I say yes and I'll also say he's a bloody moron. I saw several videos of this fool riding around with the terrorists in Syria, I even heard he took a bullet. Apparently he went back to Turkey to have a talk with the CIA, and ended up in cuffs.
Strange.
I like the part about the charge of his use of a weapon of mass destruction. An old RPG -7. I thought WMDs were stuff like nukes and chemical/biological weapons. I really think our government is out of control here.
Former US soldier charged with fighting in Syria - YouTube
Is This Man A Terrorist?
Is This Man A Terrorist?
I dare not comment, because of my apparent bigotry
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Is This Man A Terrorist?
Scrat;1423412 wrote: I like the part about the charge of his use of a weapon of mass destruction. An old RPG -7. I thought WMDs were stuff like nukes and chemical/biological weapons. I really think our government is out of control here.
Washington places their own definitions on words to suit their ends, so yes the guy's a terrorist unless Washington says otherwise. I agree that they're out of control.
Washington places their own definitions on words to suit their ends, so yes the guy's a terrorist unless Washington says otherwise. I agree that they're out of control.
Is This Man A Terrorist?
This is interesting. It brings up possibilities that Britons are not going to feel good about.
Jihad Bait? UK soldiers in Syria may turn terrorist when back home - YouTube
I don't think our governments are just out of control, I think our governments are willfully creating chaos for their own ends. And I don't think the results are going to be good.
Jihad Bait? UK soldiers in Syria may turn terrorist when back home - YouTube
I don't think our governments are just out of control, I think our governments are willfully creating chaos for their own ends. And I don't think the results are going to be good.
Is This Man A Terrorist?
The madness became apparent when our governments knowingly supported the very organizations they are fighing the "War on Terror" against in order to bring down the ligitimate government of a Soverign Nation whose leader they happen to dislike.
Who, here, is the terrorist?
Which states are guilty of sponsoring terrorism?
Madness!
Who, here, is the terrorist?
Which states are guilty of sponsoring terrorism?
Madness!
Is This Man A Terrorist?
Well Bryn one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In this century there is going to be warfare of this kind all over the world almost continuously. Make no mistake of it, the US is the biggest supporter of this style of conflict. It's not so much madness as it is about business and business interests. Corporate sponsored warfare carried out by obedient governments.
Is This Man A Terrorist?
Scrat;1423573 wrote: Well Bryn one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In this century there is going to be warfare of this kind all over the world almost continuously. Make no mistake of it, the US is the biggest supporter of this style of conflict. It's not so much madness as it is about business and business interests. Corporate sponsored warfare carried out by obedient governments.
That much is obvious, the hypocracy is using the epithet of "state sponsored terrorism" as justification to attack reigemes you don't like is apparently lost on most people - how the US attack on Lybia in '86 can be classed as anything other than terrorism is beyond me.
As an amusing divertion I came across this definition of Terrorism :-
A government that is an adversary of the United States may apply terror tactics and terrorism in an effort to add depth to their engagement of U.S. forces. Repression through terror of the indigenous population would take place to prevent internal dissent and insurrection that the U.S. might exploit. Military special operations assets and state intelligence operatives could conduct terrorist operations against U.S. interests both in theater and as far abroad as their capabilities allow. Finally, attacks against the U.S. homeland could be executed by state sponsored terrorist organizations or by paid domestic proxies.
State Sponsored Terrorism
That much is obvious, the hypocracy is using the epithet of "state sponsored terrorism" as justification to attack reigemes you don't like is apparently lost on most people - how the US attack on Lybia in '86 can be classed as anything other than terrorism is beyond me.
As an amusing divertion I came across this definition of Terrorism :-
A government that is an adversary of the United States may apply terror tactics and terrorism in an effort to add depth to their engagement of U.S. forces. Repression through terror of the indigenous population would take place to prevent internal dissent and insurrection that the U.S. might exploit. Military special operations assets and state intelligence operatives could conduct terrorist operations against U.S. interests both in theater and as far abroad as their capabilities allow. Finally, attacks against the U.S. homeland could be executed by state sponsored terrorist organizations or by paid domestic proxies.
State Sponsored Terrorism