What is a terrorist?
 

People use this term so loosely today. What quantifies being a terrorist?

Dictionary.com says terrorism is
This is very vague. The US could easily be included by this definition.

Are Palestinians fighting for a home terrorists? Is someone who gives money to Palestinians relief agencies terrorists? Is an Iraqi fighting for his countries freedom a terrorist?

Somehow I don't think our government's current interpretation of the word is correct. It seems that our government believes terrorism is anyone who is willing to fight for something they believe in that we don't believe in.

I think we need to stop using this word so loosely because it is going to loose its meaning. Is Cat Steevens a terrorist? Obviously no. Does he have terrorist ties? Well if giving money to Palestinian relief agencies that may use the money in non-kosher ways is aiding terrorism then i guess he does. But then again doesn't the US giving money to Saddam, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, ect constitute to supporting terrorism?

Let's face it we have been very hypocritical using this word. The guys who flew planes into the towers are terrorists. The guys who took over the school of children in Chechnya are terrorists. Eric Harris and Dylan Kleabald are terrorists. But the people fighting in Iraq are not terrorists.

I think the difference, and it's a HUGE difference, is the fact that they willingly and purposefully attack civilians. The US does NOT kill women, children, and non-combattants on purpose. They go after them will all the savagery of a wolf over an infant.

Well i'd disagree with you on that statement. If you drop a large bunker buster bomb in the middle of a city you are knowingly killing civilians.

This word you speak of: "Terrorist",
you must be in error, good sir.
For, truly there are no Terrorists;
only Freedom Fighters pure.

the end.

Terrorists fight not for Freedom. :rolleyes:

a freedom fighter is a terrorist who has won as the winner writes the history

bullshit.

Evil men who do evil deeds cannot claim to fight for freedom. Those who strive for change through civil disobedience and peaceful means are the true heroes. (MLK Jr. and Ghandi, to name a couple) Aggrandizing those who attack innocents to some sort of moral high ground is short sighted and will only further their cause of evil and violence.

Men and women who do not feel powerful in their own skin use violence as a way of garnering respect and power...

I believe powerclown was being sarcastic here guys.

Terrorists primarily use fear and murder in their attempts to bring about political or social change. While some here may call the US (or the founding fathers of the US) terrorists and like to play cute word games about what constitutes a terrorist, terrorists are far from what should be considered heroes or freedom fighters. They are basically the sociopaths of the international commmunity. They ignore the civilized world's definitions of right and wrong and abide by no laws beyond the ones they create in their own minds. They show no regret or remorse about the purposeful targeting and murder or torture of civilians in order to bring about the greatest possible pain to other members of society.

short definition: a terrorist is someone who uses violence outside of LOAC to enact political or religious change.

A terrorist is one who attends Fort Benning in Georgia. Go America.

http://www.newhumanist.com/soa.html

http://www.zpub.com/notes/terror-camp.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1117-06.htm

Terrorism as a definition changes every week. There are many policies which I would personally classify as 'terrorism', regardless of the responsible government or what their media tells me to believe.

Words like terrorism can easily be exploited for political purposes. By either side.

Wars are fought to be won, and i have no doubt that our military would be killing as many civilians as possible if we thought it would win us a war in a way acceptable to the american people. As it stands now, we have "collateral damage". We avoid civilian deaths unless they can be justified in the context of a larger goal. For the "terrorists" civilian deaths are a means to the larger goal. There is only a difference of degrees between our tactics and theirs.

Terrorists are 'the bad guys' Who the bad guys are depends on where you were born, where you grew up, the colour of your skin, and the money in your wallet.

Somethings are unclear.

Some Lines are blurred.

But people who intentionally kill civilians, use civilians as human shields, and use schools and religious buildings for bases of operation are terrorists, pure and simple.

The US does not do this.

We would also be well on our way OUT of Iraq if not for the "Freedom Fighters".

On Iraq, take a look at the following, and just spend a little time *thinking* about it

http://snipurl.com/99kt

All warfare is evil, paid soldiers have killed more civillians than have been murdered by terrorists. The US, and any nation engaging in warfare DOES do this. It's just that they also have the money, and a better control of the media you get to watch.

I'm not condoning the practices of desparate and frightened people, but I am trying to point out that there is NO moral highground that we can pretend to occupy. Any attempt to do so is outright hypocracy. If you want to feel better about it, then console yourself that you're probably on the winning team, but please don't try to justify the murder of thousands of innocent people, or try to make out that it's the 'right' thing to do.

When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki did they intentionally target civilians?

Are these 2 terrorists?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdon...0C9FDC6244.jpg


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdon...337A8E57D8.jpg

It all depends on perspective.

