I wonder if Reuter's would get the message if everyone
referenced them as a "news agency".

Gee, it might have been something about boiling dissidents.

But, we don't dare critizise our friendly dictators.

Did you forget to put the scare quotes on boiling dissidents? as in "boiling" and "dissidents" ?

What the hell are you talking about?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1146979,00.html

http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1068718772668

Nasty...although the second article does say the US intends to cut aid to the country because its human rights record was so bad. Did that ever happen?

Hipo,

I think you go to far on this. Granted these guys are scumbags but we are at war and we have to make hard decisions about who will work with us. It's a nasty world out there. Are you suggesting that after 9/11 we shouldn't have established a tactical relationship with Uzbekistan? Well, then
what about Pakistan, Russia, Texas?

Anyway it's a stretch to say that this retribution was the result of a single, albeit abhorrent incident. There have
been plenty of human bombs in Tel Aviv. How many prisoners has Israel boiled?

Poor terrorists. One got boiled, so it excuses and explains all the atrocities they've committed in the last 50 years. I'm weepy for them.

Barry:

No. The State Department pushed back (re/de)certification.

Are you suggesting that after 9/11 we shouldn't have established a tactical relationship with Uzbekistan?

Well, yes. We should have put Uzbeckistan on the "against us" list, for torturing its dissidents. Instead, we put them on the "with us" list, because they let us use airfields in exchange for $50MM+ in aid. Wasn't the whole point of the Iraq doctrine to liberate people from opressive dictators (at least, that's what MT thinks it was - I, of course, think the doctrine was "You Killed My Father, Prepare to Die!").

Well, then what about Pakistan, Russia, Texas?

Do you have evidence that those countries/states are brutally opressing their dissidents?

There have been plenty of human bombs in Tel Aviv. How many prisoners has Israel boiled?

Ahh, the moral equivalency of the right. Bombs against peaceful Israeli citizens are bad. There are bad reasons to kill people (anti-semitism, hate) and good reasons to kill people (brutal opression of your religion/politics.)

Hizb ut-Tahrir are not terrorists according to the US State Department. They are NOT on the State Department list. "Despite regional governments' claims, the United States has not found clear links between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorist activities."

Ahh, the moral equivalency of the right. Bombs against peaceful Israeli citizens are bad.

No, he's saying that terrorists blow people up even when they're not being boiled.

Hipocrite: Gee, it might have been something about boiling dissidents.

Wow. Are you serious? That's why you think two women blew themselves up along with a bunch of civilians?

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which aims to set up a pan-Islamic state that would include post-Soviet Central Asia, and the austere Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam are both outlawed in Uzbekistan.

Any possibility that that was the reason for the attacks?

According to the actual holy warriors, yes.

Similar attacks have taken place in Chechnya, Kashmir, Israel and Thailand. They’re not trying to fight oppression, they’re trying to establish it in the form of a pan Islamic state.

From a Pakistan’s Jihad factories

"..The head of their madrasah (religious school), a portly man with a white turban and white Pakistani clothing, had invited me to see for myself how his students were treated and what they had learned. So I'd climbed some steps in the Khuddamuddin madrasah, one of perhaps 7,000 such religious schools in Pakistan, and found the boys at play, taking a break from classes."

"In a few moments chatting with them, I quickly learned that their major topic of study was jihad, or holy war. The nearly 2,000 students expect to fight infidels in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Palestine, or Indian Kashmir once they complete their studies at the madrasah, located inside the walls of the old city of Lahore...".

"...Most kids here go for jihad, and I will too, God willing," said 14-year-old Obeidulla Anwer, speaking in Urdu through a translator. "Jihad is to fight for Islam and the pride of Islam."

"Like most of his classmates, he will leave the school at about age 18 and go to a military training camp in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, Afghanistan, or some other secret location. After that training, he said, "We go to fight in Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, Afghanistan."

Thai Buddhists don’t boil Saudi-funded ‘dissidents’. They’ve actually tried to cooperate with them, but still, Saudi-funded dissidents insist on slaughtering monks, trying to murder moderate Muslims and burning down girl’s schools.

That’s what they do in Kashmir, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. These dictator wannabes slaughter innocent people because that’s what they’re trained & paid to do.

Well thanks Mike,
It was getting so boring talking about 9/11. I'm glad that you moved us to something of real significance. Quotation marks in a news story,

One mans terroist in anothers freedom fighter. Just ask you fellow citizens who funneled so much of our tax dollars to the contras, or, for that matter, to the muhajadeens over the years. I have no problem with a news agency using quotes to indicate that the characterization of the group is not "objective".

As to your problem with the reason for the attacks...
The article clearly states that the reson given was given by "officials". It was not AP's explanation of the reason. They were reporting, not analyzing.

ooops, I meant Reuters of course

Tano: One mans terroist in anothers freedom fighter...I have no problem with a news agency using quotes to indicate that the characterization of the group is not "objective".

Thank you for clarifying where you stand on terrorism, suicide-bombing, and fascist insurgents. I will keep that in mind when you continue to mouth off on the subject in the future.

Wow. Are you serious? That's why you think two women blew themselves up along with a bunch of civilians?

The boiling alone? No. The boiling along with a repressive regime that crushed religious and civil rights?

Was it the Tea Tax that got those damn Colonials all angry?

Our involvement with Uzbekistan was initiated as part of our push to get to the Taliban government and oust Bin Laden from a terrorist sponsored state. I know that 9/11 is getting a little fuzzy for people like you but to refresh everyone's memory we needed to respond quickly to the 16,000 terrorists entrenched within the Hindu Kush.

Remember the logistics of military engagement in Afganistan was a tactical nightmare. Everything had to come from either air craft carriers or air bases in Ubekistan. According to your notion we should have washed our hands of Uzbekistan for the purposes of making a lofty statement about human rights.

Easy for you to say, since you, in all likelyhood, were never a member of Special Forces and were in dire need of air support to save the lives of yourselves and your buddies.

