Who are the real terrorists?

[ginnyfizz]

I agree that it's oil, but not that the fact "Iran is selling oil in non US dollars and the US can't allow it." It's more the fact that Iran is strategically placed to disrupt oil supplies from the entire Middle East...if it didn't have the US and allies surrounding it.

[JimboUK]

I agree that it's oil, but not that the fact "Iran is selling oil in non US dollars and the US can't allow it." It's more the fact that Iran is strategically placed to disrupt oil supplies from the entire Middle East...if it didn't have the US and allies surrounding it.

 

 

I think it's a combination of things now. There's the potential nuclear threat, oil, the danger of disruption to the supply lines and trading oil in Euros wouldn't have gone down well in the U.S. It's not like Iran have any friends in the region either, judging by those leaked cables their neighbours want to see the back of the Iranian regime as well. I honestly think it's only a matter of time before an excuse is found to clobber Iran.

[Keanumoreira]

That being said, I am calling every single person who supports the war right now a terrorist. Just because your on the side of the "good guys" doesn't mean you really are a good guy. I am not saying the other terrorist groups are not bad, but the USA is the biggest terrorist group in the world now.

Discuss?

 

Discuss? This polemic cries out for factual refutation, screams an invitation for a flame war, to say that it is insulting is an understatement.

 

We are killing innocent civilians in the middle east for political and ideological reasons. We use mass media to make people fear a EXTREMELY small group of radicals that on the other side of the world. That is the exact definition of terrorism.

 

What do you mean WE?

 

I'm not part of the goverment, I'm not working for the goverment, and I sure as hell don't support our goverment. I love America but there is no way I support the people in charge. The american goverment and the people are as different as sand and mud. I'm not saying that's what you meant but to make things clear, I'm not part of this "we" who are "Terrorists of the world." If anything, I support those who are attempting to stop America from stealing lands and at the same, still trying to preserve our lives.

 

Edit: My bad, I didn't read the post following that. But I'd still like to make that point clear to everyone.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Keanumoreira

[grannywils]

Marharth said: (only partial quote here, with some responses from me)

 

The reasons we invaded Afghanistan might be justified by some, I never liked the war but ill keep going.

1. The Taliban WAS helping Al Queda.

 

That's all I can think of for that... Now does this mean we should go attack them just because we got bombed? The point of terrorism is to spread fear through violence. The people who bombed us are WINNING by being in a war with us. We did what they wanted us to do, be afraid and attack back. To be afraid and take away

freedom and rights...

 

"Just because we got bombed" is somewhat diminishing a seriously tragic event on our shores. However, in spite of that, I do not believe that taking on a war with Afghanistan has ever done anyone any good. And suspect it will have the same results for us

 

.

Now why did we invade Iraq? This is a much more serious issue...

1. Bush claimed they were making weapons of mass destruction, or already had them. It was proven they were not even CONSIDERING making them.

"My take on this" - "Surprise, Surprise" al la Gomer Pyle

 

 

2. Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was working with Al Queda, which is 100 percent false.

"See Comment Above"

 

 

3. To "free" the people from the rule of Saddam Hussein. This IS a valid reason, but its not a imperfect nations job to free other countries. If the USA was close to perfect I would fully support the act of nation building and non violent take overs.

Not our job, since there are many other nations out there that could use our help. Why this one, pray tell?

 

 

4. To gather intelligence on terrorist groups. This is also a false reason, since there were no major terrorists groups in Iraq strongly associated with Al Qeuda.

The real answer to both of the above things is the following...

1. Help military contractors get richer.

Assumption, with which I whole-heartedly agree

2. Make money off foreign oil.

Assumption, with which I whole-heartedly agree

3. Help Israel wipe out Iraq for not wanting to work with them.

Not sure where this assumption came from.

 

 

 

Aurielius said (full quote with partial response - no flaming)

Discuss? This polemic cries out for factual refutation, screams an invitation for a flame war, to say that it is insulting is an understatement

"I do not believe that Marharth is intending to insult. However, I do not know her, so I will leave it at that. I believe she is expressing some opinions that I have certainly seen expressed before by others."

 

 

Now some thoughts of my own. Without question this thread is in serious danger of being locked if we are not all very careful, so I intend to be.

