Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: International agreement Author: JeffF [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 13:08:49 10/04/01 Thu In reply to: Mark7 's message, "The Pentagon is a military target." on 09:25:26 10/04/01 Thu I have no objection in principle to your idea of an international convention on terrorism, but how would different nations agree on a definition? You say our definition of terrorists and terrorism are muddy and inadequate. Maybe, but what do you propose that an international convention use as the basis of an agreement? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's called Human Rights Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 21:34:16 10/05/01 Fri If we support only these governments and organizations with genuine beliefe in respect for human rights, we will win against terrorism. We cannot win against terrorism by blaming the French for their reluctance to jump on our military expeditions and aiding the dictatorship in Pakistan because it is convenient at the moment. All we are doing is helping one thug instead of another. Yes, it has it's practical inconveniences, but if Sharon would have been at the Hague in the same cell with Milosevich, Arafat and maybe some triger happy of our own proud men in uniform, there will be less thugs to follow around the world. Plus, I am really concerned that Congress may pass some antidemocratic laws in the name of "security", laws that will open the gates for official government terror, like in WW2 with the Japanese, or in the McCarthy era with the red scare. There is no terror greater than government terror, and no terrorist so potent as the terrorist in uniform. To give you a recent example, by numbers, Osama is nothing compared with Radovan Karadich of Bosnia. Even little thugs like George Armstrong Custer would rank up there close with Osama, if you take into consideration the number of civilian victims killed.