The War On Terrorism

[sparhawk]

You said, and I agree that Iraq was not about 9-11. However, and this is a pretty big one, it has become a rally point for every extremist that has it in for the US. No matter what the reasons were for invading, it is inextricably tied to terrorism now by the very same lies and spin that tried to convice us in the first place. We may not believe a single reason that GWB&Co. gave out, but perception on the ground there is different. The US giving up now would be considered a solid victory for Muslim extremists and vindication for any future acts.

 

“Believe me, if we didn't come here those Commies would be walking up main street New York"

That’s what that statement sounds to me like.

It’s a fictional thing said by a US Major in the Korean war.

 

Is that what you think? That the extremists would have invaded us if we had left their people alone. If we had actually not supported corrupt governments, and had not kill innocents. The people who are suicide bombers are the ones that have nothing to lose. People with families, a job, a good area, peace and good government are not the ones who think one day "I will kill many of those who have hurt us". The people who do however are the ones who have been treated badly, betrayed, have no family, no job, has been listening to hate propaganda and who are exiled. Those are the ones who will hurt us.

 

Why did we have to use the spear of brute force? Or a better analogy would be blood letting. Its when a doctor cuts you to try to get out "Bad" blood. Is that what we should have done? Gone to Iraq (Say he a person) and started cutting him up to help him? He bleeds from doctor US, and all of the body hurts and feels the pain. Not just the cut. Not only does the bad blood go out, but so does the innocent blood. Right now, Doctor US is creating smaller cuts, and bandaging the previous ones. If we go, no more bandages and Iraq will bleed way too much. So, the "good" Doctor stays and continues his painful treatment.

 

Why not use less painful medicine? Offer the person medicine. If doctor US had supported the UN, perhaps we would not have had all the bloodshed. Or perhaps he should have asked his fellow doctors at NATO for proper treatment. Then, maybe US would not give them a bad name. Or maybe they should have talked more with Iraq, and come up with a better solution.

 

Perhaps, we should not have given Iraq a Disease.

Edited May 24, 2006 by sparhawk

[crusadingknight]

It no longer matters if the US leaves Iraq or stays. This conflict is going to go on for a while to come. The choice has become fight it over there and reduce the chance of it coming home, or let the 'bad guys' take the offensive and hit us where we are most vulnerable, whenever they want. It has become a question of finishing what was started and maybe making something better out of the region, or abandoning them before they can really get on their feet.

Let me try to explain terrorism - it is most effective when it involves hitting civilians, in the home country. What you have in Iraq are suicide bombers, who are technically enemy guerilla combatants. There is absolutely no correlation, especially since they are combatants who have been created in large part due to the destabilization of their country. Believe me, if they were terrorists, and had the money and resources, they'd be attacking the citizens of your country, who they could kill scores at a time, rather than bothering with killing themselves to injure a few soldiers.

[Dent]

 

Is that what you think? That the extremists would have invaded us if we had left their people alone. If we had actually not supported corrupt governments, and had not kill innocents. The people who are suicide bombers are the ones that have nothing to lose. People with families, a job, a good area, peace and good government are not the ones who think one day "I will kill many of those who have hurt us". The people who do however are the ones who have been treated badly, betrayed, have no family, no job, has been listening to hate propaganda and who are exiled. Those are the ones who will hurt us.

 

Just like Bin Laden, the poor, homeless downtrodden multi billionaire? And I was not talking invasion, I was talking attack. The conflict is operating from two very different and polar paradigms. Think about what you are going to reply before making a kneejerk response.

 

Why not use less painful medicine? Offer the person medicine. If doctor US had supported the UN, perhaps we would not have had all the bloodshed. Or perhaps he should have asked his fellow doctors at NATO for proper treatment. Then, maybe US would not give them a bad name. Or maybe they should have talked more with Iraq, and come up with a better solution.

 

Perhaps, we should not have given Iraq a Disease.

And like I said, it doesn't matter what might have been. It has happened and wailing about it is not going to make it better. Trying to convince me that the invasion was a bad move is like telling me water is wet. I said as much above. Re-read the damned post!