 

The OP asked, "who are the real terrorists". She did not specify regarding any specific time or place. But we mostly seem to be discussing the current political scene. I am going to try to just discuss what I think of when I think of terrorism. First I looked up the definition of terrorism and found, naturally, that there are several. But I also learned that no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists. However, that is neither here nor there. There is lots more to be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism for those who are interested.

 

For me the true terrorists are the ones with the power and the ability and the means whether it be military, monetary or mercenary) to strike terror into the hearts of the innocent, unarmed, and under-militarized, -monitarized and -mercenaries) (I made up those last couple of words),if you will. The terrorists might be fighters, armed forces, governments, corporations, landlords, or bullies in the local play ground. My point is that anyone can be a terrorist. The word has been bandied about so much since the tragedy of September 11, 2001 that far too many of us have begun

to associate it with one single group of people and their horrific act. Just ain't so folks. Terrorism is one of the hardest enemies to fight, because it can be anywhere, and yet it has no headquarters. It has no real leader. Yes, there are certain terrorist groups, and some of them do have leaders; but they may change as quickly as they change their underwear (no comments please).

 

Anyway, I think what Marharth might have been trying to get at, and I may be totally off base here, was that in our responses to terrorism against us we need to be very mindful that we do not become terrorists ourselves.

 

That is all that I have to say for now

[WastelandAssassin]

The OP asked, "who are the real terrorists". She did not specify regarding any specific time or place. But we mostly seem to be discussing the current political scene. I am going to try to just discuss what I think of when I think of terrorism. First I looked up the definition of terrorism and found, naturally, that there are several. But I also learned that no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists. However, that is neither here nor there. There is lots more to be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism for those who are interested.

 

For me the true terrorists are the ones with the power and the ability and the means whether it be military, monetary or mercenary) to strike terror into the hearts of the innocent, unarmed, and under-militarized, -monitarized and -mercenaries) (I made up those last couple of words),if you will. The terrorists might be fighters, armed forces, governments, corporations, landlords, or bullies in the local play ground. My point is that anyone can be a terrorist. The word has been bandied about so much since the tragedy of September 11, 2001 that far too many of us have begun

to associate it with one single group of people and their horrific act. Just ain't so folks. Terrorism is one of the hardest enemies to fight, because it can be anywhere, and yet it has no headquarters. It has no real leader. Yes, there are certain terrorist groups, and some of them do have leaders; but they may change as quickly as they change their underwear (no comments please).

 

Anyway, I think what Marharth might have been trying to get at, and I may be totally off base here, was that in our responses to terrorism against us we need to be very mindful that we do not become terrorists ourselves.

 

That is all that I have to say for now

 

i don't know about the others that may read this, but i couldn't have said it better

i tried to make the same point (or at least some of it), but i have to hand it to you, you said it far better than i could have

 

i don't know what the point of Marharth was, in starting this, but i think that your opinion is 100% correct

i can't say how the world has fared in doing this (and i would assume that many will say that we have failed in this), but we should indeed strive to be better than our enemies, and never use the same brutal and destructive tactics

[RZ1029]

All of my replies in-quote, placed in color pretty much in immediate response to the topics covered.

Let me start with saying the reasons we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The reasons we invaded Afghanistan might be justified by some, I never liked the war but ill keep going.

1. The Taliban WAS helping Al Queda.

 

That's all I can think of for that... Now does this mean we should go attack them just because we got bombed?

((Uhm... yes, pretty much. That sounds like a pretty good explanation to me. Somebody shoots up my house, I'm going to put them in a body bag.)) The point of terrorism is to spread fear through violence. The people who bombed us are WINNING by being in a war with us. We did what they wanted us to do, be afraid and attack back. To be afraid and take away freedom and rights...

((Not seeing the point here, there's a difference between retaliation and fear.))

 

Now why did we invade Iraq? This is a much more serious issue...

1. Bush claimed they were making weapons of mass destruction, or already had them. It was proven they were not even CONSIDERING making them.

((Israel and the US had reason to believe there was the possibility of WMDs within the country. I can't cite sources, as most of those are still considered classified and likely still in play as far as military operations an politics go.))

 

2. Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was working with Al Queda, which is 100 percent false.

((Uhm... actually, they believed that they were in contact and MIGHT have been working together. We now know the first half is true, and the second half was not.))

