It's a bit shortsighted to think that the concept of total war is a modern one. Just look at the Mongols for instance. Many were the times that they would slaughter everyone after a city they were laying siege against capitulated.

i wasn't proposing that total war was non-existent before modern times, simply that the civil war was the first time (or one of the first times) it had appeared since the advent of modernity.

terrorists hide

HAHAHAHAHAHA...clever!

I was referring to the modern, western concept of "civilized" war.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...rclown/061.jpg

Nope. It's only KG.

Big Ticket > Big Ben

There are *supposed* to be rules to war, but it's useless if no one follows em. Like I said, the losing side will do anything they can to fight back. *Anything*. It's not like the USA vs England... it's almost always someone who can't fight back.

If a military force storms through your country and all you have to fight back with is stuff that's against the geneva convention, then what, are you just gonna sit back? Highly doubt it.

If that means shooting an enemy in the face with a shotgun, so be it.

You're tellin me that if a soldier was held hostage and the only way out was to shoot one of em with a shotgun, that would be illegal?

[edit]
But anyway, back to the car bomb stuff... I don't even think there IS an army there now, so by definition, isn't everyone fighting back an illegal combatant? How do you tell one from another? In any case, the people who fight back in a war zone that AREN'T soldiers are not terrorists ;)

How many rings he got?

Doesn't seem to be in the Geneva conventions, but rather in the CCW, which the US didn't seem to ratify fully, b/c of landmines and shotguns, as well as a few other weapons programs.

http://www.lawofwar.org/Hostilities....onal%20Weapons
http://www.ccwtreaty.com/statements.html

Anyhow. In chosing to engage an enemy, you take responsbility for what happens. Yeah, it sucks when they hide among civilians. But you did know that was going to happen. Yeah, it sucks when they shelter in shrines, or don't wear regular uniforms. But you knew they were going to. i'm not so impressed by the arguements that blame US inflicted casualties on to the militants. yeah, they're stupid to fight US forces. but we'd be smoking crack to think they wouldn't. it's called nationalism...

"I wouldn't like being occupied"

-Dubya

Engaging an enemy is a horrible reality. Our soldiers had no say in us going to war. They don't deserve to die just as much as the Iraqi nationalists don't deserve to die. Our soldiers are not responsable for what happens with the militant Iraqi soldiers/civilians that choose to use illegal (whether fair or not) methods to try and kill them. The responsibility of the soldiers is simply to follow all legal orders. Yes, these terrible acts were considered a likelyhood from the get-go. That does not mean we are responsable for their actions. We are responsible for our actions, and they are responsible for theirs. If Iraq had signed any rules of engagement or rules of war treaties before this all began, any of these militant forces or people who break those treaties will be guilty of war crimes. It is irrelevant whether it was a last resort or not.
Nationalism is not a get out of jail free card. It is just a reason.
Who do you think is the most responsible for the civilan deaths?

most assuredly agreed... our soliders did have no say. that's why we're normally a catious, even over-catious nation. it took how long to get in to WW2, with FDR's constant coaxing? it says something very chilling about us as a nation that we've lost our instinctive total aversion to war. individual soliders who follow geneva conventions, rules of engagement, etc...are not responsible for inflicting accidental civilian deaths. Commanders, presidents...the ones who send troops in when they know that civilian death will be the reality, or who send troops in with blind defiance of reality...they bear the moral responsiblity for those deaths.

when you choose to attack an enemy that refuses to abide by standards of war...you must have a crystal clear reason to do so. it is not just enough to prove that you have "a" reason. the war you are about to engage in will be long, difficult, and filled with pointless slaughter. to choose such a course must be one of utter last resort.

not planning for winning the peace is to plan to fight an endless battle of attrition. the "catastrophic sucess" of the intial campaign showed the utter failure to plan for peace. those who chose to ignore that bear most of the responsibility for the ensuing chaos, and deaths.

martinguerre, I am really glad to see that is what you meant. I totally and whole-heartedly agree with you.

I can't just define terrorism, but I know it when I see it.