Terrorists ARE "Freedom Fighters", but not literally, of course (well, depends on the situation).

The reasons behind the actions of "terrorists" are actually pretty legitimate. Al Qaeda hates the USA NOT because we have freedom, but because we occupy their lands that they consider holy (amongst other things). They, of course, take the most extreme interpretation of their religion and act upon it, which obviously isn't the way to go about handling things.

That shouldn't be so unusual or wrong to most people considering we have plenty of leaders who also do the same exact thing. We have plenty of leaders who make drastic unnecessary actions and misinterpret certain writings.

What about Iraqi opposition? Any time a car bomb goes off, it's a terrorist attack. Pleeeeeease..

You also need to realize that our country really isn't a role model, so if you complain about terrorists then you should also complain about the wrong actions our country currently makes or has made in the past. It's actually quite funny the amount of people who talk bad about terrorists but act like this country (USA) does no wrong. Amazing!

The word terrorist today means something VERY different than what it meant 10 years ago. Today it more or less means "anyone who doesn't agree with us or wants to kill us" aka "enemy" or "opposition". Instead of using those terms, they say "Terrorists" simply because the public is easily swayed by that word.

The word "terrorist" today could easily be applied to many things throughout history. Hitler is now a terrorist. The white men who owned slaves are terrorists. The british forces during the revolution are now terrorits (and we were terrorists to them). The pilgrims who slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land that we now live in are also terrorists. Ceasar? Terrorist. Napoleon? Yep!

I think politicians have done an amazing job in changing its meaning.

[edit]
I also hate how Bush is making impressionable teens (and in many cases, adults) even more stupid with his, "Terrorists hate us because we are free." Ask any teen why terrorists want to attack us, and they'll ramble off that bullshit line.

Couple of things.

It was an all out war.
The Japanese earned it after what they did in China.
It has been refered to as terror bombing.
It saved about 1 million Japanese lives and 300,000 American lives.

http://www.latefinal.com/archives/massgraves.jpg


http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/12/07/a04iraq1.jpg


http://september12.typepad.com/blog/...lded_skull.jpg

http://september12.typepad.com/blog/...man_crying.jpg


Its time you got a grip Rekna and a sense of proportion. Its sad when innocent people die. Its also sad that you blame the US for crimes and wish these people were back in Saddams hands. Its the only logical conclusion. If people like you were in control Iraq would still be in Saddams power and more images of the above would be occuring. I find that disgusting.

First off none of those people mentioned are considered "terrorists".

I hate to make this a partisan issue, but the left seems to honestly think that those of us on the right think everyone in the world who disagree's with "us" is a terrorist.

Al Qeada: Terrorists. They promote their idealogy and agenda by creating social choas and disorder by murdering civilians.

Iraqi Freedom Fighters: So long as they are not the ones killing their fellow country men, as long as they stick to fighting the US soldiers, they are not terrorists.

The Founding Fathers: Not Terrorists. They were in open war with a regular army, just because in some instances they decided to hide behind tree's and not volley, doesn't mean they were terrorists.

Hitler: One of histories biggest assholes, not a terrorist. He had the power, he had no real agenda he needed to push through terroristic means.

Pilgrims: Yeah probably, let's face it, some of the shit these people did would be considered terrorism. Fundamentally though, their actions were not solely political.

Slave owners: Not terrorists. They weren't pushing any idealogy, these motherfuckers were just living in a different time.

Furthermore I know all about cultural relativism, it's not a tough concept to grasp. But I swear anyone who says in this "War on Terror", people of the likes of Al Qeada or insert (islamofacist terror group) isn't evil only misunderstood, you need a serious reality check and evaluation of your personal moral fiber.

All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Ahhh, the latest Wingnut meme.....liberals wish Saddam was back in power because of their opposition to the war. Of course, this ignores the shifting justifications for said war, from WMD to terrorist links and, finally, for the good of the Iraqi people. That last excuse didn't emerge until the other excuses had blown away in the desert wind. Would the American people have okayed the invasion of Iraq if "spreading democracy" was the only justification? Probably not. Is George Bush really concerned about the spread of democracy and the plight of oppressed people world-wide? Considering the company he keeps, probably not (if you look at the flow of American foreign aid, it disproportionately flows to dictatorships and banana republics...this is true under Democrat presidents as well). Realpolitik is realpolitik. It takes a true believer not to see the light glaring through the giant holes in that argument.

Accusing "liberals" of pining for Saddam is a nice diversion from questions about the disinformation campaign that got us into the war, but it has little to do with reality.