 

It no longer matters if the US leaves Iraq or stays. This conflict is going to go on for a while to come. The choice has become fight it over there and reduce the chance of it coming home, or let the 'bad guys' take the offensive and hit us where we are most vulnerable, whenever they want. It has become a question of finishing what was started and maybe making something better out of the region, or abandoning them before they can really get on their feet.

Let me try to explain terrorism - it is most effective when it involves hitting civilians, in the home country. What you have in Iraq are suicide bombers, who are technically enemy guerilla combatants. There is absolutely no correlation, especially since they are combatants who have been created in large part due to the destabilization of their country. Believe me, if they were terrorists, and had the money and resources, they'd be attacking the citizens of your country, who they could kill scores at a time, rather than bothering with killing themselves to injure a few soldiers.

 

Ok, not a bad point, and I can see why you brought it up. Yes, most of the combattants in Iraq and Afghanistan can be classified as guerrilla. One of the more effective methods of guerilla is the suicide attack, simply because it is so hard to counter. Don't forget that the largest and tactically most effective acts of terrorism have been via suicide, and happened outside of a military theatre of operations. Also, most 'terror' organisations do not create themselves as such. They consider themselves guerrillas. Your perspective on this totally discounts theirs, and so fails to understand at least half of what is going on. The lines between the two have blurred far enough that they become the same thing depending only on perspective.

[crusadingknight]

Ok, not a bad point, and I can see why you brought it up. Yes, most of the combattants in Iraq and Afghanistan can be classified as guerrilla. One of the more effective methods of guerilla is the suicide attack, simply because it is so hard to counter. Don't forget that the largest and tactically most effective acts of terrorism have been via suicide, and happened outside of a military theatre of operations. Also, most 'terror' organisations do not create themselves as such. They consider themselves guerrillas. Your perspective on this totally discounts theirs, and so fails to understand at least half of what is going on. The lines between the two have blurred far enough that they become the same thing depending only on perspective.

You completely overlooked my point. Terrorism will be more effective against the civilian population of the homeland, not against soldiers. What I'm trying to say is that, if they had the resources to attack the US, they'd do it, regardless of a foreign presence in Iraq or not. Being there stops nothing.

[Dent]

I wouldn't mind hearing your reasoning on that. I disagree so completely that I dont even know where you are coming from.

 

Mind explaining further?

[Guest ohmygod]

my 2 gc

 

Somebody’s terrorist is one else’s freedom fighter.

Freedom comes to those who are willing to fight for it.

Truth is the first casualty of war.

 

I feel sorry for the people who are considered as acceptable collateral damage.

[Vanyel]

Terrorists are for sure far from being freedom fighter.

Dalaj Lama is freedom fighter - he is not terrorist, though.

 

I'm sick with people claiming to be freedom fighters and using terror as the mean. I'm sick with people that excuse killing innocents with "we need to get the world attention" or "they deserved it, because we are fighting for our freedom" or "our freedom is worth these victims". It's just bullshit.

[Arnieman]

It is unfortunate that people have to die - always.

 

For Iraq - what we knew back then, when we went in, we (general populace) were duped - I will admit that the WMDs that we were "shown" were conclusively "there" simply haven't been found, and in many cases, OUR experts looking at the "evidence" are laughing. However, on the other hand - why did it take 12 years and 14 UN resolutions before any results were proven? Why were UN inspectors being stone-walled at every shot? I mean, if you tell me you're coming to my house to see if you can find something I'm not supposed to have, and I have 15 houses, sure, why wouldn't I move it to another place so you don't find it here?

 

Did Iraq ever have WMDs? Well, we gave them some, in a different time. Sure, we made a mistake. We may have made another mistake. Many lives have paid for it in any case, which is tragic.

 

But, we can cry about the past mistakes, or we can try to fix it now. I mean, sure, you hear on the news every day about how US soldiers came under attack - many times, there's more death. If you look at about any city in the nation, there's likely been at least one flag-draped casket coming home. I know even more, there is a family grieving here, they don't even know if their son is dead or not, for more than 2 years now...