 

3. To "free" the people from the rule of Saddam Hussein. This IS a valid reason, but its not a imperfect nations job to free other countries. If the USA was close to perfect I would fully support the act of nation building and non violent take overs.

((Hmm... I'm going to pull out the Constitution real quick.... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.." I'll call that justifiable.))

 

4. To gather intelligence on terrorist groups. This is also a false reason, since there were no major terrorists groups in Iraq strongly associated with Al Qeuda.

((STRONGLY associated. Strong associations are obvious, thus not requiring intelligence. It's the ones that AREN'T obvious that we need to know about BEFORE they decided to ah... I don't know... fly planes into four different buildings or something like that?))

 

The real answer to both of the above things is the following...

1. Help military contractors get richer.

2. Make money off foreign oil.

3. Help Israel wipe out Iraq for not wanting to work with them.

(( 1) Nice side-effect, and also an entirely different debate. I've got an issue with the military contracts anyways.

2) IF we're there to make money off foreign oil: 1) Where's the money? 2) Where's the oil?

3) Israel could probably do that on their own. They've been uber-funded by us for the so long, they've got extremely competent and well-armed military forces that would probably be more than capable of doing so.))

<snip>

We invaded the countries in attempt to wipe out terrorism, what have we really done? The people of Afghanistan DO NOT want our help anymore. They are happy as they are now, and they are siding with the Taliban to get us out!

((Uhm... actually, MOST of them like us there. Have you spoken to any soldiers who've actually been there, or do you just pick things up on the news? I'm friends with several deployed soldiers, and even during house-to-house searches, they were often offered drinks, asked to come in and cool off, and treated like heroes in many cases. Obviously there are people who don't want them there, but that's going to happen everywhere.))

 

Think about that for a second, innocent people are siding with the Taliban, simply to get us out of their country. Yet we still insist we are helping them?

((I think that kind of disqualifies them as innocent. However, again, still a minority.))

We kill innocent people everyday because of the war, and people still support the wars?

((They are called casualties of war, and anyone who hears the word war and doesn't expect some, and accept some, is very naive. It is regrettable, it is something to mourn, but it happens.))

 

That being said, I am calling every single person who supports the war right now a terrorist. Just because your on the side of the "good guys" doesn't mean you really are a good guy. I am not saying the other terrorist groups are not bad, but the USA is the biggest terrorist group in the world now.

((Terrorist, eh? Alright, then I'm going to call traitor. Someone willing to dismiss their government as a terrorist organization is, by definition, a traitor. Siding with the good guys DOES make you a good guy, but the 'good guy' is a relative point of view.))

 

Discuss?

((Discussed.))

I would also like to add that the above statements are a mixture of facts and opinion, which I believe should be easy enough to tell apart. Also, in the opinions stated, I am highly biased, but will be more than happy to agree to disagree with anyone who has an idea counter to mine. I am also happy to share my opinion with them, assuming they remain civil, and I shall do likewise. And should I ever be found hypocritical to these words, please feel free to call me out on them. What I say may be taken as blunt, but I mean nothing offensive towards anyone.

Edited January 24, 2011 by RZ1029

[ginnyfizz]

Well said, RZ1029.

 

One of the worst aspects of "calling everyone that supports the war right now a terrorist" is that it is insulting to the troops who are out there in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who are doing their DUTY by waging that war, who have been ordered in there. Terrorists with Victoria Crosses...I think not.

 

I totally take your point grannywils, and very well said, but very often there comes a point where a war may be felt to be inevitable. It is not always possible to talk around things, as the 1930's proved. Tragically, non-combatants do get caught up in wars, and it IS naive to assume that there will be no casualties. War should certainly be the last resort, but when you get to that point...

 

I am afraid that last statement in the OP has really spoilt Marharth's argument, it is overly sweeping and does great injustice to the nation of the USA.

[grannywils]

Well said, RZ1029.

 

One of the worst aspects of "calling everyone that supports the war right now a terrorist" is that it is insulting to the troops who are out there in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who are doing their DUTY by waging that war, who have been ordered in there. Terrorists with Victoria Crosses...I think not.

 

I totally take your point grannywils, and very well said, but very often there comes a point where a war may be felt to be inevitable. It is not always possible to talk around things, as the 1930's proved. Tragically, non-combatants do get caught up in wars, and it IS naive to assume that there will be no casualties. War should certainly be the last resort, but when you get to that point...

