At the official White House site, I notice these two items.
1. Today, in Kuwait, marines fired at the local population. The cause is under investigation. There is no further information on this event. Has anyone heard more on this event?
2. The Bush administration alleges the Iraqi administration denies ever invading Kuwait. Is there truth to this allegation?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
They most likely feel that they didn't invade Kuwait, since they think it is still an Iraqi state, they were just moving natioanl troops around. Liberating it from a false government....
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
a quick news search shows what happened in kuwait . do terrorist gunmen count as "local population"?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
heh ... it doesn't surprise me, those wacky gun lovin' Marines. Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
The discussion held on the president's plane was vague in specifics. I knew there was a shooting incident in Kuwait involving marines and Kuwaitis. The White House was investigating the matter.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
um.. its the other way around, i read the story on yahoo, and DLed a press release from the pentagon.
US Marines were on training maneuvers in Kuwait, a pickup truck drove by and assaulted the Marines, killing one and injuring another. the Marines fired back and killed the attackers. The men were not (visibly) attached to a military organization of government, the action seems to be terrorist (or extremist) in nature.
It in no way involved the Iraqi or Kuwaiti government/military, unless the men were undercover. The tentative IDs on the corpses indicates they were Muslim fundamentalists though if that means anything.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
Great. Now even other countries are calling anything and everything "terrorism". How the hell can it be terrorism when they attacked military targets?! That would mean that every war ever fought ever would be 100% terrorism. It would mean that Dubya is currently plotting a terrorist attack against Iraq. Fucking morons...
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
so the attack on the Khobar towers wasn't a terrorist attack?
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"It would mean that Dubya is currently plotting a terrorist attack against Iraq."
What do you call GWB & Co's war? State Terrorism.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
clean up in aisle five. any attack done on Iraq would be a legal one. how would it then fit your nice little definition? if Bush is a state sponsored terrorist, then i dub you the Cyber Terrorist, Cartman. unlawful attacks on sense. coming from me, that's pretty serious, since i apparenly attack sense all the time.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks: clean up in aisle five. any attack done on Iraq would be a legal one.
Baaaaa... Baaaaa....
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i don't know how it works in the north, Tom, but in this country any attack has to be done by the law of the United States. that is why attacks haven't happened yet. people don't seem to realize that if the President wanted to just attack Iraq however he wanted, it would have happened long ago.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
And I fail to remember the last time a terrorist went to the UN to gather support for his actions before he attacked.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
TSN, i thought it would be terrorism because the men who attacked the Marines seemed to be civilians. of course, its too early and we dont have complete bios on them, but the Kuwaiti minister has already denied they worked for any government outlet or military force.
i believe many of the other overseas attacks on the US military by civilian bombers were classified as terrorism as well
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"i believe many of the other overseas attacks on the US military by civilian bombers were classified as terrorism as well"
I'm sure they were. That way, they fall under the jurisdiction of the "War on Terruh". But that doesn't mean it's correct. Terrorism is, basically, scaring people so that they'll do what you want out of fear. Attacking military targets doesn't do that, because they just shoot back.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
that's a very simplistic way of looking at things.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So? Not everything need be complicated beyond reason.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
but somethings are more complicated than "oooh, shooting at mil-pros, no terror there".
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
well looking at the past examples i was thinking of, i think blowing up a barracks of sleeping soldiers in a (supposedly) friendly country during peacetime is probably terrorist.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)