The best I can come up with is that a terrorist is a militant who attempts to coerce a population into compliance with his beliefs by attacking without warning, and without considering the difference between civilian and military targets. Strikes are usually calculated to cause maximum fear, disruption, or symbolic significance (visible, political leaders, making a big mess, etc) rather than to strategic significance (military, infrastructure.)

You can also have my cynical definition, which is a fighter whose political views do not agree with those of the media outlet who reports his actions.

I agree with your first definition, MrSeflDestruct. It's funny that not 10 years ago, the term ment something diferent.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...clown/DERF.jpg

No.
This is Fred Rogers, aka "Mr. Rogers".
R.I.P., Mr. Rogers.

Bush = terrorist
Bin Laden = terrorist

People who say Bin Laden is a terrorist and Bush is not is a one-sided fool. Bush attacked another country under lies and killed innocent civilians. Bin Laden and Al Queda kill innocent civilians. They are both terrorists.

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/...ocketwhore.gif <----- Terrorist smiley.

I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference between a war that followed 2 unprovoked wars, 300,000 dead, one assassination attempt and 10+ years of flaunted UN sanctions and an unprovoked, unannounced attack that killed almost 3000 US citizens.

I can, so that must make me a one-sided fool.

I only hope that the one side I show is my best side. :rolleyes:

The last one being over a decade ago, handled with a full-on military response and nary a peep of war since.

Now, assuredly Saddam was an evil despot. But there has only been speculation as to how many people he has had killed - there were many claims of hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves, and those claims turned out to be unsubstantiated. The last I heard, they've found a few thousand dead in mass graves. A far cry from the 400,000 that many (including Bush) have claimed.

I can only imagine how many failed and successful assassination attempts have been made on behalf of the U.S. in the past 50 years. Assuredly a lone assassination attempt is not justification of any sort for an invasion.

Flaunted by all parties on both sides.

It would certainly be a nice connection to put Saddam and Iraq involved in 9/11 - but you know it just doesn't exist.

There was no attempt to connect the events of 9/11 to Saddam or Iraq. Read the post more carefully, we're defining terrorism and who could reasonably be called a terrorist, Lebell's post made reference to Bush and Bin Laden and in no way even referenced that the Iraqi people or goverment had any connection with Osama Bin Laden.

Lebell responded to Rdr4evr as to why he views Bush as not being a terrorist. He listed a number of items, all of which were attempts at justifying the Iraq war. I simply pointed out that all of those things he listed do not justify the Iraq war - so Lebell's arguments that Bush is not a terrorist were poor arguments.

That does make you one sided because you think Bush's doing in Iraq is justified whereas Bin Ladens doing on 9/11 is terrorism.

Terrorism = the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear.

Sounds exactly like what Bush is doing. Using violence and fear against civilians in Iraq for his personal religious and political benefit.

Perspective for just who the terrorists are....

We are not the terrorists, we are doing what we can for these people, and some terrorists are making it difficult, but not as difficult as people who are so against Bush and so against American world dominance that they will be happy to cost the Iraqi's their new found freedom and lives just so they can say 'We told you so'.

Pathetic, really pathetic.

Ustwo,

Who and what is going to "cost the Iraqi's their new found freedom and lives?" Although arguments about whether or not the war is justified still rage on, I know of no one outside of the fringes who wants to just abandon the country. As Colin Powell said, we broke it so we own it. Hell, Kerry is calling for more troops to finish the job.

Actually that quote you used to somehow show that Americans or Bush are not terrorist is more pathetic then anything else. "people were lining up to get shots for their kids.", LOL!! I wonder if the Iraqi parents of all the injured, burned, paralyzed, mangled and dead children have the same "open arms" mentality towards the Americans. After all, they are only trying to help :rolleyes: .

Hye, do you guys (and gals) remember when this post was asking what a terrorist was? Wow...those were the days....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...lown/kiddy.jpg

No way.
This is Nicole Kidman, famous Australian actress.
She's a lover, not a fighter.

Are you sure thats not a bomb vest?