The people of Zimbabwe and the Sudan await your intervention immediately, Ustwo


SLM3

By the definition set by the Bush administration (and the media), yes, they would be terrorists.

Don't look at me, they're the ones misusing the term ;)

:lol: haha you're insinuating that I'm saying they're misunderstood? Ah hahahahah, more of the "if you're not with us, you're against us". Classic. :thumbsup: (either that or you need to read more carefully ;))

thx for the post mojo... i would've responded similarly but lacked motivation.

one issue though, i don't think you can't discount some iraqi "freedom fighters" from the terrorist label simply if they limit their killing to U.S. soldiers. their tactics keep them in suspicion... they don't wear uniforms, they don't conform to LOAC, etc. that may not be a terrorist in the same sense that al qaeda bombing a disco would be, but it could be argued that it they still fit within a larger umbrella of what we describe as "terrorism."

Terrorists, by the nature of the United States' societal definition, are people that fight using means that are not openly accepted in large-scale warfare. Targetting civilians, non-violent institutions, and non-combatants as a way of spreading fear in order to force a political or religious opponent to submit to one's demands seems to be a reasonable definition of terrorism. The freedom fighters in Iraq seem, to me, to be only trying to escape the grip of "Big Brother" (the United States). Terrorism is defined on an individual and cultural basis, so what to us is terrorism may be to others merely their duty to their country, religion, or ideals.

As much as people on this board love the term terrorist, maybe it's safe we call the Iraqi Freedom Fighters "illegal combatants" =P

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...clown/Arm2.jpg
Noooo...just an armadillo.

hahaha, so there are now "rules" in war? Hm... so anyone not following the rules is a "terrorist"?

"Hey, that's not fair! You aren't part of the Iraqi army!! THE RULES SAY YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SO YOU ARE A TERRORIST" :lol:

I made reference to actions that would be defined as war crime; things that are defined as "standards" by many nations world wide, such as, mentioned in my above post, targetting non-combatants for the purpose of spreading terror to a degree that might force an opponent to compromise. I made no reference to "rules" of war, merely to actions that are labeled as unacceptable in a large-scale violent conflict.

Actually there have been rules in war unwritten and written for several hundred years.

Anyone who doesn't follow the rules is an illegal combatant, not necessarily a terrorist.

Actually, the whole "illegal combatant" category was created as a way to skirt the Geneeva Conventions, which I believe are the "laws of war" that you are referring to. The Bush administration argued that since these enemies were not conventional soldiers that the Geneva rules shouldn't apply, allowing them to do such things as detain suspects indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing them to seek counsel. A great example of the administration's love of freedom that irritates those terrorists so much, right?

I suppose you don't know about the Geneva Convention. This protects YOU and ever citizen of Eurpoe, U.S., or some countries in Asia and South America from chemical weapons, expanding bullets or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, projectiles from baloons, being inhumanely treated as a POW, being killed after surrendering, being attacked if sick and injured, starved by an invading country, having civilian ships from being attacked, and talking privately when captured. If those rules are ignored by members, they are guilty of war crimes and are subject to prosecution by a world court.

There are rules in war. There are countless treaties just like the Geneva Convention to make war as sane and fair as it can possibly be. BTW, I realize that war is not rational or fair, but when it happens, we need to control the destruction as much as possible. For example: Hague laws were broken by Iraqi troops who waved a white flag and then opened fire on U.S. soldiers who approached to accept the surrender. The reason it is wrong is that if one group breaks this, then those who truely surrender will not be trusted. This is not fair for those who truely want to surrender.

Terrorist, in the case as described above, is a radical person or group officially independant from any goverment, that caries out unlawful attacks in order to force their beliefs on others. That's at least my take on what it means as of now.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Cthulu...

This is not some idea made up by Bush...

The above is the summary of the Hague convention of 1899, more then a hundred years before Bush.

I disagree with the term "freedom fighters" to describe the Iraqi militias that are fighting our soldiers. Resistance fighter is a much better description. I would say a terrorist is one that kills civilians intentionally to make war as unpalatable as possible or to further their political goals. It is one thing when armies clash out in the fields far away from a civilian populace, because there it is distant and can be ignored more easily by the public. It is when the violence is happening in the streets that the horror of war becomes appearant.

And yes, there are rules to war. There have been since antiquity. Of course, different cultures will have different rules, and the rules will be broken, yet they still remain.

That's silly. If there are rules for war, then why don't they just make war illegal to begin with and avoid it all?

That's like saying, "It's perfectly okay for you guys to end the life of another person, but you must follow THIS set of rules!"

[edit]
I knew about the Geneva Convention, well... a part of it. I just thought it had to do with humane treatment of prisoners.