With respect to your sarcasm about "moral equivalency". Well how about a primer on basic cause and effect? You were asserting that the bombing was a result of a single atrocity. Do you have any proof of that? Your inference of causality is specious.

With respect to atrocities in Russia, let's just say I don't have
the time to enumerate. Besides Michael might run out of disk space.

With respect to Pakistan, how about this from Google:

"Refugees were beaten at unofficial checkpoints when they could not afford to pay extortionate bribes. At official crossing points, families were beaten back, or languished in squalor without food, water or latrines-hoping to be let in. Once inside Pakistan, refugees were harassed and imprisoned because they lacked identity documents. They also endured beatings by Pakistani police when queuing for food in camps."

Not exactly the treatment you'd expect crossing over to the U.S. side from Quebec. This wasn't hard to find and certainly not surprising. So I guess working with Musharref would be too dicey for you. That leaves us doing F-16 sorties to Kabul from either a limited number of air craft carriers or from New Jersey.

Human rights violations in Texas? H'mmm. Syndication of Molly Ivins columns comes to mind. So does Willy Nelson.

Nice try at a smear Michael.
The issue is not what I think of the groups, it is how a news agency reports the news. I can come to my own conclusions about the morality of a group. I dont need Reuters to use judgemental words, even if I agree with the judgement.

Becuase next thing you know, they could start calling our troops in Iraq "invaders". Or zionists as "crusaders". It works both ways, y'know. That is why good journalists make an effort (or they should) to leave the judgements to the readers, and to use neutral factual language.

Tano: "One mans terroist in anothers freedom fighter."

Actually, suicide bombers blowing up civilians are always terrorists, no matter the righteousness of their purported causes.

Tano, your lack of morals and ethics are showing.

And Hipocrite: One nation at a time, okay? Or do you really think the choice is "Global Conflict Now!" versus "Fortress America"?

Tano. Do you believe that the word "terrorism" has a coherent definition? Just curious.

Tano: Becuase next thing you know, they could start calling our troops in Iraq "invaders". Or zionists as "crusaders".

Right on. Next thing you know, indeed. Except that, you know, they won't do that. Ever. It's a non-argument.

So, given that they should let everyone else make the judgments, why not use quotes more often? How about "protesters" for folks who may or may not have been bankrolled by Saddam, even indirectly. I mean, I'd much rather make up my own mind. Same for "dissident". Please, Reuters, spare me your judgment. I feel the great need to figure this out for myself.

What exactly is it about "terrorist" that is putting the power in the readers' minds in a way that just ol' terrorist doesn't sufficiently?

Incidentally, the sky in my world is blue. Just FYI.

Was it the Tea Tax that got those damn Colonials all angry?

What’s the point of this comparison? Were the ‘damn Colonials’ terrorists who deliberately targeted innocent people? Were they part of a well-funded worldwide organization that hopes to impose theocratic dictatorships on unwilling populations?

If you believe that the terrorists who deliberately slaughter innocent people in an attempt to oppress them are comparable to freedom fighters who are seeking to end oppression, do you support both the freedom fighters and the terrorists? Or do you condemn them both?

Hipocrite: The boiling along with a repressive regime that crushed religious and civil rights?

Wow again. You really are an obtuse person. That gang of murderers is not fighting for religious and civil rights. They want to impose a fascist state of their own.

It never ceases to amaze me when leftists look at terrorists and see a mirror of themselves. They aren't fighting for your damn cause. If they were fighting for religious and civil rights against the Karimov regime, I would be right there with them. But they wouldn't be blowing up innocent civilians with suicide belts, so I wouldn't have to compromise myself.

I suppose one could get all worked up about Uzbeks, but they're just another convienent whipping boy for hypocrites like hipocrite.

It was never about the Uzbeks, or anybody else.

bob -

a. The boiling was merely a single point of data in a wide gamut of repression undertaken by the Uzbeckistan Dictatorship.

b. Yes. If we are taking a courageous stand to defend Human Rights in Iraq, we should take the same stand to defend rights across the world.

If we could have gotten access to Iraqi airfields to attack on 9/12, in exchange for the funds to build one boiling oil pit for the torture of Iraqi dissidents, should we have done that?

d. I guess I must have missed something - it's illegal to belong to the opposition party in Russia? Dissidents are being boiled? Why haven't we heard of this in the press? Certainly, the WarParty will assert that we should invade Russia, Packistan and Texas next, right?

I broke no idealism with regards to HT. They propose a disgusting form of government. However, you JUST CAN'T BOIL PEOPLE. I broke no idealism with the bombers. They killed innocents. YOU JUST CAN'T KILL INNOCENTS. Two wrongs makes two wrongs.

However, the US is only sending money to one of those wrongs - the Boiler. Yet, you're all pissed off about the other wrong, the bomber.

Why is that?

they were fighting for religious and civil rights against the Karimov regime, I would be right there with them.

How much research you put into Uzbeckistan, anyway, Mike? None? Why exactly aren't you right there with The Erk Democratic Party. When will we get a donate to the Erk button on the front page? When will we see a post about the brutal repression of the Erk?

"It never ceases to amaze me when leftists look at terrorists and see a mirror of themselves"

Why are you amazed? These are the same people who pimped the likes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot for decades.

Great work, Michael. I totally agree with where you're coming from. But let me ask a quick question if I could...

Why "two FEMALE suicide bombers"? Is there something uber-significant to you about the fact that they were women? Maybe there is or should be. You could make the case, but you don't because it's totally unrelated to your point. So why stick that in there? I mean, isn't a terrorist just a terrorist, plain and simple?

If you can, correctly I might add, pick apart Reuters for their mistakes...it's only fair play.

So it seems that of the two blasts, one was an accident - i.e. the people who died were not the eventual targets - and the other was a targetted attack on three policemen, with one innocent killed "collatorally".

