Reply With Quote
Are you saying Ohio is where the Beirut bombing occurred?Oh, that Lebanon. You got to get more specific, you know.. like how you're using US codes to argue for and against a foreign military strike being terrorist.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Are you saying Ohio is where the Beirut bombing occurred?Oh, that Lebanon. You got to get more specific, you know.. like how you're using US codes to argue for and against a foreign military strike being terrorist.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
That is neither a yes or a no.
Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?
Yes or no?
Are you asking how he Reagan responded to a military strike, like the one in Beirut rather than a terrorist attack?
word it any way you like. will it help you answer your initial question?
.. There's no post by me in here claiming there is one single definition. I asked for your definition.
And I said there are many.
Why can't you answer a simple question?
Do you believe there is only one definition of terrorism?
Yes or no?
Ofcourse not.. we seem to disagree on that very definition. Can you ask me more obvious questions?
Not at all, you simply don't understand it.Can you actually answer them?Can you ask me more obvious questions?
So under what definition or code does not acting against military strikes define someone being soft on Terrorism?
Simple question.
I understand why you're asking stupid questions. But just because you can't defend your original awnser doesn't mean you have to change the argument or make up some for other people.
If it's terrorism, and someone is soft on it, he is soft on terrorism.
I believe the Beirut bombing was a terrorist attack. You want it desperately to not be.
Good for you.
There was no need to defend it. It made perfect sense. You are the one who doesn't understand it. You can't even admit that the nation of Lebanon is not in the United States. I can't help you with that.I understand why you're asking stupid questions. But just because you can't defend your original awnser doesn't mean you have to change the argument or make up some for other people.
Don't have to this is my thread.. inwhich i asked the original question. If you want to play strawman.. you can start your own thread.
This is the original question.
You can thank me for redirecting you back to relevancy.Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?
And I said yes.
You're welcome.
Just like you can't admit that the nation of lebanon didn't bomb the marines.
US codes have nothing to do with this question.Do you think Reagan's response to the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, made him soft on terrorism?
Word of the day..
Relevance.
are you saying he'd rather reagan be soft on military attacks?
I'm glad i could help you.
So when are you going to start the Chump vs Strawman thread? I'd like to play along for giggles.
I answered with a simple yes.
You tried to make them have everything to do with it. Your fault.US codes have nothing to do with this question.
Your attempt to apply the US Code to the nation of Lebanon was indeed irrelevant.Word of the day..
Relevance.
So you personally believe that attacks on the military are terroristic, right?
Actually you made this strawman thread. I played along for giggles.
Not all of them.
I answered with a simple yes.
You tried to make them have everything to do with it. Your fault.
Your attempt to apply the US Code to the nation of Lebanon was indeed irrelevant.<------What!pathetic attempt.
I thought you were gonna start strawmen on your own thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
