Wrongly Accused?

[Sasquatch]

Would I be wrong to assume you have the slightest bit of evidence to back up the claims of things like Bush violating human rights and international law, the CIA torturing terrorists, and others of the like? (By the way, I'm sure your definition of "torture" and the definition set down by the Geneva Code differ greatly.) Of course, I'm not expecting any unbiased references, if any at all, but...hey, surprise me.

And the CIA usually doesn't perform their own interrogations in which, ahem, "torture" may be necessary. That's why we send 'em to places like Egypt, where their laws permit such methods of extracting information.

And the Catholic Church--or any churches, rather--may have spoken out against stances that Kerry took (i.e. pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, Socialism, etc.), but I would doubt that they specifically said "don't let Democrats in". If they have, I stand corrected, but I'd like to see evidence of such.

Some people support a certain political party--whether it be Democrats or Republican or another--simply because they're that specific political party. I don't agree with that, whichever way it may go. But some support specific parties because they greatly disagree with the other party...for example, some may only vote Democrat because they believe the Republicans are against, say, abortion, while some may only vote Republican because they believe the Democrats are against, we'll say, gun rights. It may or may not be that way, but according to those people, the issues they believe in are strong enough to not change their mind/vote until the opposite party changes their stance on such issues.

But enough about how eeeeeevil the Republicans are. Back to the topic.

Again, there is quite a difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter". A person who is fighting against us is not referred to as a "terrorist" unless they use terrorism to do so. Are you saying that 11 September was the act of "freedom fighters"? Whereas "freedom fighters", who I would have at least some respect for, try to seperate themselves from the civilian population, to minimize civilian casualties on both sides, terrorists try to blend in with the civilian population for protection, and target the opposing civilian population. There's more of a difference than just the weapons used.

lionx: If the Japanese had bombs and torpedos (and a combination of the two) in WWII, why did they need Kamikaze attacks? And no, terrorists didn't have WMDs, not at that point. (EDIT: By the way. Yes, you spelled "martyrs" right .)