Doesnt sound necessarily like terrorism to me. Terrorism is the purposeful targetting of civilians to inspire fear and insecurity. This could well be focussed (albeit incompetent) attacks against a repressive government.

I would keep the quotes for a while...

PS...

And you really probably should make the case, sometime. Women in the Muslim world are afforded next to no rights whatsoever, but they've apparently got the right to blow themselves up and they're thankful. The logic of it baffles my mind.

Write something about the War on Terror and Women's Rights, when you get the chance. It doesn't get talked about nearly enough.

Hipocrite: How much research you put into Uzbeckistan, anyway, Mike?

Enough to spell it correctly.

Yet, you're all pissed off about the other wrong, the bomber. Why is that?

Because I fucking hate terrorism, that's why. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? God.

Karimov is a wicked bastard, and I've said so elsewhere. But this particular news article isn't about Karimov. So he doesn't get a mention today.

When will we get a donate to the Erk button on the front page?

I also support a Free Tibet, just like all the hippies in my college town. But that doesn't mean I have to put a damn button on my Web site.

It's amazing. I come out against fundamentalist suicide bombers, and you come along and get all bent out of shape about it. Wow. I mean, wow. Listen to yourself.

Jesus Christ. Grow up. Or go hang out at Indymedia where your level of commentary is considered sharp.

Whoh...was this a case of women blowing themselves up for their own rights, then? What a strange twist on suicide bombing that would be: Islamic Feminist Terrorism.

At least, maybe, then they're starting to figure out just who the enemy is.

Grant: Is there something uber-significant to you about the fact that they were women?

No, not really. Reuters put that detail in there, and I just relayed it. That's all.

So if someone blew up a bomb to kill a few of saddam's thugs, would that have been terrorism?

Just curious as to how people draw their lines.

tano,

Thanks for your definition. If your facts are correct,
I would have to agree with you that the use of terrorism
in this story probably should not be used.

Michael was simply trying to make a good point,
perhaps badly.

The larger point is that new agencies have become so
value-neutral that they have expunged the term of terrorism
from their reporters vocabulary. We can argue that
under certain circumstances the term terrorism can
become a catch-all. But when it involves targeting random
civilians for the purposes of inciting political instability, the
term terrorism is appropriate. Anything else is a journalistic
euphanism.

I think you're off the mark on this one, Michael. Uzbekistan has been using the excuse of "terrorists" to justify ever-encreasing human rights crackdowns, and to prove to the US what a loyal ally it is in the war against terror. The quotes around "terrorist" indicated a healthy amount of scepticism about the source.

I have yet to see any liberal-democratic revolutionaries use suicide-bombing as a liberation tactic.

Unless I see some evidence that these people are more akin to the student revolutionaries in Iran that to the fascist death squads all over the Muslim world, terrorism will remain outside quotation marks on this Web site.

Assuming that it was a suicide bombing. Point is, you don't know.

"The larger point is that new agencies have become so value-neutral..."

Well, all I can say is "whew".
I was so afraid that they were all a bunch of liberal ideologues.

Guess ya just cant win these days....

Hipocrite has a legitimate point about Uzbekistan, which I will freely admit I don't spend a lot of time thinking about. I did a little googling because I am reluctant to accept the Guardian at face value without backup. The Washington Times published a very critical analysis on 11/17/03 about the US's lenient policy towards Uzbekistan.

It may be that in order to win the war on terrror we have to accept some thuggish regimes. And it may be legitimate for Reuters to put the scare quotes around terrorists in this case; as Tano points out, one bomber killed three policemen (and a child), and another exploded accidentally while the device was being prepared.

That's not to say that Reuters' use of the scare quotes is always justified, or that I approve of suicide bombers. And I am very uncomfortable agreeing with Hipocrite and Tano on this one.

From ABC news online:

"In Bukhara, people allegedly constructing a bomb accidentally set off an explosion, killing 10 people, he said.

In Tashkent, female suicide bombers carried out two attacks in the first such incidents in the Uzbek capital, he said.

The first suicide bombing occurred near a toy shop at 8:00am local time and killed two police officers and a child in addition to the bomber, Mr Kadyrov said.

The second suicide bombing at a nearby bus stop half an hour later killed a policeman and the bomber, he said.

Three other police officers were killed in related attacks leading up to the bombings, Mr Kadyrov said."

One blast was an accident that killed 10 people. Another was a deliberate suicide bombing near a toy store.

Should we only be convinced that it's terrorism when supporters pour into the streets with candy to celeberate, Palestinian style? Or does Reuters ever use the term 'terrorist' to describe the bombers of pizza shops and ice cream parlors?

"I have yet to see any liberal-democratic revolutionaries use suicide-bombing as a liberation tactic."

Maybe not suicide bombing, but terrorism for sure. Remeber Begin and Shamir?

" terrorism will remain outside quotation marks on this Web site."

Well thats perfectly appropriate. You are an opinion writer. You are perfectly free to give us your interpretations....

"One blast was an accident that killed 10 people. Another was a deliberate suicide bombing near a toy store. "

Excuse me? An accident. How can we tell intentions from that? And the 8AM blast seemed targeted at the police. You choose to note the proximity to a toy store, but I doubt too many kids are there at 8AM.

<bI have yet to see any liberal-democratic revolutionaries use suicide-bombing as a liberation tactic.

I forgot, who was the head of Irgun Tsvai-Leumi again?

That's what I get for being unable to spell. 12 minutes late.

tano,

I wouldn't be so sanguine about the deadening effects of sterilized language coming from journalists who are unwilling to call a spade a spade, on the pretense of retaining "objectivity." Not more than a few weeks ago, Andrew Sullivan pointed out a news article from Reuters that talked about the problem of detecting suitcase bombs in container ships arriving in Port Elizabeth, New Jersey. The article refused to use the term "terrorism" in the story.