 

I am afraid that last statement in the OP has really spoilt Marharth's argument, it is overly sweeping and does great injustice to the nation of the USA.

 

Ginny, I will agree with you on at least one point (possibly others); that being that Marharth's last statement was in my opinion way out of bounds, oversweeping and unnecessary from the standpoint of encouraging a good debate. I personally whole-heartedly disagree with her with respect to that statement (just fyi).

 

 

Sorry Marharth, just realized that you are a he and not a she. I apologize for the misunderstanding in my earlier post.

[Balagor]

When I was young (many years ago) we had Rohte Armé, Brigate Rosso, Bader Meinhoff, IRA and Carlos.

They were all terrorists. They fought for something, but they were terrorists by that simple reason they killed innoncents.

Supermarkets, railroads, planes, stations and airports were there goals.

It was both religious and political. IRA was an example of that.

 

A coin has 2 sides. Your enemy is your enemys friend. A terrorist is at the same time a freedom fighter.

For me a terrorists who only has the guts to kill innoncents in an airport is stil a terrorist.

However a terrorist who fight for a cause and kill his/her enemies be it soldiers or politicians who are responsable, are freedom fighters in my world.

 

When are people innoncents, and when are they parttaking in a conflict? Take Hizbolla for example. Israel call them terrorists.

I call them freedom fighters, since they only attack civilians who illegally live in the occupied westbank.

The civillians living there, call for Irael Army for protection, thus they become the real terrorists,

 

This brings me to the OP´s statement that the USA are the terrorists. This is not quite true. It is only the US gouvernment who is a terrorist. Not the US people.

As far as I know only a minority supports the ongoing wars of th US.

[RZ1029]

Another of my usual deals, replies in color.

 

When I was young (many years ago) we had Rohte Armé, Brigate Rosso, Bader Meinhoff, IRA and Carlos.

They were all terrorists. They fought for something, but they were terrorists by that simple reason they killed innocents.

Supermarkets, railroads, planes, stations and airports were there goals.

It was both religious and political. IRA was an example of that.

*cough* Uhm... yes... because the World Trade Centers were totally military targets... yep. Can't deny the Pentagon and the White House aren't, though.

 

A coin has 2 sides. Your enemy is your enemy's friend. A terrorist is at the same time a freedom fighter.

For me a terrorists who only has the guts to kill innocents in an airport is still a terrorist.

However a terrorist who fight for a cause and kill his/her enemies be it soldiers or politicians who are responsible, are freedom fighters in my world.

Alright... a little disconcerting in my book, but I'll let that slide. My question is, what about when your enemy ARE the innocent civilians?

 

When are people innocents, and when are they partaking in a conflict? Take Hezbollah for example. Israel call them terrorists.

I call them freedom fighters, since they only attack civilians who illegally live in the occupied West Bank.

The civilians living there, call for Israel Army for protection, thus they become the real terrorists,

So... they're terrorists for calling for aid from an army that has the right to that land to begin with? The West Bank was claimed by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967, if I remember correctly. They were never annexed, but it was established as a spoil of war and an Israel possession. Much the way the US used to own several territories and yet they had little to no rights.

 

This brings me to the OP´s statement that the USA are the terrorists. This is not quite true. It is only the US government who is a terrorist. Not the US people.

The US government is terrorist for what, exactly? Retaliating for an attack made on our soil, against a foreign power? Assuming that we would have never gotten any cooperation from Saddam Hussein, which it's pretty clear we didn't, I doubt we're about to be like... 'Oh well, guess they just get away!'. Now if they did that, you can feel free to mark me as a terrorist, because there's some sh** I'm about to go fix.

 

As far as I know only a minority supports the ongoing wars of the US.

Ehh... wrong. From Gallup:

 

In general, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq -- [ROTATED: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, (or) very badly]?

2010 Jul 8-11: Very Well: 5% Moderately Well: 45% Moderately Bad: 38% Very Badly: 10% No Opinion: 2%

I'm no math whiz, but 50% > 48%. Not by much, but it's still a majority.

Also... no offense guys... but can ya please spell check? I've noticed it in a few different posts now, and it drives me a little nuts.

Edited January 25, 2011 by RZ1029