Unfortunately, civilian populations have been targeted ever since the advent of "total war," which became commonplace during WWI. By your definition, the Allie's firebombing of Dresden in WWII would qualify as terrorism. Battle on distant fields for from civilians probably hasn't been common since the Civil War era.

Damn, but it's hard to nail down a definition for this pesky word.

:lol: Idealism has zero place in this conversation. People are always going to go to war, so the idea of conventions and treaties is to limit the destruction as stated in numerous other places on this thread.

It's pointless either way, but okay.

[edit]
Meaning.. in a war, there's ALWAYS one side (typically the side that's losing) that will do *anything* to protect themselves. Who's gonna procecute you once your dead? In the case of Iraq.. who are you gonna prosecute when it comes to "illegal combatants" and car bombing? That and.. how do you know they aren't part of the old military? That whole thing doesn't really apply in this case.

i think total war was introduced in modern times as a part of the U.S. civil war.... just ask the citizens of atlanta. at least i'm sure that it played some part in the second half of it.

you are all forgetting the big honcho of all war law: the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

^
|

that's a good primer on it.

I was waiting for someone to mention the fire bombing of Dresden. Yes, it was terrorism. So was the fire bombing of Tokyo (which, by the way, killed more people than both atomic bomb drops). I will stand by my definition.

Stompy, whether you choose to think so or not, there are rules to war. The Geneva Convention is one of those rule sets, and is suppose to be followed by every faction that agrees with it. Under the Geneva convention it is illegal to use a shotgun to kill an enemy combatant, you cannot use .50 caliber and larger guns against enemy troops, ammunition for small arms must be "ball" ammunition, and cannot mushroom past a certain extent, etc. As I said though, no rule goes unbroken, and the rules of warfare are no exception.

I was wondering if anyone was going to call me on that...yes total war started with the Civil War, but I don't think that the large scale targeting of civilians as legitimate targets of war started until WWI.

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.

Rekna, get serious. We backed them into a corner? Killing civilians is a way to survive?

You really ought to not blulr the line between terrorist/guerilla.

I think fundamentally everyone here agrees that by definition if you take civilians away from the equation there is no terrorist. If you take away civilians you take away the sole means for achieving their goals, thus there is no point for the action.

Lousy double post

I am totally serious. You can't expect someone to fight fair when there is no fair fight to start with.

Plus there is the fact that many of you are calling all Iraqi's civilians.

Is someone waiting in line to sign up for the military a civilian? I a police officer a civilian? It is so easy for us to take the high road because the high road favors us. But don't doubt for a second if the high road didn't favor us that we wouldn't take it. Just look at Hiroshima, Nagisaki, and Dresden.

Why do you think we have WMD in the first place? We have them because if we get to a point were we can't take the highroad anymore then we have a low road that will defend us.

Why do you think there are as many civilian deaths in war today despite the fact that we have very accurate bombs. This is because the government is willing to kill some civilians to kill a few "terrorists" if it means we don't have to put our troups in harms way. Do you honestly think the US always doesn't know that the bomb it is dropping won't kill a few civilians? The US would rather kill thousands of civilians then put our own troups in harms way.

I agree that targeting citizens is not the whole and necessary meaning, but they are targeted. You can't take them out of the equasion, whether the fight is fair or not.
Actuality, fairness is in the eye of the beholder (IMO). One might say that the 'terrorist' groups that America has chosen to take on have an advantage over us. They do not have to follow the same rules we do because they don't have the foreign relations to keep up and treaties that need mutual trust (i.e. if we don't follow them, our allies don't and we are in deep crap). I've never seen an official misson where an army officer straps a bomb to his chest and runs into a group of terrorists. It's relative.

Hmm odd,in your situation it would be like the 90lb weakling taking a gun and killing the bullies 4 year sister.

------------------------------------------------------


Honest assesment, I've noticed this on all the political forums. A majority of the time it's the left side that's so willing to demean and make fun of their oponents over the right. I'm talking majority of the time, not all the time. So before anyone gets offended, please take time to read this whole post. You will notice that most people who stand on the left are quick to cry "Stupid/Ignorant/blah blah".

I'm tired of it. I enjoy talking to people I respect, and quickly the left is just dropping down and down. It saddens me because I used to be a liberal, but like the good old line from "Holy Grail".

I got better.

(Libertarian all the way, except I support the war)

You're missing the analogy.

The testicle kick is the inappropriate action, in the eyes of the 200lb bully. The bully would never bring himself to do it - and of course, the bully doesn't have to either. The weakling has no other option: play dirty or get beat up.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about.

actually the analogy is quite apparent, and I can say bling you maybe missing mine because you may agree with his more. Note I said may, I don't wish to accuse you of thinking wrong..I'm so tired of people pretending they know what others are thinking and then being way off.