The Pentagon gets raked over the coals for using euphanisms (e.g. "collateral damage"). Given that we are a democracy, and our ability to function as such is dependent on the quality and clarity of information we get from a free press, the concern about about the appropriate use of language is important.

Tano - What part of 'The bomber killed two police officers and a child' didn't you understand?

The ABC calls these attacks suspected terror, which is better the Reuters' scare quotes.

In Uzbekistan, we're offered a choice between supporting the boilers or the bombers. I don’t support either one of them. Do you?

If the Uzbek government were exposed as aliens from Venus bent on harvesting humans for their meat, it wouldn't change the fact that somebody blowing up at a bus station is a terrorist, no quotes.

well mary, I dont know.
I suspect I would have no sympathy for the government. But I dont knwo much about the bombers. Maybe they are just what the government says they are, but would you mind if I am suspicious?
Maybe they are fighting the good fight.

Maybe they are fighting a not so good fight. But so far, I sense they are targeting the police. Which might make them any number of bad things, but not necessarily terrorists.

I dont prefer "suspected terrorist". What the hell does that mean? Suspected by whom?

hipocrite wrote:
"I forgot, who was the head of Irgun Tsvai-Leumi again?"

Cool! Its back to the Jooz again! It's all their fault! It don't matter what happens anywhere--There always a Joo at the bottom of it!

If they're Saudi funded Wahhabis trying to set up a pan-Islamic state, I suspect that this is not a 'good' fight. It's between boilers and boiler-wannabes.

Well I have been shooting my mouth/fingers off quite a bit today - I really should get back to work.
Final thought.

Given that the president has reacted to an act of war by al-Q by defining an overarching war on terrorism, I think it behooves us to at least try to enforce a clear and strict defintion of the word "terrorism". For as it now stands, any use of the word immediatly defines an enemy of the United States. And opportunists around the world didnt take more than five minutes to figure that one out.
So if errors are to be made, I would greatly prefer our news agencies erring on the side of not defining groups as such, until or unless they embrace that full identity.

Oh Mary,

don't be so simplistic. What's "good" anyway but an attempt by conservative white men to impose traditional western values on the poor little brown peoples of the earth? Didn't you go to college? One man's good is another man's evil, remember. Who are you to judge?

Are you really this dense or are you just being obtuse?

The term "saddam's thugs" tells us they are a party to Hussein's crimes, doing his dirty work, and therefore guilty. I shed no tears for their demise. That is in contrast to INNOCENT PEOPLE killed in the terrorist blast.

There is a huge difference here, I can't understand why you can't see it.

I draw my line at the intentional killing of little girls, how about you? Or can you somehow justify that one?

"For as it now stands, any use of the word immediatly defines an enemy of the United States"

Please behoove us and describe why this is incorrect.

Just curious as to how people draw their lines.

The Left has been drawing moral equivalencies for so long that they truly DON'T know how to draw these lines.

On the other hand, when it comes to Israel and the Joooz...

I draw my line at the intentional killing of little girls, how about you?

That's a good line to draw. I sincerely wish that we always came out on the bright side of it.

David – you’re right – we should breathe in terrorists who deliberately kill kids and their wealthy (but brown!) Saudi sponsors and breathe out peace and tranquility.

We must go beyond our -isms and schisms, embrace these freedom fighters and visualize whirled peas.

That's a good line to draw. I sincerely wish that we always came out on the bright side of it.

Kimmitt:

I sincerely doubt that's what you really wish. How else to moralize about the millions of innocent people that died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Incidentally, did we INTENTIONALLY kill little girls over there?

David: Yes and also at Hirioshima. That gives me the right to kill any American little girl I want, until we are exactly equal. It's all about equality, see?

Mary, you asked "Were the ‘damn Colonials’ terrorists who deliberately targeted innocent people?"

As a matter of fact, many of them were. Although technology had not advanced to the point where suicide bombers were possible, there are numerous cases of lynch mobs performing 'tarring and feathering,' which often resulted in the death of the subject. Many Loyalist houses were robbed, some were burned, and after the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, many Loyalist families were driven out of America through fear of reprisal, either from the new government or locals. That sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

Tar & Feathers = sucide bombers

Let's not forget that Americans slaughtered innocent native Americans too.

I won't rest until Thomas Jefferson and the other war criminals are condemned by the Hague.

LiberalOsama,

when you declare war on the U.S. things are going to get broken, savvy?

Excuse me? An accident. How can we tell intentions from that? And the 8AM blast seemed targeted at the police. You choose to note the proximity to a toy store, but I doubt too many kids are there at 8AM.

It accidently blew up when/where they didn't intend it to. However, it's obvious it wasn't constructed to use in a fireworks show at Disneyland Tashkent. People build a bomb and it detonates at a toy store -- to me there's absolutely no doubt as to their intentions.

And similarly, since it was an accidental detonation, even though two policemen were killed, how can you be sure they were targeted? You don't target by accident.

Oh, and it does say one child was killed. Since it was 8am and not "too many" children were there, guess the bombers get a free pass for that one. Why don't you type that up into a postcard and send it to the dead child's parents? "Ok, you only got one child - but heaven help you if you'd accidently exploded a half-hour later when we were open!"

When terrorists blow up inside Disneyland the equivocating Leftists will still be using scare quotes in their captions. Mark my words.

Well Kimmitt, maybe you can tell me where we intentionally killed little girls.

Mary, you asked "Were the ‘damn Colonials’ terrorists who deliberately targeted innocent people?"

As a matter of fact, many of them were. Although technology had not advanced to the point where suicide bombers were possible, there are numerous cases of lynch mobs performing 'tarring and feathering,' which often resulted in the death of the subject.....

That sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

It also took place over 225 years ago - does America get any credit for advancing past that stage, or must we continually pay for the sins of our fathers?

A lot of Americans kept slaves over 140 years ago. But we got smart and passed laws (and yes, had a war) and prohibited it. We grew some more. Should Americans today still be condemned for the sins of those fathers?