 

Then, you can take into account the tragedies of Abu Ghraib, and the stories of US soldiers "murdering" innocent Iraqis, and yeah, it sounds bad. What about on the other side, though? How much have you heard the Iraqis who want us there, because at least they can trust us? The ones that fear there own soldiers and police, because many times, the Iraqi army is a death squad devoted to some Iraqi leader with an agenda to kill their fellow Iraqis?

 

All in all, are we truly the problem now, or are we working on the solution? If we leave now, we do the same thing we've done many times - start a full-scale civil war, and back off. True hotbed for terrorism then.

 

Should GWB be tried as a criminal? Only it you are willing to start trials for the rest of the living presidents - they *never* did anything wrong! Then again, even if it could be proven fact that he committed a crime (like Clinton admitting to perjury on American TV), it'd never even be pursued...

 

I remember a teacher I had in high school, back in early 2000, when we were going over the American Revolution - anyone ever hear of a group known as the Sons of Liberty? My teacher mentioned that we may revere them as patriots, but had the British won, they would have been hung as traitors, and we'd look back on them as terrorists. Think about that one...

 

Entropy: Without touching too much on religion, I have to say this - I believe in hell as well; I also believe in heaven. I also believe in this: There is none righteous; NO, NOT ONE. I do not believe that condemnation rests on whether you support a war or not.

[Guest ohmygod]

Terrorists are for sure far from being freedom fighter.

 

 

 

I wonder what the iraq people think of the coalition forces

[rasberrybeard]

Terrorists are for sure far from being freedom fighter.

 

 

 

I wonder what the iraq people think of the coalition forces

 

None of them love us, but I promise you despite what the media may say, not all of them hate us either. We have provided more medical and schooling resources to them then most have ever had in their lives. While this doesn't rectify the ruined economy and high crime rates, it is one of the things you wont hear from the media.

 

Then, you can take into account the tragedies of Abu Ghraib, and the stories of US soldiers "murdering" innocent Iraqis, and yeah, it sounds bad. What about on the other side, though? How much have you heard the Iraqis who want us there, because at least they can trust us? The ones that fear there own soldiers and police, because many times, the Iraqi army is a death squad devoted to some Iraqi leader with an agenda to kill their fellow Iraqis?

 

No nation in the world treats their EPW's more humanely than the united states. In fact, if one of our EPW's are more harshly wounded than a fellow soldier, that EPW MUST recieve attention BEFORE you can even begin paperwork on the soldier. Despite the fact that Abu Ghraib barely consisted of any US soldiers at all, most of the soldiers involved were coalition forces. I agree that there is less media focus on who actually wants us to stay in Iraq, that is because drama is a better emotional tool to get ratings with.

[Daxon]

Terrorists are for sure far from being freedom fighter.

Dalaj Lama is freedom fighter - he is not terrorist, though.

 

I'm sick with people claiming to be freedom fighters and using terror as the mean. I'm sick with people that excuse killing innocents with "we need to get the world attention" or "they deserved it, because we are fighting for our freedom" or "our freedom is worth these victims". It's just bullshit.

 

Amen.

[sparhawk]

Terrorism-the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological

-US army handbook

 

Based on that, we could say that every country uses Terrorism.

 

We pay taxes so the government can do all the dirty things that I don't want to know about".

Zizek

 

I agree with Dent, we cannot leave Iraq. I think that more should be done there, helping to make life peaceful. But, I think that America shouldn't bomb the innocents and should stop the things that they do wrong. Ie: Bad treatment in jails, shooting people at checkpoints.

 

Terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem."

George Lakoff

We cannot truly believe that the terrorists are that much of a threat to NATO, UN and most countries. We cannot fight them well, it is like trying to kill a few ants in a ant hill with a grenade.

 

Actions which deliberately target noncombatants, with the intent to inspire widespread fear, are terrorist by definition

 

The invasion of Iraq, however, was not seen as related to the "War on Terrorism" in most of the world

 

 

I'm sick with people claiming to be freedom fighters and using terror as the mean. I'm sick with people that excuse killing innocents with "we need to get the world attention" or "they deserved it, because we are fighting for our freedom" or "our freedom is worth these victims". It's just bullshit.

 

Best point here. I agree fully.

