|
Quote:
Posted by Jerrica
I'm failing to see your point, exactly. Iraq didn't attack the US. The US are foreigners in Iraq, leading a band of soldiers, most of whom are not Iraqi. Your arguement is that Zarqawi is getting involved in something that isn't his business, and is a terrorist because he is fighting in Iraq, though he wasn't born in Iraq? I guess that makes the American military terrorists for fighting to overthrow Sadam Hussein, even though the Americnas aren't Iraqis?
|
Ever heard of something called a straw man?
You insisted that Zarqawi's terrorism was the US's own fault for invading his country. This is not true, because he is Jordanian, and had no personal stake in Iraq. His sole purpose there was to stir shit up for his and Al Queda's own agendas. Nothing the US did justified his involvement save for simply being there. Trying to twist around a straightforward argument into supporting your curious argument on the definition of terrorism is poor debate form.
And while it is very true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, a conventional invasion and occupation force are most certainly not terrorists, regardless of how legitimate the war may be. Quit trying to redefine terms just to suit your own purposes.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
85242
35212
Monkey King