If so, I've got a beef with those *&%$# British land barons who persecuted my Scottish ancestors. Where's Mel Gibson when you need him?

Sorry, everything up to and including "That sounds a lot like terrorism to me." should've been in italics - it's all quoted from previous comments. My comments begin with "It also took place over 225 years ago..."

Barry - of course it happened 225 years ago, that's why it doesn't matter much. Mary asked a question about terrorist status, and I answered truthfully. That doesn't mean I have a grudge against the colonists, or that I think their cause was unjust. It's simply the truth.

Amerikkasucks - You can mock tarring and feathering as much as you like, but it was a brutal form of mob violence that usually killed those it was performed upon.

Tarring and feathering was not GOVERNMENT POLICY. So mock away I say.

Robert - When a few Colonials tarred and feathered some soon-to-be-Canadians, did that make them terrorists? Were they, in your mind, equivalent to suicide bombers who deliberately nail-bomb children, using this military tactic as their primary way of waging war?

The colonials weren’t seeking to establish an oppressive form of government, as most terrorists are. Were they still terrorists?

Is this your way of saying one man terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter? If so, if you believe that terrorists and freedom fighters are equivalent, are you sympathetic with both groups?

Mary, that's cruel. You're forcing a Leftist to use logic.

Tarring and feathering was as shameful period in Amerikkkan history. Each tar and feathering was usually aimed specicially at innocents and involved high explosives and shrpanel that included ball-berings and nails laced with rat poision. Tar and feathering was designed for easy infiltration and to kill and maim dozens of people, including the user.

Sucide bombers are not as bad. Usually they destroy clothing, get stuck in hair and end up with the target being run out on a rail from town.

Amerikkkasucks,

paddling was common in our schools. We mustn't overlook that shameful period in our history either.

Question was, and I repeat - "I have yet to see any liberal-democratic revolutionaries use suicide-bombing as a liberation tactic."

This, of course, is
a. Because MT has conviently chosen to ignore Terrorists that were Terrorizing for things he and I agrees with. and
b. Because MT has limited it to Suicide Bombing, which temporalizes it to a post approx 1910 event, as explosives could not be manportable before.

Mary desperatly wants people she likes not to be terrorists. Terrorists use terror to further their political goals. It dosen't matter if they want to form a liberal democracy, like some, or a theist dictatorship, like others. Wanting to form an opressive form of governemnt is not a requirement to be a terrorist - otherwise, how could we call the JDL a terrorist organization, which it clearly is. I mean, really, assisinations on US soil?

Not all terrorists are freedom fighters. Only those terrorists who use terror to further the cause of freedom are freedom fighters. Examples would include the American Revolutionaries, the French Revolutionaries, the Irgun Tsvai-Leumi, and many, many more. In fact, I'm not really sure anyone can name a single violent genesis of democracy without at least one act of terrorism.

mary says: "The colonials weren’t seeking to establish an oppressive form of government, as most terrorists are. Were they still terrorists?"

A terrorist is an individual or member of a clandestine group who seeks to evoke a political result through violence aimed at civilian targets. Their intents or larger political ambitions are irrelevant to the description, just their methods

Stu,

so why put the word terrorist in scare quotes?

I didn't.

But if you're talking about the article, I don't think it's because the writer doesn't consider the act terrorism, I think it's because the regime in Uzbekistan isn't a particularily reliable news source about stuff like this, and the terrorist act is at a suspiciously good time for the regime. I think the quotes indicate some scepticism about the event.

... make that "and the terrorist act comes at a suspiciously good time for the regime."

Stu: But if you're talking about the article, I don't think it's because the writer doesn't consider the act terrorism, I think it's because the regime in Uzbekistan isn't a particularily reliable news source

Reuters always does this. It doesn't matter who blows up whom.

It's possible that the regime is full of crap on this one. I've only seen the one article. Maybe if Reuters wouldn't use scare quotes so often, they could use them once in a while to make the nuanced case you think they might be making.

Wow, I can't believe I forgot this - I mean, normally it gets painted on me, but if the shoe fits them, make them eat it, right?

Communism killed 100MM people! You right-wingers are all communist supporters! Islam Karimov came to power as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan in 1989, and now you tacitly support his regime.

It seems just as likley that Karimov bombed his own people as Islamic terrorists did. Look at his bombing history - last bombing, he outlawed the opposition parties and tried to extradite his exiled opponent.

Who know what that right-wing communist will do this time?

Terrorists seek to evoke a political result through violence aimed at civilian targets.

So terrorist groups directly target civilians. Not redcoats, not policemen, not soldiers, civilians.

When targeting civilians is the primary tactic used by a certain group, then they’re defined as terrorists.

It’s not part of the official definition, but when a group deliberately and consistently shows that they’re happy to shred toddlers, it’s usually a sign that they have no respect for human rights, and their eventual goal is to oppress.

Most democracies were formed by resistance fighters who used traditional resistance tactics – targeting supply lines and combatants (soldiers, govt.) Targeting civilians was never their primary tactic.

But that’s how I see things. I don’t believe that resistance fighters and terrorist are equivalent. I believe that resistance groups fight oppression while terrorist groups fight to oppress. Their tactics indicate their goals.

If you disagree and if you believe that terrorist=freedom fighter, then you must hold the same opinion about both groups. When you say one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist, are you supporting both groups or are you condemning them?

Hypocrite,

you don't possibly mean to blame the "rightwing" for both the nazis AND the commies do you???

I find it telling that some people on this thread automatically cut the bombers some slack. That's their default position.

Hey, I understand the mentality. I used to do the same thing with revolutionaries that fought to overthrow nasty dictatorships. Then I learned to be a bit more choosy about which revolutionaries to support, even if the regime needs overthrowing.

The Czar was bad. Lenin was worse. The Shah was bad. The ayatollahs were worse. The Saudis are bad. Al Qaeda is worse.