Edited May 25, 2006 by sparhawk

[kat]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor did it threat to attack US, nor did they kill ANY American citizen ever (except in the two wars). Get your fucking facts right before spreading bullshit around, k? God, if there is a hell, I am sure all of you will spend quite a while in ther,e because you are as responsible as Bush of the massacre that took place in Iraq.

 

 

ok, erm, wait..what??

I'm am so lost...

do you just mean the certain select people? cuz wasn't it sorta their fault that the war started and all...?

please explain this to me....

and about them not killing an american citizen, what about those journalists, and US soldiers that were either held captive and killed, or just like blown up?

 

-Confused

[Entropy]

and about them not killing an american citizen, what about those journalists, and US soldiers that were either held captive and killed, or just like blown up?

 

-Confused

 

They were killed AFTER the war was started, and I can't say I feel very bad for the soldiers that were killed. They had illegally invaded a sovereign country, what the fuck did they expect? To be met with flowers?

If China would invade the US, would you feel bad for the Cinese soldiers that die in the process?

 

And anyway, I could never understand the American corrupted view of "patriotism". A patriot is someone who wants the good of his country. I believe that if those trillion dollars spent in Iraq, and on the military were diverted in education, medical research and social programs, rather than in weapons of mass distruction, both the US and the world would have been much better of.

[midevilconevi17]

In this time of war, we are grateful that our leader is isnt the son of a powerful politicican, from a wealthy oil company, who is suppourted by FALSE religous fundementalitys, Is asscioated with cladstine organisations, Has NO respect for the Electrical prossecs,Bombs civilians, and uses War to deny people of their civil rights.

 

 

Im Smarter than your average........

-Mid

Edited May 26, 2006 by midevilconevi17

[skodarap]

Has NO respect for the Electrical prossecs

(Offtopic) No offence, but, what has electricity do with this? (or is it just my rather poor understanding of english)

Edited May 26, 2006 by skodarap

[neildog]

Has NO respect for the Electrical prossecs

(Offtopic) No offence, but, what has electricity do with this? (or is it just my rather poor understanding of english)

 

I believe he meant electorial processes... i.e How Democracy is supposed to work.

[ttlanhil]

I can't say I feel very bad for the soldiers that were killed. They had illegally invaded a sovereign country, what the fuck did they expect? To be met with flowers?

that's just wrong. don't blame them for that, it's the american, et al, governments that're to blame. the governments should be condemned at the same time that the troops are, if not praised, at least accepted and not hated (eg: vietnam soldiers).

ignoring the whack jobs that want to join the military to kill people (and hence are bad candidates for being in the military, so hopefully don't get in), they have good reasons. serve the country, protect it, etc. for that, they should be thanked.

and it's not like they have a lot of choice about what they're ordered to do... if they disagree and don't do their job, they can be arrested. locked up, or, in severe enough cases (where the govt can support a treason charge) possibly be killed. and more than that, the military needs to follow orders... what if a real situation comes up and the military is used to debating or not following orders? there's good reason why orders need to be obeyed when given. if there's time or reason to think they're unlawful orders they can be questioned... but usually followed

 

however... those who give the orders to do the Wrong Thing (such as authorising human rights abuse, etc) should of course be accountable... soldiers may protest it, but they shouldn't be blamed for following any lawful order (participating in human rights abuse may be something they can argue as an unlawful order though. if it's something like that, they may have a case to not follow orders)

[Roja]

In the words of Michael Moore, "They go, so that we don't have to."

 

I agree with ttlanhil about the soldiers. Some more deserve their fate, but not everyone.

[Entropy]

however... those who give the orders to do the Wrong Thing (such as authorising human rights abuse, etc) should of course be accountable... soldiers may protest it, but they shouldn't be blamed for following any lawful order (participating in human rights abuse may be something they can argue as an unlawful order though. if it's something like that, they may have a case to not follow orders)

 

Is it a legal order to invade a soverieign country that you are at peace with? Do you think this is a legal order? Because if you believe that, then please apply the same standards to the UAE soldiers that died during 9/11.

But no, the great American nation has two kind of standards:

If it is our soldiers, everything is acceptable, and they are bringing freedom and democracy.

If it is any other army that bohers us, they are terrorists.

How about during the indepedence war, right here, in the US? Why were the American soldiers being called patriots, and not terrorists, as they actually were?