I hear they are making them more attractive as they convince young 'disposable' girls to do the bombings.

I am so much with you!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...erclown/3a.jpg

The Three Stooges.
They were Jewish comedians. But, Terrorists?
Moe...quite possibly. The others tended to be pacifists - with the possible exception of Shemp - who was known to have had highly aggressive tendencies.

Ok ok, any more of those "Terrorist?" photoshops and I'm moving this thread to Humor...

:D

Is he specifically targetting civilians? Is he blowing up buses and schools simply to create fear? Is Bush the terrorist for asking his military to attack a country which very well could prove to tip the balance in favour of the US in eliminating state terrorism? Is he the terrorist because in a war which required the occupation of the whole country, the military is unable to control it 100% or avoid tragic civilian losses? Is he the terrorist for the military having to deal with terrorists and insurgents shooting out of crowds of civilians, or having their bases in suburbs?

Sometimes I wonder what world of blind hatred people like yourself live in. If you believe Bush is an evil anti-Christ to your good values, then, by all means, vote against him. But do you have to bring it here? Yes, the "nary a peep of war" was a good one, despite Saddam's repeated shots on planes patrolling no fly zones, or uncooperation with the terms of his defeat in '91. Or the mass graves - "so far" the claims have been unsubstantiated. Thanks for eliminating the point because we don't know the location of every single mass grave. Or how about the "flaunted by both sides" bit - yeah, that certainly relieves Iraq of any responsiblity.

On Topic:
I believe a terrorist is quantified mainly by his willingness to attack civilians directly, and use tortuous methods for creating fear (such as beheading videos). They also make use of civilians to protect themselves, as I mentioned earlier, by hiding in crowds and crowded suburbs. I believe that insurgents would be the ones who dislike the American military for invading their country, and wish to kill them, but do not attempt to attack innocent civilians or use deadly wide-affect car bombs in public places, etc.

I don't care whether or not he is specifically targeting civilians. The fact is that upwards of 30,000 innocent people have been brutally killed under the occupation of the coalition. He terrorized a country and killed all of these poor helpless people for his personal agenda all while lying to the public. That, my friend, is terrorism. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-deaths_x.htm
The US is blowing up buses and schools. Whether to create fear of their power or not is up for debate, but once again, the fact is that innocent people are dying for nothing. There is no argument that can make something like blowing up a school "right". Although a Bush follower would like to believe that…it is not possible.
Bush is a terrorist for the reason I mentioned above. He is also a terrorist because Iraq was not a threat to America. Bush responded with terrorism here in the states by terrorizing an entire country that had nothing to do with it. Not only does that make him a terrorist, it makes him a coward, plain and simple.
Yes he is, because his military should not be there to begin with. He is responsible for all the deceased in Iraq since the occupation.
The US fires at crowds with their apaches as well. The “insurgents” are doing nothing but fighting for their country that was wrongly invaded. Do you expect them to sit and watch while America blows them to oblivion?
Sometimes I wonder why people like you blindly follow your terrorist dictator without questioning his true motives.

This is what it sounds like, when doves cry.

Just trying to answer the question, Lebell.
I guess we'll never know for sure.....
;) :icare:

Nyuk Nyuk!

I'm still shocked about Shemp. Sure I never liked him as a stooge, but who woulda thunk it?

I don't think the targeting civilians is a valid definition for terrorists. And here is why. Let's take a school yard analagy. If some 90 pound weakling is being picked on by a 200 pound bully is it not fair for the weakling to kick the bully in the balls to defend himself? Even though kicking in the balls is considered "unfair" by the bully?

My point is this the US has very few if any soft targets. We out gun and outman any other force on the planet. If we make rules that are advantageous to us we have to expect people to not follow them. It is easy for us to say "don't kill civilians" because we have the ability to do damage without targeting them. We backed a weaker force into a corner we should expect them to fight any way they can to survive. Am I justifying targeting civilians? No, but targeting them alone does not make them terrorists. We have left them with no other options.

I think a better definition of terrorist needs to include something about being unprovoked.