The grapes of wrath: depressed French wine producers bomb Government offices

So they blew something up... they're french, they're farmers, and as I've read about no injuries this whole thing is pretty damn funny.
This is an unrelated question but one that I am finally angry enough to ask...
Seeker at what point is an act of violence against a government not serving it's peoples interests NOT an act of terrorism?
Really I would like to know where you draw the line, because from where I am sitting the vast majority of americans are emphatically against about 90% of what the current regime does domestically and internationally. You can agree or disagree with that statement as much as you like, but I really want to know where you personally draw the line that makes aggression against a regime justified.

And no for the record this is not a personal attack just an honest question I am asking so I can hopefully understand you and your viewpoint better. Cause honestly right now you baffle me.

[edit on 5-4-2005 by Sugarlump]

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by DrHoracid
...bombing of any building to gain political end is an act of terrorisim.

OK, let me extrapolate on this one.

On August 20th President Clinton launched scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles against alleged terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan.

An Act of Terrorism, Doctor?

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Absolutely correct....an act of terrorisim. Please arrest Billary as soon as possible for human rights violations. That specific act was a clear act of terrorisim by Clinton.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Ding, ding, ding, ding. Absolutely correct....an act of terrorisim. Please arrest Billary as soon as possible for human rights violations. That specific act was a clear act of terrorisim by Clinton.

So the bombing and "liberating"of iraq must count as terrorism...

Originally posted by Sugarlump

Seeker at what point is an act of violence against a government not serving it's peoples interests NOT an act of terrorism?
Really I would like to know where you draw the line, because from where I am sitting the vast majority of americans are emphatically against about 90% of what the current regime does domestically and internationally.
[edit on 5-4-2005 by Sugarlump]

Yo, lumpysugar chic.........bombing an abortion clinic is terrorisim even if its a pre-emptive strike against mass murderers. Bombing the Oklahoma City federal building was a terrrorist attack. The attack at WACO was a goverment sponsored terrorist attack as was Ruby Ridge. The Atlanta bombings were also terrorist attacks............ahhh something called 911 would also fit the profile. The "weathermen" bombings were terror attacks as was the attack on the congress and specifically 'Tom Delay'. The anthrax attacks ...........duhhh..........."terrorisim". Get it yet?

ELF attacks against housing and SUV's..........aaahhhh.....Terrorist.

PETA throwing blood on those that wear fur..........yep.........terrorisim.

ALF attacks on the elderly mother of a Doctor that works in an animal lab....can you guess.........yep.........terrorist............

Take your 90% anti-Bushism and please. please, attack something so some friends of mine a pay you a visit.

have a Joy, Joy day.............

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Ding, ding, ding, ding. Absolutely correct....an act of terrorisim. Please arrest Billary as soon as possible for human rights violations. That specific act was a clear act of terrorisim by Clinton.

So the bombing and "liberating"of iraq must count as terrorism...

AHHHHHH........................NO..............................but nice try..............buy your logic.....lets just liberate Saddam and put him back in power. Milosovic should also be put back in power in Bosnia. Ahh heck, lets just clone Hitler and put him back too. Oh...Oh, what about "Stalin"..........

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Ding, ding, ding, ding. Absolutely correct....an act of terrorisim. Please arrest Billary as soon as possible for human rights violations. That specific act was a clear act of terrorisim by Clinton.

OK, so you admit that the USA have supported and Executed several Acts of Terrorism?

Were the ones responsible ever prosecuted for them in the World Court like Saddam and Slobodan? No.

In 1984 Nicaragua filed a suit in the World Court against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States, which in 1986 resulted in a guilty verdict against the US, calling on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua through direct attack by US forces and through training, funding and support of the terrorist forces.

he US response to this ruling was to dismiss the jurisdiction of the court and escalate the war, besides pointing out that the court did not take in consideration the place Nicaragua played in the Cold War waged by proxy in an effective Soviet offensive.

Sounds familiar?

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Ding, ding, ding, ding. Absolutely correct....an act of terrorisim. Please arrest Billary as soon as possible for human rights violations. That specific act was a clear act of terrorisim by Clinton.

OK, so you admit that the USA have supported and Executed several Acts of Terrorism?

Were the ones responsible ever prosecuted for them in the World Court like Saddam and Slobodan? No.

