Searching 2928 Articles
All Questions \ Politics Questions
0
2
1
so let's bring up some memmrories: usa not signing the kyoto protocol, japanese whalers in the Antarctic, various eropean countries responsible for pollution of danube river... do you think these are condemnable as being "terrorist states"?
Submitted By: keewi sometime ago in Politics
REPORT
SEND TO FRIEND
0
1

Not that harsh a term

I think terrosrism is a very harsh term to use and creates quite a different picture when you say..the following is a terrorist state. It is not that I deny your strong feeling though...something hard as a punishment for not abiding by theenvironment rules should be made globally...but not that particular term. Maybe an anti-environment state or something.
Comments:
how about "necronophile states" as they often thrive upon the macrocosm that they have extirpated.
New Comment:
Submitted By: atula sometime ago
REPORT
.
0
0

I don't think

that terrorists would be the approprate term for these countries. Perhaps criminally negligent would be a better term for them.
New Comment:
Submitted By: chris1203 sometime ago
REPORT
.
What's 4+3?


| All Contents Copyright © 2009