The way I see it, if the US attacks a terrorist with it's military, the Terrorist (The 90 lb weakling) needs to attack the military personal back. Well if they are attack American and British contractors....that's not military. So that's the 4 year old sister. Related to the bully, yet completely can't defend themself.

I noticed that some of the peole who don't believe in the "Rules of War" are coming up with this scenarios where the rules wouldn't be followed. Like "What if this Iraqi decides to use a shotgun.".

Yes you can play dirty if you want too, the rules are only their to dictate those who follow them. Yes those people may use what measures are required to win, but you aren't going to see the United States army deploy a battallion of troups with illegal equipment to fight a war. THe united states follows those rules.

Yes there are some times were we even break those rules, but in general they are followed. The rules are followed by most countries. War is gruesome, war is bad..yes we can agree to that. Yet War is also very very human. War is our custom, and we must live with it.

Even the games we play, they prepare us for war. War is human nature. It's competition of either political strenght or social belief.

War that brings death is harsh, I think most of all of us agree here. Yet there's no immediate clear all solution. Over time we will either kill ourselves, or one side will purge another and integrate into one another. War will happen as long as people believe in different things. Look at us now, some people on this thread are already going neck and neck. It honestly wouldn't be much to get them going at each others throat. Yeah you are probably thinking as individuals "Nah I'll never hurt another man", but we all know that the individual is rational, and the mob is stupid. Bring together a like minding group of people, then bring in one person that thinks different and stupid things can happen.

What I'm basically saying is War is Human. It is in our blood. Because of that we needs rules to the game.

Leading to the topic of the thread, where do terrorist stand in this?

They simply aren't people who don't follow the rules. The guerilla warfare in Vietnam was unconventianal and didn't follow many of the rules of war.

Terrorist can be more akin to those who don't follow rules, and also target non miltary targets for both physical and psychological impact. They wage war with tatics that are morally unsound to the opposing side. They bring war to another without declaration or notification. They tend to believe themselves to be revolutionaries, yet are so blinded by their goals and titles that they seem to believe those who don't aggree with them are nothing more then fodder.

You can look at anything and compare it to another. Maybe it takes a pacifist or someone who just was raised differently then me to, but I feel like I know what a terrorist is and I honestly believe the US isn't one.

If you're asking me to compare Rekna's analogy with yours, I would certainly choose Rekna's as being more applicable. Yours brought murder into a school yard scenario - in essence, as Rekna shrank the scope of all aspects in his analogy, you picked one aspect to remain. So your analogy doesn't fit.

I think the most applicable analogy would be that 200lb bully pushes the 90lb weakling around and so the weakling pushes the 4 year old sister of the bully - and she begins to cry. Is it fair to the 4 year old girl? No. But neither are the actions of the bully to the weakling. The 90lb weakling can't push the 200lb bully - it would be entirely meaningless.

Yet the use of a Gun signifies the breaking of the "Rule" that a typical school yard bully fight would have. You don't expect a gun to be used to handle a situation like this, just like you don't expect a normal enemy combantant to target your civilians.

If you are taking the analogy literally I can see your point. If I said more details like...The girl didn't die...would you see mine?

What mine is leading up too is we know that in this situation the weakling using a gun to kill a 4 year old is wrong...that's terrorism in a nut shell. That's striking at what isn't expected to be strucken it...that's retalliation, if you were wronged, to a point that it makes you the bully.

When those planes hit the world trade center...the US right then became the 90 lb weakling.

I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't see the logic of an analogy that doesn't accurately handle scope.

I think it would of started off better if you didn't blame me for missing something rather then saying you disagree. I'll be honest and say from reading your first line that I didn't like you.

We can agree to disagree though.

I find it kinda funny on the inside though that you used the word Logic, which to me has always been a predominently conservative trait.

The way you expressed yourself, by use of the word "odd" followed immediately by a change in the analogy, implies that you did not understand the analogy.

If you want to start pointing fingers concerning statements that offend, I suggest you review the second portion of your first post - where you attack the liberal group for no apparent rhyme or reason.

I just went back and read it bling, can you please post qoutes so I can see what I'm looking for. I read it a few times over and I see to missing things.

Also it's easy to attacks liberals when you used to be one yourself, I don't think I did but how I think is my own way and each individual has their own.

I do know though Bling that you and I are probably boring the hell out of the other forum members.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

It should also be added that they dropped flyers over the cities for days telling people to evac before they dropped the bombs.



I'm pretty sure China significanly outman's the US, but I could be mistaken.