In 1984 Nicaragua filed a suit in the World Court against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States, which in 1986 resulted in a guilty verdict against the US, calling on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua through direct attack by US forces and through training, funding and support of the terrorist forces.

he US response to this ruling was to dismiss the jurisdiction of the court and escalate the war, besides pointing out that the court did not take in consideration the place Nicaragua played in the Cold War waged by proxy in an effective Soviet offensive.

Sounds familiar?

Yes, it does, Daniel Ortega was a communist tyrant who was backed by Castro. The communist in the US congress led by Teddy Kennedy tried to stop Regan from defeating this invation. That is why the "World" court is noting but an Anti-american and anti-freedom place for "Black Robed" tyrants bent on world domination.

Clinto was a terrorist and committed hundreds of acts of treason.

Regan was a world hero of epic proportion.

Can't use both names in a simgle sentence it would be blashemy

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Ding, ding, ding, ding. Absolutely correct....an act of terrorisim. Please arrest Billary as soon as possible for human rights violations. That specific act was a clear act of terrorisim by Clinton.

So the bombing and "liberating"of iraq must count as terrorism...

AHHHHHH........................NO..............................but nice try..............buy your logic.....lets just liberate Saddam and put him back in power. Milosovic should also be put back in power in Bosnia. Ahh heck, lets just clone Hitler and put him back too. Oh...Oh, what about "Stalin"..........

I don't suppose you could explain the difference for us? Both attacks were made under the pretence of protecting the USA from terrorism. After all, if it hadn't been for 11th September 2001, Bush wouldn't have had his "Reichstag Fire" excuse to invade Iraq.

Plenty of non-military and civilian buildings have been bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush's leadership, he is no better than Clinton. Look at this as a national, rather than party political issue. By your own definition of terrorism, your own nation is a terrorist entity.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
AHHHHHH........................NO..............................but nice try..............buy your logic.....lets just liberate Saddam and put him back in power. Milosovic should also be put back in power in Bosnia. Ahh heck, lets just clone Hitler and put him back too. Oh...Oh, what about "Stalin"..........

Actually its not my logic its yours...
Wars are terrosim...terrorism is war....both are the same just in diffrent forms...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Wars are terrosim...terrorism is war....both are the same just in diffrent forms...

...and when wars are used to prevent terrorism, why can't terrorism be used to prevent wars? It's just the same, so its fair to use "terrosism" as a weapon. The effect of this two forms is the same - death.

[edit on 5-4-2005 by bulgarian]

Originally posted by bulgarian
...and when wars are used to prevent terrorism, why can't terrorism be used to prevent wars? It's just the same, so its fair to use "terrosism" as a weapon.

Thats the point.....
Well done for pointing that out...

The interesting thing at the moment IMO is the way the term 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' is being chucked about the place at the drop of a hat.

Anyone attempting to protest almost anything is liable to be labelled as such and more often than not by those who are really all about supporting undemocratic corporate actions and affairs against those who simply attempt to extend democratic control over their lives and how they live - especially since the USA has effectively handed over much of it's systems of governance to business.

In this case it's the French farmers in others it might be protesting, for instance, the World Bank forcing the local privatisation of what was the public's drinking water.

All neatly pidgeon-holed away under the label 'terrorism' and few will look further than that.....

.....and the 'fact' that 'the only good terrorist is a dead...blah blah blah'.

Value foer Money...

Since the 90's French wine started increasingly heavier competition from South-African , Chili and Australian wines.

South-Africa always had good wine/earth, but under Apartheid there was embargo and their wine could be kept out of europe.

As for Chili, they started using modern production methods and more quality control, while keeping much lower manual labour costs, massively improved sometimes beats a Bordeaux for only a third of the price...

10 years ago, french wine was like 60-70 percent in dutch supermarket stores, now its like 30-40 percent for the cheaper wines and the french are stuck with several unsold hundreds of millions litres...

Surprisingly, considering the affordable dollar and affordable mexican labour , I haven't yet seen a large increase in the mainstream for Californian wines in Holland, maybe they don't a the kind of soil that gives a full taste like vulcanic south-african or chili soil.....





[edit on 5-4-2005 by Silenus]

[edit on 5-4-2005 by Silenus]

[edit on 5-4-2005 by Silenus]