Want to protect your cyber security and still get fast solutions? Ask a secure question today.Go Premium

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 330
  • Last Modified:

The legitimacy of terrorism

What do you think?
0
zamorin
Asked:
zamorin
16 Solutions
 
XxavierCommented:
  Firstly one must define terrorism. One persons terrorism is anothers freedom fighting. But I think we are probably in agreement over the term for the time being.

  To get the ball rolling I will quote the most commonly used argument which is the lesser evil argument. Which essentially states that the evil being perpertrated by the people the terrorists are trying to affect is greater that than that of the terrorism campaign. The asssumption is that there is no other better means of achieving the goal.

  An example would be a people whose country have been taken over by a viscious foreign power with tanks troops etc and the populus is only lightly armed. eg The Nazi's in Greece and Yugoslavia in the WWII. A strong argument can be made for the Palestinians but the killing of non-combatants becomes more complex. I have great difficulty with the recent massacre in Chechnya.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
Xxavier,

What do you think about this definition:

from: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=6164

"When the United States assaulted Fallujah mercilessly, with snipers killing civilians in droves (about 800-1000 people, roughly ¾ of whom were civilians, were killed in the assault), bombing its power plant and deliberately shutting down its main hospital and people of the town fought back, that was not "terrorism." In fact, armed assault against an occupying military force is not terrorism; the right of armed resistance is almost universally recognized, most particularly in a 1987 General Assembly resolution that singles out military occupations and "colonial and racist regimes" as legitimate targets of armed resistance.

Similarly, the Mahdi Army are not terrorists; they weren't even the ones that provoked their two armed showdowns with the U.S. military.

Interestingly, the United States negotiated a withdrawal with the mujaheddin of Fallujah, which, given the constant refrain that they are terrorists means that Bush negotiated with terrorists. Fortunately, even Kerry, overdosing heavily on militarism these days, has not yet gone there."
0
 
EmmaTechCommented:

Zammy - only problem is that the basis of your posts are false.  Just because you write it or clip it from a web page does not make it true.

For every "anti-U.S./anit-Bush" piece of garbage you can come up with in a thread disguised as a real discussion, I can clip the opposite from another news story.  Use your common sense and look at the 'heart' of the U.S..  We risk our own lives to do everything the 'politically correct' way and do everything possible to save 'innocent'  (civilian does not automatically = innocent) lives.

This line of yours:  "the United States assaulted Fallujah mercilessly, with snipers killing civilians in droves (about 800-1000 people, roughly ¾ of whom were civilians, were killed in the assault" -- is simply your 'desire' of what you are hoping happened.  Problem is, it does not fit the standard operating procedure of an American military force.

You seem easily swayed by 'radical teachings and controversial print' without any ability to analyze it.  I imagine the young terrorist is similar and easy to mold.

The U.S. and the rest of the international community engaged in a 'military action' which was announced ahead of time, planned, and agreed to be necessary for preserving lives in the future and working too 'unbalance' the terrorist community by removing a huge supply of funding.  War sucks......but is not the same as the terrorism performed when a school is taken over and children are burned alive and their eyes gouged out as they starve, thirst, and die of heat exhaustion; only to be blown up by suicide bombers.

Yes, there is a moral form of military activity and if you cannot see the difference........you are a sick puppy.
0
Free Tool: Path Explorer

An intuitive utility to help find the CSS path to UI elements on a webpage. These paths are used frequently in a variety of front-end development and QA automation tasks.

One of a set of tools we're offering as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

 
XxavierCommented:
Emmatech,
      You reject Zamorin's sources yet present as evidence for the contrary view this !?

"Use your common sense and look at the 'heart' of the U.S..  We risk our own lives to do everything the 'politically correct' way and do everything possible to save 'innocent'  (civilian does not automatically = innocent) lives".

 I suppose the good 'ol heart land boys where not involved in Mai Lai either.

I thought this thread was about justifications for terrorism  anyway, I think it is getting off track.
0
 
EmmaTechCommented:

Mai Lai?  Well, dude.............some bad Americans also did other stuff and some entire groups made some decisions that in hindsite could be considered wrong.  Why don't you break out the entire list?  Heck, history doesn't usually change, so you can maintain your anti-American feeling forever and ever..........using just history!

