"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:23:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote in message

Let's continue to flesh out your make-believe scenario. Is it all of
America fighting the Russians, or are nearly all of the Americans
happy to have them here, and the only "terrorists" are a small band of
Oregon militants fueled by hundreds of angry French-Canadians with a
long-standing grudge against the Russians that are pouring across the
border?


Hard to say who it is, since they're not in uniforms.

It's your made-up scenario, so you can most certainly tell us who it
is.

It's you and I, and some young relatives in the service, who managed to
commandeer lots of munitions off their bases. With that in mind, are we
terrorists?



But, neither are CIA agents, if they're doing their job correctly.

Non-sequitur


One thing for sure, we did not attack Red Square. Someone did, but it's
absolutely certain it was not us.

Who is "us"? American? Christians? WASPs? You do realize that
matters, right?

Bottom line... If the Russians have invaded the USA, and American
citizens are killing Russian soldiers by any means possible, that's
not terrorism. However, if American citizens living in Poland band
together and make a bomb, then sneak across the border and plant it in
a school/hospital/church and kill some Russian citizens, then it's
most definitely terrorism. And if the French-Canadians citizens are
sneaking across the border and killing Rusian soldiers here in the US,
then that's a form of terrorism.

But wait! The Russian citizens being killed are no different than the
resistance, in WWII, killing German citizens parked in France. Something's
wrong here.


But we both know that this simplistic scenario that you cooked up
doesn't really directly apply to anything going on in the real world.
It ignores many facts that you'd rather not talk about, and that don't
belong in a boating NG.

May al-Zarqawi rest in pieces. Yes, pieces. Now back to boats. :-)

I'm happy he's dead, too, but not for the same reasons you are.

As far as the scenario, it's not so far-fetched. Remember that during
Reagan's term, the Iranians had American hostages. In terms of high quality
evidence of terrorism, that rates a 10. Bush says "I'm positive Iraq was
responsible for 9/11". That rates a 2. Reagan had reasons to bomb the snots
out of Iran. Instead, he sold them weapons WHILE THEY HELD HOSTAGES, so he
could funnel money to...who??? Some two-bit freaks in Central America.

Libya: Reagan's people were smart enough to slug Quadaffi in the jaw a few
times as a warning, although we had clear evidence linking him to terrorism.
(Actually, the military convinced Reagan not to be stupid and make decisions
with his dick. Reagan listened.)

This time, it's different. You know why.