If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Commanders in Chief are military targets. Pay attention.
Was he ever a senior military leader? NO.
How did he come to power? It was his cousin, Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr who took control in a political coup d'etat in 1968. Hussein was installed as one of his political "lieutenants" (to use the term in its non-military sense).
In 1979, Saddam ousted his cousin and took control of government. He has secured his power base ever since through routine political purges.
Now at no time can Saddam be said to have been a military leader in any official sense beyond that of the default state control of all aspects of Iraqi society.
So quite frankly, its once again a lame use of semantics and still does not fit into the definition of "terrorist" which even your taskmasters, the DoD, apply.
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Next contestant!
You can argue all you want, it doesn't make you correct. I assume you would argue that attempts to assassinate Hitler would also be terrorism? After all, Hitler's military experience is about equal to Saddam's. And like Saddam, he became the chief of the military, and thereby a valid target...right down to wearing a uniform.
YOUR contention was that assassinations or attempts thereof are considered terrorism, my point and that of several others (repeatedly i might add) is that assassination is not classifiable as terrorism. It is "assassination"... completely different beast (as also shown by the DoD's own definition of terrorism).
Your insistence on demonstrating how far you can go to avoid the train of the discussion (and obviously forgetting your own claims)in order to avoid dealing with the weakness of your position is singularly astounding. Its also a bad reflection on the mental calibre of those our military chooses to be officers! :rolleyes:
George Bush was not the leader of anything when Saddam ordered him attacked, just a civilian going about his business. I suggest you do a little reading on the history of assassination before you are so quick to characterize it. Or maybe you don't feel that WWI qualifies as "terror"?
And in your tyical fashion you bring in a link to something which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Yeah, so Iraq can make weapons that penetrate US protective gear. So can the US.
Whatever bearing that has in relation to your equating "assassination attempts" to "terrorism" (especially when its not even on a current public figure) would boggle even Dubyah i've no doubt. Guess you choose to ignore the definition of terrorism held by the DoD. :rolleyes:
You are stubborn i'll give you that, even though you only continue to demonstrate your inability to make a consistent and cogent argument. But then since we know you know everything and can never be wrong, keep right on digging. At least its amusing!
Suggest you do a little research, as you are demonstrating your ignorance once again.
Or perhaps we should research how your link to another nice WMD story fits into this conversation.
Just admit youve undermined your own credibility on this and like a good servant of the DoD, pay attention to the definition that they have established instead of vainly attempting to defend one based on your personal opinion.
If John Gotti ordered someone killed, it would be more than a murder charge, for a Head of State ordering a citizen of another country killed...
Do the research, crack the lawbooks. C'mon, must be lots of stuff to look at in Brussels.
Just admit you are wrong Greenhat, and save yourself continued embarrassment. Or do officers no longer have the honour to admit when they are wrong?
An Italian Prime Minister orders the murder of an Italian subject...
Not exactly ordering the execution of another nation's citizens, is it?
Pay attention.
"THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND"
Wonder what part of the world that particular saying originates in?
First a government figures using assassination for political ends are terrorists, then when it is shown that the killing (or attempt thereof) of one individual - according to that previous premise of yours - is not in line with the definition of terrorism, it's now got to be someone else's citizen that is murdered. Nevermind that you already pulled the rug out from under your own feet with your inconsistencies and constant reversals.
Give it up Greenhat. you clearly have no ground left to stand on. Your credibility rating has finally reached nil!