If you do something bad and do a million good things..............are you good hearted, or bad?

"I suppose the good 'ol heart land boys where not involved in Mai Lai either"  .......good line for a person who has nothing but hate, pessimism, and the desire to bring the world down with him.  What a loser.

Guess you qualify............here's your sign.

;-)
0
 
XxavierCommented:
..blah blah blah.
EmmaTech, why don't you keep your irrational rants for the lounge like the rest of us do.
0
 
EmmaTechCommented:

hmmmm............I'm glad you found me so correct as to run me off.   :)

By the way I can provide counseling to cheer you and possible be your pen pal.

<unsubscribe>
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
EmmaTech,

Whatever U.S does is abberation. Lies!
Guess you are blind when it comes to your own kind engaged in terrorism or torture.

>You seem easily swayed by 'radical teachings and controversial print' without any ability to analyze it.  I imagine the young terrorist is similar and easy to mold.

You think? It is people like you who who contributes towards the current state of apathy and ignorance amongst Americans. If you don't know please read about it.

>You seem easily swayed by 'radical teachings and controversial print' without any ability to analyze it.

and how did you define this as radical teachings? The author of the artricle is not even a Muslim and he was an eye-witness to the attocities committed in Fallujah.

>The U.S. and the rest of the international community engaged in a 'military action' which was announced ahead of time, planned, and agreed..."

So you PLANNED to killed 800-1000 Iraqi civillian? What International community? Few coherced countries does not make it international. Amongst your allies in Iraq is El Salvatore, virtually a defacto American state run by the right wing.

>but is not the same as the terrorism performed when a school is taken over and children are burned alive and their eyes gouged out as they starve, thirst, and die of heat exhaustion; only to be blown up by suicide bombers.

Blowing up chidren anywhere is certainly wrong, but state-terrorism unleased by Putin on the Chehnyans leaving thousands dead, children included (to cover up his bad policies) contributed towards it. Isn't it also odd that yesterday Putin blamed U.S for backing the Chehnyan terrorists? U.S is also hosting the the leaders of the Chehnyans rebels. That is the same as Russians hosting Bin Laden.

True patriots are blind to facts.
0
 
EmmaTechCommented:


Yes.......Zamorin......you are quite blind to facts.  Malaysia?  Haha........no wonder.  All you have access to is Internet media over there.  You read about an 'eye witness' on the Internet and your 'canned, hollywood fed intellect' says.......doh, must be true!  You naturally believe only the 'negative' side, because that is the environment you live in.  The bad suspect all others of bad.

Poor little Zammy!  Guess they wouldn't give you the visa after 9-11 huh?  Got you a little pissed off and anti-American?

"Whatever U.S does is abberation. Lies!".......was your exact words.  Stay there and swim in your skewed beliefs.  We don't need you, don't want you, and I sure hope our 'abberation' of world leadership never puts a coconut on your dinner table.  Unfortunately, the truth.........which you would never believe anyway..........could never stoop low enough to bite you on the ass.

Cheers.  ET
0
 
XxavierCommented:
Emmatech,
 re: " be your pen pal."
How insulting of you, now if you wanted to be my butt boy then we might have something to discuss. :)
(bend over, one, two, three...)

Zamorin,
   What are this post about? I thought it was about the legitimacy of terrorism. It seems to be degenerating into a slanging match.
0
 
EmmaTechCommented:

....sorry Xxavier......you seem ok, but I do not want you in my rear.  Thanks for the offer.  I'm sure in your current surroundings it is a compliment.

Zammi.......the Malay whami......it saying 'everything' the U.S. does is a lie.  He lives in a country that has been stomped by Japan, control by Britain like a puppet, then finally gets independance in the 1950's (not sure when) and sees fit to copy the U.S. flag because they respect our "hearts of freedom, work ethic, democratic government, and world leadership".  Now, after all this, Zami wants to call the entire U.S. a fraud just because there is some hitch in his dreams and we're having to spank some terrorists Muslims........Heck, he even wants to defend the terrorists by claiming the U.S. are all terrorists.