You know the drill by now.

I support revolutionaries so long as they are not communist or fascist. And if they commit terrorism they are probably one or the other. Liberals and democrats don't often kill their innocent countrymen on purpose.

Hipocrite: now you tacitly support [Karimov's] regime.

I do? Since when? I'd love to see the bastard hanged from a lampost.

Bravo Michael.

(Sorry for addressing each comment to the commentee; I have no idea how to do the nifty italics)

mary -

In order of your questions, yes, no, yes, not exactly, no. Explanations, now.

Terrorism is the use of fear to gain politcal, economic, or material advantages over an adversary. I don't subscribe to the "terrosism is demanding the impossible at gunpoint" notion. Since these Colonials I have mentioned used violence to cause public humiliation to convince Loyalists to remain passive, they were terrorists.

However, they are not morally equivalent to the suicide bombers secondarily because of the person being killed is, in the latters' case, a child. I have always considered the murder of a child to be a greater crime than the murder of a man. The primary reason is the actual targeting itself. The colonials had a very specific person they wanted to brutalize, and it seems that they did not kill others in the process. The very nature of bombings, however, creates additional, unrelated casualties, which is indefensible. The more reckless nature of the suicide bombers makes them more morally reprehensible to me.

Yes, they were still terrorists, despite their noble intentions. My personal definition makes no distinctions based on ultimate goal, only immeadiate goal.

I prefer to think of the corrolary to that idiom: "Your freedom fighter is someone else's terrorist, always." Both are simply labels that one puts on a person who fights either for or against one's interest. There is no fundemental difference between the two: the person who fights for is a freedom fighter, the one who fights against is a terrorist. However, the truly objective terms that matter are ones like "murderer," which these suicide bombers clearly are, along with their Colonial counterparts. Unlike many people, I do not pretend that terrorists only exist in opposition to me. I recognize that even now, someone somewhere is plotting a despicable act of murder and violence that will ultimately benefit me. That person receives, and will receive, my vocal condemnation just as much as these murderers we are discussing. I don't think that Washington was a murderer. He was my freedom fighter, but the British would've coined him a terrorist.

MJT: "Reuters always does this. It doesn't matter who blows up whom."

Here's ABC (my emphisis): It noted that while Uzbek police had made some arrests they feared that "other terrorists" remained uncaptured and may be ready to stage new attacks.

Newhour: "President Islam Karimov told the nation in a television address Monday that the perpetrators had been preparing for the "terrorist acts" for at least six months." (and he sure seems to know a lot about the attacks already, doesn't he?)

Mary, I can't tell if you're agreeing with the definition or disagreeing with it. But that's the official definition.

Mary,

Robert's thesis is from the point of view of someone who has no dog in this hunt--otherwise known as a relativist.

For example, during WWII, the nazis were Huns to most Americans, guilty of slaugtering Jews and other undesirables by the million.

But to the intelligentsia, however (see Robert), they were just ordinary Germans disgruntled at the oppressive terms of the Versailles Treaty.

So to the enlightened, it's all the same. One man's SS officer is another man's regular joe blow in a cool black uniform.

Robert: (Sorry for addressing each comment to the commentee; I have no idea how to do the nifty italics)

Like this:

<b>Robert:</b> <i>(Sorry for addressing each comment to the commentee; I have no idea how to do the nifty italics)</b>

David But to the intelligentsia, however (see Robert), they were just ordinary Germans disgruntled at the oppressive terms of the Versailles Treaty

Understanding the formative reasons behind extremist movements does not imply excusing them.

Okay, okay, I'm a dope. Robert, the last tag in my example should be a </i>, not a </b>. Sorry about that.

Stu,

oh, so the scare quotes are just the guys at Reuters trying to understand the formative reasons behind the extremism.

I got it now.

Michael –
I support revolutionaries so long as they are not communist or fascist. And if they commit terrorism they are probably one or the other. Liberals and democrats don't often kill their innocent countrymen on purpose.

That’s what I (with too many words) was trying to say.

David: "oh, so the scare quotes are just the guys at Reuters trying to understand the formative reasons behind the extremism."

Where did I say (or imply) that?

Stu,

I'm not going to go back and re-read the thread, but the entire logic behind the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" amounts to that.

If you don't subscribe to that view (amply displayed in the thread above), here is your chance to opt out.

Stu – I was using the definition to prove that there’s an objective difference between resistance fighters and terrorists.

..and some pacifists will argue that if we had tried to understand the root causes of German disgruntlement and if Americans were nicer people, we could have prevented WWII.

David: I'm not going to go back and re-read the thread, but the entire logic behind the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" amounts to that.

I think that you should re-read the thread. You've just slagged me (in an insultingly juvenile sarcastic way) for something I didn't say or imply.

Mary: "...and some pacifists will argue that if we had tried to understand the root causes of German disgruntlement and if Americans were nicer people, we could have prevented WWII."

Are you saying that people should not have tried to understand the causes of German disgruntlement? Why on earth not?

I found a newspaper from May 31, 1971. In an article on the Vietnam war the article begins - "SAIGON (AP) - Enemy forces launched the biggest ... " Now, if you can, imagine the AP or Reuters referring to Al Qaeda as the ENEMY. WOW.

..a Leftist...
But to the intelligentsia, however (see Robert)

It is amusing to watch you try to invalidate my arguements by plastering me with lables. For the record, I consider myself a Centrist, I believe in objective good and evil, I oppose abortion, and I was a vocal advocate of the Iraq war. My arguements here are not based on the relative morals of the people who commit these crimes against humanity as you suppose, but upon the definite meanings of English words. I don't believe that 'terrorist' means 'murderer,' or 'criminal,' or vice versa.

Two side comments: can we please continue this discussion by debating the issues, and not by spewing out labels? And thanks Stu, for the tip.

And thanks Stu, for the tip.

