Recruiting suicide bombers ruled not terrorism

[ECH1969]

A panel of Italian judges upheld the November acquittals of three North Africans on international terror charges, ruling that recruiting suicide bombers to fight against the U.S. is not terrorism, a lawyer said Thursday.

Government officials condemned the latest ruling. Justice Minister Roberto Castell apologized to the victims of suicide attacks and their relatives, saying “there is in me a great feeling of shame, bitterness and powerlessness.”

The judges ruled that recruiting suicide bombers could not be considered terrorism because during an armed conflict the only acts that count as terrorism are “acts exclusively directed against a civilian population,” according to a copy of the ruling given to The Associated Press.

The prosecutor had sought prison terms from six to 10 years. But in ruling in January 2005, a judge acquitted Moroccan Mohamed Daki and Tunisians Ali Ben Sassi Toumi and Bouyahia Maher of international terrorism charges, ruling their actions were those of guerrillas, not terrorists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11398897/

[Selatius]

1. So if I recruit a suicide bomber to blow up occupation troops in Iraq...

that's not considered terrorism?

[High Plains]

2. No, man, that's combat.

[Boojatta]

8. If one person deliberately kills combatants on all sides of the conflict,

is that combat or misanthropy?

[Journeyman]

3. In your case it would be treason . . .

in the case of foreign insurgents, combat.

[Boojatta]

7. Depending on the nationality of the foreign insurgents, might the foreign

insurgents be violating a neutrality act?

[ECH1969]

9. Correct

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. "recruiting suicide bombers to fight against the U.S. is not terrorism,"

.
.
.

well DOH!!!

US using bunker busters from afar to invade sovereign nations that are no threat

And 3 years later the US is still in THEIR country

Dumping tons of crippling Depleted Uranium on THEIR land, in their air, in their water supply, poisoning their country for millenniums

OH

and that little "collateral damage" thing

In straight english that means KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Just a few hundred thousand or so, Eh George?

And with the accumulated "scores" of the 10 - 12 years of sanctions, and the deaths to come as a result of poisoning their lands with that Depleted Uranium

The Bush Family and "Friends" will more than surpass even the highest genocide estimates of Hitler

Prescott taught you all very well,

But only how to kill - -

Not how to care for the living

So I dare the US to take a "poll" worldwide to which nation is the the biggest threat to the WORLD -

not just the egocentric USA

"WHICH NATION IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE WORLD?"

No "push-polls" please -

take the time to let the respondents to do a text answer

Just a silly Canuk idea . . .

[catmother]

5. well that's pretty screwed up. i hope the terrorists don't hit the

judge or his loved ones.:wtf:

[Boojatta]

6. "ruling their actions were those of guerrillas, not terrorists."

After they were acquitted, did they try to hug their lawyers and did their lawyers say, "Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty guerrillas"?

[genie_weenie]

10. There is no such thing as Terrorism...

plain and simple. This ruling is actually incorrect, because "acts exclusively directed against a civilian population" is first and foremost how wars are always won.

And now-a-days you could get around that definition by claiming "enemy combatants" were in the area you just bombed.

[ECH1969]

11. You don't think there is such a thing as terrorism?

[genie_weenie]

12. When people in general talk about Terrorism

it seems they forget that Terrorism (i.e. the targeting of civilians, not involved in combat) has been around forever.

As I looked over my post I realize how it could come off, since I of course read into my sentences certain ideas which don't come across correctly to someone else reading the same paragraph (stupid brain!).

But, my point was the use of terror tactics is and always will be standard military practice.

What HAS changed is the non-acceptance of it's use on the modern battlefield, of course, that hasn't stopped militarize, paramilitaries, insurgents, rebels, freedom fighters, whatever, from continuing to use the tactic.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.