Dumb'ol me steps in again to defend the U.S. and slap another immigrant without a clue.  Haven't figured out whether he hates the U.S. because we're #1, because we haven't sent his country an allowance this year, or because he hates Jews.  Usually, it is one of those reasons.

Dang my intrusive behavior!

:)
0
 
EmmaTechCommented:

Xxavier......I am expert at uncovering true motive.  Old training dies hard.     ;)
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
I would look at what is motivating the terrorist. If it is the case that they are being victimised, discriminated against, etc. And that treatment is effecting the life of the ordinary person to the extent that they are in constant fear for their lives, it is not unreasonable for them to use terrorism to defend themselves, or to attack their tormentor.

What I'm trying to say is that if you are making mine and my families life unbearable, it is reasonable for me to attempt to make your lives unbearable.

When Dubya said he was going to eliminate terrorism, it seemed to me that the only way to do that is to ensure no person suffers injustice in life at the hands of governments or countries. As long as they do suffer in this way, I think they have some right to respond in kind.

Having said all that, I do not for a moment consider the actions in Russia in recent days justifiable on this basis.

Regards
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
EmmaTech,

Yes, I was just making up Fallujah, Abu Ghraib or for that matter, My Lai, Sherbanegan, Guantanamo, Bagharam, and over 100 U.S torture centres around the world. But ofcourse this is all an abberation.

>Guess they wouldn't give you the visa after 9-11 huh?  Got you a little pissed off and anti-American?

I can get a U.S visa today if I wanted to, but no thanks.

>You read about an 'eye witness' on the Internet and your 'canned, hollywood fed intellect' says.......

One witness? How about 82% of the Iraqi's who wants the occupational army out. Probably they too are misguided like the propaganda you have been fed with.

>We don't need you, don't want you, and I sure hope our 'abberation' of world leadership never puts a coconut on your dinner table.

We don't need your coconuts (we have abundant coconuts)

Xxavier,

>What are this post about? I thought it was about the legitimacy of terrorism. It seems to be degenerating into a slanging match.

It is, but I already got stuck in my 2nd post. Without any counter-argument 'Emmatech' claims my posts are false!

This is not just talking about U.S, it includes  all parties and countries.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
EmmaTech,

>Zammi.......the Malay whami

Do you refer to the Iraqi's as 'Sand niggers' too?
PS: I'm not a malay

> He lives in a country that has been stomped by Japan, control by Britain like a puppet,

and you are a nation which combines the japanese stomping and British pupeteering. (2 in 1)

>Now, after all this, Zami wants to call the entire U.S. a fraud just because there is some hitch in his dreams and we're having to spank some terrorists Muslims........Heck, he even wants to defend the terrorists by claiming the U.S. are all terrorists.

When, where? how?

>Haven't figured out whether he hates the U.S. because we're #1

No.1 in destruction, No.1 in media manipulation, no.1 in torture, no.1 in stealing other nations resources - the no.1 imperial nation, you are right, I despise your country's policy because of your 'no.1' status.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
gbentley,

>I would look at what is motivating the terrorist. If it is the case that they are being victimised, discriminated against, etc. And that treatment is effecting the life of the ordinary person to the extent that they are in constant fear for their lives, it is not unreasonable for them to use terrorism to defend themselves, or to attack their tormentor.

Isn't that what is happening in U.S, Israel, Russia, China, India and many other countries?

>What I'm trying to say is that if you are making mine and my families life unbearable, it is reasonable for me to attempt to make your lives unbearable.

If your country has been manipulated under the garb of democracy etc. and that entails so much destruction and death, a 9 fold increase in DU contamination, 4 fold increase in cancer etc, the employment of CIA stooge (Alawi) as the currrent leader of Iraq and on the other hand U.S companies (Haliburton, KBR) are busy extracting Iraqi oil, it's that an unbearable life of humiliation.

>When Dubya said he was going to eliminate terrorism, it seemed to me that the only way to do that is to ensure no person suffers injustice in life at the hands of governments or countries. As long as they do suffer in this way, I think they have some right to respond in kind.