[ttlanhil]

Is it a legal order to invade a soverieign country that you are at peace with? Do you think this is a legal order?

what's legal under international law (or even american law, which bush's administration and military has broken) is different from what constitutes a lawful military order

[Entropy]

Is it a legal order to invade a soverieign country that you are at peace with? Do you think this is a legal order?

what's legal under international law (or even american law, which bush's administration and military has broken) is different from what constitutes a lawful military order

 

Well, then I am sure the soldiers that died in the 9/11 attacks should also be considered heroes, and not terrorists, right?

[ttlanhil]

Well, then I am sure the soldiers that died in the 9/11 attacks should also be considered heroes, and not terrorists, right?

don't be naive, of course they are (considered heroes, that is).

at least by some people.

it's all about your point of view. if it's people on your side, they can be heroes or freedom fighters. if they're on the other side, they're terrorists.

 

personally... I think the govermental heads involved should be tried for war crimes (not necessarily convicted, but tried, fairly. it's possible there may be reasons they don't tell the world that might justify what's going on... I doubt it, but let them argue their case)

those who are strongly in support of war for commercial reasons need to be thoroughly investigated, and some of them probably brought to trial (there's something wrong when someone profits from other peoples' suffering)

any others strongly in support of war should be counselled or re-educated... it's a primitive approach that has no place in modern society. violence should not be an acceptable answer

the soldiers who volunteered to risk their lives to protect people, apart from those who are responsible for crimes against humanity, should be held up as heroes for what they do (and that counts on all sides)

those soldiers who didn't maintain proper standards, abusing other people, etc, should be tried for their crimes

those people who are active in organising, demonstrating, and (within the political and legal systems) fighting the bad laws of the governments should also be held up as heroes (eg the invasions of privacy being allowed under the new laws)

and for america in particular(up until here it's been general... more america than other places on some points, but still general), they need to reduce firearms that civilians can have (it's not just a criminal issue, it gives people the wrong idea). the right to bear arms is provided so that militia can form against the government should they ever become dictatorial. it has and they haven't. that right wasn't there for other reasons. no doubt some people will argue this, but that's been done in another thread a while back (to recap: I said that what's current in australia is reasonable... people may have non-automatic firearms, with limitations on magazine size, once they're licensed. that means police check (no guns for criminals) and education (not sure if that's a weekend or a week or what)... which isn't just safety, but also on cleaning, storing (legally and safely), etc... things that people really do need to know. people in primary industries or who shoot competatively are the main ones to carry firearms. for the cases where there's a good reason to have a firearm... they still can. which was generally accepted as reasonable by the pro-firearms posters) so there's not really a need for people to argue that again

 

not that I expect it to happen.

 

ed: oh yes. and stupidity should no longer be a good thing (eg: the lawsuits from morons against big companies).

end acceptance of stupidity and the world becomes a better place (note: stupidity as in people who are too lazy to think, who make 'common sense' an oxymoron. as opposed to people who actually suffer from mental retardation. those of whom I've met were generally nice)

Edited May 26, 2006 by ttlanhil

[Entropy]

I agree with the above.

It is all a matter of perspective. I try to keep an open mind, and not take sides.

All this being said, I believe it is admirable to voluntarly join the army and go to defend your country, but I don't think it's very admirable when you participate in war crimes, or even in illegal invasions. And I am not talking about the soldiers here, but about the generals. How the hell did they even accept such an illegal order?

[Gwain]

Terrorists are for sure far from being freedom fighter.

Dalaj Lama is freedom fighter - he is not terrorist, though.

 

I'm sick with people claiming to be freedom fighters and using terror as the mean. I'm sick with people that excuse killing innocents with "we need to get the world attention" or "they deserved it, because we are fighting for our freedom" or "our freedom is worth these victims". It's just bullshit.

 

Amen.

 

If you apply this to both sides then i could agree.

 

On the other hand, if the nazis would have won WW2 then the partisans now would be considered terrorists, not freedom fighters, so what defines 'Terrorism' and 'fighting for freedom' is who wins the wars.

 

Worst thing of the american foreign politics is that your government just assumes to be always right and acts following this logic.