Pirates. Terrorists.
Call a spade a spade.
Wonder how many more would-be terrorists will become full-blown terrorists, emboldened by the US’s apparent ineptitude and willingness to negotiate?
Good work, Pandora…er, I mean, Hillary.
Subscribe to Jane’s daily email.
Subscribe to Jane Q. by RSS Feed
7 Comments
April 11, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Pirates are not the same thing as terrorists. Terrorists are driven by political goals and instill terror to implement their political agenda. These pirates are motivated solely by cold hard cash. The distinction needs to be made because terror and piracy are combated very differently.
April 12, 2009 at 5:39 am
Hmmm…rumor has it that the “pirates” are collecting the cash so the “terrorists” can be funded.
April 12, 2009 at 8:29 am
Would this qualify as a “man made disaster”? One might have to ask Janet Napolitano that question.
Pirates only remained successful so long as nations allowed them to roam. Often, a corrupt governor would allow a persons or persons perform piratical acts for a set fee, similar to the arrangements for privateering. Of course the acts committed were not against enemy vessels, it was just purely for financial gain. In return the pirate received safe harbor. Once nations and colonial authorities eliminated safe harbors, organized piracy began to dry up quickly.
By definition, a pirate is any person committing a criminal acts against public authority, on the high seas outside the normal jurisdiction and laws of any state (country). By law, they can be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced by any state that captures them.
Also, by definition, the criminal act is of a private nature, that is personal gain, and not for political reasons. Of course that is very narrow definition that all nations agree on. Needless to say, even today, most nations have a broader interpretation of what a pirate is.
Pirates meet the definition of TERRORIST…
Quote:
Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror.[1] It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.[2][3]
A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. Acts of terrorism are criminal acts according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and the domestic jurisprudence of almost all nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
April 12, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Ah, yes… you are SO far from what I expected a Tea Party organizer to be (counter to what you claimed on MM’s site). Bipartisan my foot. Nothing here but the same ol’ 1990’s era Clinton hatin’ and 2000’s era Soros as Boogey Man tripe. Ya know what? Y’all can try to disguise your little tea bagging events as whatever you want, but you look like nothing so much as a bunch of whining crybabies throwing a Fox News-assisted temper tantrum. Stamping your feet and waving signs about “fiscal responsibility” (a little late for that, isn’t it?) is not going to change the fact that y’all lost the election. Overwhelmingly. Obama is your president now. Have fun Wednesday!
April 12, 2009 at 6:17 pm
TO SecondBecky…did you reply to the wrong site? I don’t see anything on this section about a TEA party. But then, your comments say that you are definitely Not Taxed Enough Already…so you, my dear have fun paying for all of “your president’s” out of control spending.
Also, my dear SecondBecky, did you ever say anything bad about President Bush?…oh, I forgot left wing liberals don’t play by any rules! My, my you have some sort of problem and are taking it out on the TEA party attendees…why don’t you visit a TEA party and tell the protestors that you want more taxes….after all it is a Bi-Partisin event!
April 12, 2009 at 7:46 pm
jamdr,
Erika was blogging on Malkin’s site earlier, claiming that although she (Erika) is a Republican, she’s not what you’d expect of a typical Republican. Some of us followed the link here from Malkin’s site and lo & behold, Erika is EXACTLY what we expect of a typical Republican. And like it or not, Obama is YOUR president, too pal. Enjoy.
April 12, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Hey, you cry babies lost an election, get over it.
Obama showed incredible leadership and the United States Navy freed the American captain. Success!!!!
Remind us how the Republican Party handled Katrina again will you? I seem to recall days going by and nobody in Washington doing a damn thing while a major American city lay flooded.
I hope you had a blog complaining about Bush’s incredible leadership during that tragedy.