No prob. But make sure that you reuse the tags at the beginning of each paragraph, Michael's comment thingie forgets the settings after a carriage return for some reason. Using preview helps catch those kinds of errors.

Both are simply labels that one puts on a person who fights either for or against one's interest. There is no fundemental difference between the two: the person who fights for is a freedom fighter, the one who fights against is a terrorist.

Robert, you sure don't sound like somebody with a dog in this hunt, or somebody strong with convictions about the issue. It's all academic, as they say. You seem more upset about tarring and feathering, or should I say "tarring" and "feathering".

Robert: It is amusing to watch you try to invalidate my arguements by plastering me with lables. For the record, I consider myself a Centrist

Fun when that happens, isn't it?

You seem more upset about tarring and feathering, or should I say "tarring" and "feathering"

If that is the case, blame on the inherent limitations of this medium, not on my actual thoughts. My mention of the tarring and featherings was purely academic, as you suggest, brought up merely to answer mary's question of whether Colonialists were terrorists. But as to the current problem that you call ''terrorism," (I prefer to call it organized political murder) I do have a dog in the fight. I don't want to be killed, or for anyone I know to be killed, because some nutcase wants to make a political statement. I condemn murderers instead of terrorists because murder can only kill, while fear can be used to keep the murderers at bay,

Well if nobody is apparently justifying or excusing the Reuterization of the term terrorist in Michael's post, then what are we arguing about????

I sincerely doubt that's what you really wish. How else to moralize about the millions of innocent people that died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Er, the millions of innocents who died in Iraq and Afghanitan died at the hands of Saddam/Iran and the Soviets, respectively. However, I will quickly point out that the US genocide committed upon the various Native American tribes included multiple instances of massacres of men, women, and children and then take my leave.

"Terrorism is the use of fear to gain politcal, economic, or material advantages over an adversary. "
"But that's the official definition."

Says who. Cripes the whole world has been debating this issue for at least of a quarter of a century. How can you argue
that there is an "official" definition? I think that's hogwash.

Your definition is way too broad to be useful. If you want to argue that "the use of terrorism is the user of fear to gain political, economic, or material advantages" then terrorism runs the gamut from various WWII bombing raids to broadcasts to GIs by Tokyo Rose.

Like pornography, we know it when we see it.

Are you saying that people should not have tried to understand the causes of German disgruntlement? Why on earth not?

It's a question of timing. Trying to address the root causes of German disgruntlement before the war, at the point when millions of Germans were enthusiastically shouting 'Heil Hitler' & supporting the idea of the Thousand Year Reich, would have been pointless.

Trying to address the root causes after the German army was defeated was helpful.

Many pacifists believe that we should have addressed the root causes before the war.

Kimmitt: I will quickly point out that the US genocide committed upon the various Native American tribes included multiple instances of massacres of men, women, and children and then take my leave.

Sure. And they weren't "freedom fighters." They were not oppressed by a fascist Native American regime. So I don't see what that adds to our discussion except to demonstrate that we are not and have not always been perfect angels. And we know that very well already.

Unless I see some evidence that these people are more akin to the student revolutionaries in Iran that to the fascist death squads all over the Muslim world, terrorism will remain outside quotation marks on this Web site.

Mike - are you saying that it wouldn't be terrorism if the cause were liberatory? I would say that even liberatory groups are terrorists if they blow up civilians. (I think you believe this, too, which is why I am wondering about the above statement. I could not find the comment you were responding to ...)

Many pacifists believe that we should have addressed the root causes before the war.

Mary,

I agree with you. Trying to "understand" the enemy in the midst of battle, to "reach out to him" so to speak, to apologize for him, etc., is one degree short of treason as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, once he is broken and utterly defeated, then you may read a book about him, and try to "understand" him. Feel free.

Karrie: Mike - are you saying that it wouldn't be terrorism if the cause were liberatory? I would say that even liberatory groups are terrorists if they blow up civilians.

Yes. You are correct. I didn't get it right.

Later down I said the following to kinda sorta make up for the oversight:

I support revolutionaries so long as they are not communist or fascist. And if they commit terrorism they are probably one or the other. Liberals and democrats don't often kill their innocent countrymen on purpose.

Ah, that is what I figured, Mike. I knew there was something missing from the picture (or rather, that I had missed something). Comments sections can be confusing sometimes!

Kimmit: Not to mention the Romans slew the Germans, Jews and Celts. And the English were genocidal to the Scotts.

I guess that gives terrorists and tyrants of the last 50 years (including those still in process) a pass. So kill the JOos! Remember, they were once genocidal to the Hittites (so it is ok).

While it does look like the police were targeted, I should point something out about the notion that because of the time of attacks, there wouldn't be too many kids around.

It's absolute and utter BS to think that.

I gotta tell you that Chorsu is a busy place, there are always a lot of people around and a fair number of children. In Uzbekistan, there's a lot of commercial activity early in the morning--maybe not as much this time of year if the mornings are still cold.

TTZ, the site of the shootout and more bombings, is also a busy place. Lots of teens pass by here on the buses from the north on their way to schools in Tashkent.

Any Uzbek willing to blow themselves up would know these things. They may have gone after the police, but they just don't care about the collateral damage.

BTW, to plug myself, I'm covering events as they happen at my blog. Uzbekistan, being a land of rumors and conjecture, is full of interesting and frightening news.

"I agree with you. Trying to "understand" the enemy in the midst of battle, to "reach out to him" so to speak, to apologize for him, etc., is one degree short of treason as far as I'm concerned."

Treason? That's crap. Understanding an enemy's thought processes is essential to manipulating them into a position advantageous to you. If the US administration had understood the Japanese political situation better, or had listened to their ambassador to Japan, who DID know what was going on, the Pacific war would never had happened.

Jeez. I can't believe it when people think that the alternative to being stupid is being treasonous. At least it explains some of your arguments here, David.

