mossman" wrote
> € > €
> € > € > "The bombings Wednesday and Thursday served as a chilling reminder of
> € > how
> € > € > potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock patrols
> € > by
> € > € > American and Iraqi troops."
> € > €
> € > € Terrorists, not militants. Terrorists bomb civilians. Militants target
> € > € military assets.
> € > €
> € >
> € > Is there really a difference in a war zone?
> € yes
>
> How so? At what point does killing civilians cross the line from
> militant to terrorist?
>
> Intentional vs. unintentional?
> Unintentional vs. "acceptable collateral damage"
> "Acceptable collateral damage" vs. use of WMD
>
> Where?
you aren't this stupid, so I must assume that you are being deliberately
obtuse.

--
Your ridiculous little opinion has been noted.

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

In article <JYqdneSMQskVHyHfRVn-ig@comcast.com>, dazed and confuzzed
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:

€ Alan Street wrote:
€
€ > In article <0pudnRXcF4H38yHfRVn-pg@comcast.com>, dazed and confuzzed
€ > <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
€ >
€ > € Alan Street wrote:
€ > €
€ > € > In article <iRQue.10535$pa3.9253@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>, Lee
€ > € > Bell <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
€ > € >
€ > € > € "Greg Mossman" wrote
€ > € > €
€ > € > € > "The bombings Wednesday and Thursday served as a chilling reminder
€ > of
€ > € > how
€ > € > € > potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock
€ > patrols
€ > € > by
€ > € > € > American and Iraqi troops."
€ > € > €
€ > € > € Terrorists, not militants. Terrorists bomb civilians. Militants
€ > target
€ > € > € military assets.
€ > € > €
€ > € >
€ > € > Is there really a difference in a war zone?
€ > € yes
€ >
€ > How so? At what point does killing civilians cross the line from
€ > militant to terrorist?
€ >
€ > Intentional vs. unintentional?
€ > Unintentional vs. "acceptable collateral damage"
€ > "Acceptable collateral damage" vs. use of WMD
€ >
€ > Where?
€ you aren't this stupid, so I must assume that you are being deliberately
€ obtuse.

Of course.

The point is that "terrorists" has become a catch-all term for "bad
guys" because it stirs up such a visceral reaction. In Vietnam, it was
"guerrillas" and "guerrilla warfare." Using civilians as a defining
term is a little bit disingenuous, considering we aren't willing to
call ourselves terrorists for dropping an atomic bomb on two cities.