Bollywood actors like imran khan are the last to declare someone a terrorist or not. Remember that Bollywood is funded by the muslim underworld of mumbai. Many of those gangsters have liks with terror organisations and have been active in terror attacks in India. Dawood is a good example. The links between those muslims gangsters/terrorists and certain Bollywood actors are very clear. Let’s all remember that a certain Bollywood actor (the halfbreed Sanjay Dutt whose mother was a muslim) had clear links with terrorists that attacked mumbai in 1992/93. There are many more actors that have thos links. If imran khan wants to call Bush a terrorist than by that same logic his own ‘prophet’ is also a terrorist. Infact he was probably the chief of all terrorists

According to Wikipedia, even Sunjay Dutt’s mother was born into a Hindu family, and she later converted to Islam later in life (or her parents converted). But she’s actually born into a Hindu family who converted to Islam, like A.R. Rahman.

• the hijacking or sabotage of an aircraft, vessel, or other vehicle;
• seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained;
• a violent attack upon an internationally protected person (e.g., Head of State, Foreign Minister, or ambassador);
• an assassination;
• the use of any biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device;
• the use of any explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property; or
• a threat, attempt, or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing

Any group of two or more people engaging in, conspiring to engage in, or threatening to engage in terrorist activity is a terrorist organization. Additionally, groups that do not engage in terrorist activity but provide support to terrorist organizations are also terrorist organizations. Any member of a terrorist organization is a terrorist.

The distinction that BlackCat raises above between war and terrorism is based on death toll or the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. Supposedly, in that formulation disregard for deaths of noncombatants does not make war into terrorism. (ie dropping a 500 ton bomb on a pre-school with one solider stationed is war not terrorism). Now, US law does not make distinctions based on intent or who was targeted or hit. It simply refers to individuals not distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. Nor does it refer to death tolls. Obviously, the administration never intended for this definition to be used against them. However, the President has engaged in almost everyone of the defined terrorist activities. The acts included more than two people in every case. So, the President is a member of a terrorist organization and is a terrorist.

P.S. Please, please find a better news source than the Washington Times next time. Now, I’m not saying outright that war equates to terrorism, but the current definition is overbroad. We need to be far more careful as a nation and as an international community in defining exactly what is terrorism. The current definition of terrorism is including hundreds of thousands of individuals who should not be defined as terrorists.

If imran khan wants to call Bush a terrorist than by that same logic his own ‘prophet’ is also a terrorist. Infact he was probably the chief of all terrorists

What kind of dicks are inappropriate?

This kind.

Cuban’s are overated.

you underestimate them. they once made a purse out of a sow’s ear.

There’s a big difference between war and terrorism. If you don’t think so, then you might as well call people like Alexander, Julius Caesar, Chandragupta Maurya, and the Kauravas terrorists. They all caused large numbers of deaths.

Going by vaitandikV’s comment, apparently there’s some sort of threshold involved. Do explain it to me. Is a person immediately labeled a terrorist once he causes a thousand deaths? Before that, is he just an uncomfortably violent person?

I’m also doubtful that college students would be just as willing to pack up and move to a terrorist training camp as they would to San Diego.

Well, let’s see how you react when bzuh is photographed wearing his $20 ash-grey long sleeved fitted “Ban Harbeer” t-shirt from cafe press.

As long as it’s on sweatshop free American Apparel I really couldn’t care less.

Libertarians for Banning Harbeer!

I wasn’t even that sanctimonious (this time) and I tried to remain civil even as I was being attacked, misread, and having words and sentiments which I never expressed attributed to me.

Well, let’s see how you react when bzuh is photographed wearing his $20 ash-grey long sleeved fitted “Ban Harbeer” t-shirt from cafe press.

Your use of such language is disingenuous.

Aha! “Disingenuous” is the new “Ad hominem.” Is that not what Mr. Khan is trying to convey? That in the fever swamps betwixt two fleshy receivers, that respond only a rights-based discourse, a fetish can be constructed around the ritualistic act of solemnly connecting dots between career rent-seekers who seek rent and all the man-made tragedies we have experienced. In this world it is also imperative that this preschool-level exercise should become merchandise worn by those who might consider themselves aware and informed.