If the US administration had understood the Japanese political situation better, or had listened to their ambassador to Japan, who DID know what was going on, the Pacific war would never had happened

Really? So the US was at fault, yet again.

The Pacific war wouldn't have happened if America hadn't been so stupid. We should have listened to the Japanese. Sigh We're to blame, we just weren't being nice enough to our homicidal, fascist enemies - again.

By the way, do you have any sources to back that assertion up?

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

Get www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Buy Viagra online! its easy click here today.

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

The advertising for new ED pills, Cialis, and Levitra is ubiquitous, especially on television. There is a Cialis
spot that enquires, "Will you be ready?" -- a phrase inspiring enough for a Marines' recruiting ad. Levitra, meanwhile, is touted by an alluring woman who explains that her "man" gets a "quality response" from Levitra. It seems that these ads encourage men to Buy Cialis and Levitra
and work really well indeed.
Related Sites:
Cialis

Buy Levitra

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

realy nice web site

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

4272 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

I like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

1475 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

8374 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

664 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

6362 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

204 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free trailer porn - porn free sample - free celebrity porn videos - porn video downloads - free long porn movie - full length free porn - porn site password - free sample video porn - streaming porn - free fat porn - porn movie sample - free sample video - password porn site - free japan porn - sample porn movie - photo porn - porn movie trailer - free porn web cams - full length porn - japan teen sex - porn movie preview - sample movie porn - gay guy porn - free porn web cam - japanese sex movie - free porn movie clips - free full length porn downloads - free porn video previews - free movie porn - free male porn - free porn videos online - free long porn - free full length porno - porn thumb - free full length porn video - porn star movie - free lesbian porn videos - porn free trailer - credit card free porn - membership free porn - free pass porn - free porn movie download - free full length porn movies - free online porn games - free ebony porn clips - free sample porn movie - porn thumbnail - mpeg porn - trailer porn - free porn video downloads - free full-length porn - free porn pix - celebrity porn videos - porn pix - porn japan - free full length porn vids - long porn - free ebony porn trailers - porn streaming - porn web cam - free porn movie trailer - french porn star - porn free - long porn movie - free long porn videos - free porn clip samples - free membership porn videos - absolutely free porn videos - free porn thumbnail - free porn movie downloads - free movie trailers porn - porn free download - free milf porn videos - free milf - free clip xxx - free porn star videos - free porn videos - free erotic video clips - xxx vids - pass porn - free full length porn movie download - free porn movie - free movie sample - free long movie - sample video xxx - free porn movie membership - german porn site - porn game download - video preview porn - free preview porn videos - free full porn movie downloads - porn movie - hard core free porn - free long sex video - free porn gallery - dutch porn free - porn free trial - free japanese porn videos - porn video - porn videos-com - free videos - free porn cam - porn trial - free preview porn video - free video clip - xxx free mpeg - free anal video - full length porn for free - credit card porn - porn membership - free sample trailer
free sex - tamil sex - sex trailer - free sex trailer - illustrated sex stories - sex clip - password sex - free sex clip - free sex film - hard sex - porn clip - sex vids - sex password - free sex vids - free illustrated sex stories - trailer sex - free online sex games - free trailer sex - free sex video samples - free sex cam - sample sex video - free sample sex videos - sex video sample - clip sex - free sample sex video - free xxx mpeg - lesbian sex videos - free sex downloads - free audio sex stories - film sex free - video clip sex - xxx mpeg - sex trailer free - free sample videos - sex stories tamil - sample sex movie - celebrity sex - free sex web cams - sex position photo - free sex preview - sex video preview - free sex movie clip - movie clip sex - japan free sex - free xxx vids - free sex movie sample - tamil sex sites - group sex video - free sex show - video sample - video sample sex - free celebrity sex - group sex pic - vintage sex - free sample video sex - sex video trailer - sex position - tamil sex site - free sex mpeg - sex game - free full length sex movie - free sex tape - free milf videos - sex vintage - hard core xxx - free preview sex - sample video sex - free sex movie trailers - free movie - free long sex videos - oral sex photo - free group sex videos - free group sex - old woman sex - japan sex photo - long sex movie - free sex video trailer - free password sex - free sex sample video - sex thumb - free asian downloads - free audio sex - tamil nude - free tamil sex stories - sex free film - free live sex - free movie clip sex - xxx hard - free sex sample videos - sex movie - hard sex photo - sex japan - free sex position - sex photo woman - free japanese sex movie - sex clip free - free sample sex - free anal sex videos - free lesbian downloads - erotica free - photo sex - free sex games online - free interracial sex - interracial sex - free group sex video - free photo sex - sex tamil - free tamil sex - free full length videos - sex site password - free sex sample movie - free clip sex - sex photo - password sex site - free sex movie - desi sex - trailer sex free - free japan sex - free online sex game - live sex show free - free milf downloads - free porn star mpegs - sex film - sex position videos - position sex - star xxx - free sample sex movie - photo woman sex - teen movie sample - sample movie sex - free japanese sex videos - sex position picture - free sex photo - sex free preview - free milf - free clip xxx - free sex chat rooms - sex photo japan - sex free japan - free sex japan - xxx vids - free xxx clip - japanese sex free - free movie sample - free video sample sex - free erotica - sex video free sample - sample video xxx - tamil sex picture - free sex thumb - tamil sex video - sex free sample - free xxx thumb - sex game free - bride sex - free xxx sample - photo sex japan - illustrated sex - explicit sex - foot sex - long free sex movie - free erotic stories - free live sex chats - live sex cam - free sex movie clips - tamil sex movie - japan free sex movie - download film sex - film sex download - clip sex free - free anal trailer - sex video clip free - woman photo sex - free video clip sex - audio sex free - tamil sex photo
Best XXX Sites - Teen Cash - Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat - Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders - Oral Sex - Anal Sex
- Group Sex - Cum Shot - Free
Porn - Free Sex - Teen Slut - celebrity pics
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free