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"?
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:
.
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:
.
