The Devil allows freedom of all false religions but not the true one.

[Link]

I was thinking. Establish one Muslim nation but have Sunnis control the political side and the Shia control the religious side. Kind of like separation between church and state in the United States. You’ll probably say it’s a bad idea but I’m just spit bawling.

We will give them all control - all we ask is freedom of speech for us to propagate and dialogue. If majority then become Shiites only then might we elect a government that is Shiite.

We are after all always been the people "who don't want to exult themselves in earth nor mischief therein" yet accused always of the opposite.

 

[Link]

Ah...
so when your favourite group would fall under the definition, you are all for dropping it.

Right after a multipage rant about all of us other terrorists.

I am saying by the same definition, everyone can be accused of it. The American revolution itself would be terrorism by the definition.

 

[King Phenomenon]

We will give them all control - all we ask is freedom of speech for us to propagate and dialogue. If majority then become Shiites only then might we elect a government that is Shiite.

We are after all always been the people "who don't want to exult themselves in earth nor mischief therein" yet accused always of the opposite.

Yes you should be able to propagate and talk

 

[Link]

We will become like Ali (a) when he said to the people who were not ready for his government "I maybe better for you as an advisor then a chief".

They really wanted him (the Muslims after killing of Uthman) and emphasized on him so he accepted warning them he would act on justice and not their desires, but then a group rebelled against and his supporters were too negligent.

 

[McBell]

I am saying by the same definition, everyone can be accused of it. The American revolution itself would be terrorism by the definition.

I can't.
Are you saying that you can?

 

[ChristineM]

The real point is that all must change their ways.
As top dogs in this fight, the primary burden falls
upon US.

Oh i agree

 

[ChristineM]

So UN determines who is a terrorist and who isn't? Please define it clearly.

The UN decides whether an intervention is required and legal, usually at the behest of the country under seige.

Terrorism is clearly defined

 

[Link]

The UN decides whether an intervention is required and legal, usually at the behest of the country under seige.

Terrorism is clearly defined

So terrorism didn't exist before UN and if UN ceases to exist, then terrorism is impossible?

 

[ChristineM]

So terrorism didn't exist before UN and if UN ceases to exist, then terrorism is impossible?

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[Link]

Wtf are you talking about?

By your definition, it's UN who decides it. So terrorism would not exist without UN, so can't exist before it and can't exist if it ceases to exist. I am going by your clearly defined definition.

 

[McBell]

By your definition, it's UN who decides it. So terrorism would not exist without UN, so can't exist before it and can't exist if it ceases to exist. I am going by your clearly defined definition.

You will need to point out where she claimed that the UN defines terrorism.

Then comes the much more interesting part:
You need to explain how you got from her presenting a definition to how what is being defined could not exist before it was defined.

 

[Link]

You will need to point out where she claimed that the UN defines terrorism.

Then comes the much more interesting part:
You need to explain how you got from her presenting a definition to how what is being defined could not exist before it was defined.

She says UN defines what is unlawful and what is not. But without a UN, what is unlawful or lawful?

British said revolution of US is unlawful, and a war broke out by which Americans freed themselves from monarchy. UN was not there, so okay, it's not terrorism. If UN was there, and said it's unlawful, would it be terrorism?

 

[ChristineM]

By your definition, it's UN who decides it. So terrorism would not exist without UN, so can't exist before it and can't exist if it ceases to exist. I am going by your clearly defined definition.

Nope, the un decides what is legal. Its you imposing terrorism on them

 

[ChristineM]

She says UN defines what is unlawful and what is not. But without a UN, what is unlawful or lawful?

British said revolution of US is unlawful, and a war broke out by which Americans freed themselves from monarchy. UN was not there, so okay, it's not terrorism. If UN was there, and said it's unlawful, would it be terrorism?

International law applies with or without the un. It really is not that difficult to grasp.

 

[McBell]

She says UN defines what is unlawful and what is not. But without a UN, what is unlawful or lawful?

British said revolution of US is unlawful, and a war broke out by which Americans freed themselves from monarchy. UN was not there, so okay, it's not terrorism. If UN was there, and said it's unlawful, would it be terrorism?

Um...
You do understand that the UN is not the only entity that has defined terrorism, right?
And you do understand that terrorism has been a thing long before it was defined by the vast majority of entities that exist today, right?
And you do understand that you have not explained how something can not exist until after it is defined, right?

 

[Link]

Um...
You do understand that the UN is not the only entity that has defined terrorism, right?
And you do understand that terrorism has been a thing long before it was defined by the vast majority of entities that exist today, right?
And you do understand that you have not explained how something can not exist until after it is defined, right?

I'm working with her definition. We are trying to make a clearly defined one.

I don't think a clearly defined definition exists at the moment.

 

[Link]

International law applies with or without the un. It really is not that difficult to grasp.

Who decides the international law?

 

[Link]

If it's not difficult to grasp, then clearly define it.

 

[Link]

I think if we define it as "unlawful according to natural law or objective morality", we can define that way. But then when does it become lawful or unlawful per rules of natural law or objective morality?

 

[Link]

I would say the above definition I put, means, governments and UN have to recognize it as being unlawful, and not being the ones who decide it. Am I missing something in that?