Oppression breeds terrorism. Bush is breeding even more terrorists, just like Putin.
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
I am trying here to stick strictly to the question as asked, and not mention specific countries.

I would personally not consider humiliation to be an aceptable excuse. To me it's got to be threat of starvation, physical harm or death.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
..so you would consider wrong terrorist actions of the part of a people whose country has been invaded by another who although not physically harming them treat them like farm animals keeping them in ghettos and using them for slave labor as they wish. eg if the Nazi's had left out the death camps and the beatings of the Jews then their Ghettoisation  and wearing of the star etc etc would have not warranted retaliation by terrorist means (which is just about all they would have had as a response).

In essense I am saying physchological harm (eg deep humiliation or loss of you homeland) can be just as painful/unacceptable as physical harm.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
gbently,

>I would personally not consider humiliation to be an aceptable excuse. To me it's got to be threat of starvation, physical harm or death.

Eg:- The chehnyan war has killed nearly 100,000 chehnyan civillians, Russians have laid waste to their capital, Gronzy. Many of the suicide bombers who participated in Belasan or the Moscow theatre seige were women. Women who have lost either their husband or children to state terror.

There is physical harm and death in all instances.

Terrible as it might be, isn't it still a reaction?

I don't think humiliation itself will cause anyone to engage in terrorism unless they act as proxies like Bin Laden and other criminals.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
EmmaTech, Geez! you dissappoint me, I thought I was getting somewhere there. My dreams will be lonely :-(

p.s. I will let you and Zamorin duke it out on your own. :-)
0
 
XxavierCommented:
zamorin,

 "Terrible as it might be, isn't it still a reaction?"

The right to terrorist acts does not mean that the acts can be unlimited. The recent Chehnyan incident was not necessary, there where other alternatives and has probably set their cause, (justified or not),  backwards and not forwards.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
Xxavier,

You are right.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
Xxavier,

>The right to terrorist acts does not mean that the acts can be unlimited. The recent Chehnyan incident was not necessary, there where other alternatives and has probably set their cause, (justified or not),  backwards and not forwards.

What are the other alternatives?
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
zamorin,

How many euphemisms can you come up with for the word “terrorist?”
Don’t bother to look any further.  
Here is a list of twenty just from the news of the 400 deaths in Beslan, Russia on Sept. 3.

Terrorists can’t even be called terrorists anymore by the media for fear of not being politically correct, or being biased.
After all, (as quoted above by Xxaiver) “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

In answer to your question, this is proof right before our eyes how terrorism is being legitimized.  Control and sanitization of the language regarding terrorism seems to be doing a good job of legitimizing it.

<start of quote from http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/pipes2004_09_07.php3>

“The media, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on Sept. 3. Journalists have been deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists:"  [(hot links for the following twenty euphemisms articles are at the link above)]

§      Assailants - National Public Radio.
§      Attackers — the Economist.
§      Bombers — the Guardian.
§      Captors — the Associated Press.
§      Commandos — Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
§      Criminals - the Times (London).
§      Extremists — United Press International.
§      Fighters — the Washington Post.
§      Group — the Australian.
§      Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.
§      Gunmen — Reuters.
§      Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.
§      Insurgents — in a New York Times headline.
§      Kidnappers — the Observer (London).
§      Militants — the Chicago Tribune.
§      Perpetrators — the New York Times.
§      Radicals — the BBC.
§      Rebels — in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
§      Separatists — the Daily Telegraph.

And my favorite:
§      Activists — the Pakistan Times.
<end of quote>

0
 
XxavierCommented:
zamorin,
 Firstly lets assume that the Chehnyan cause is justified (this is debatable and I am not sure myself), In my view there instances of terrorist actions that clearly are acceptable and some  clearly not, the question of what is acceptable and what is not easy when you get to the grey area becomes complex.  

The question I ask does the horrific killing of 350 innocents (mainly children) form a neighbouring Province who had nothing to do with the problem advance there cause to an extent that was worth that many lives. ie was it a lesser evil than the complaint of the terrorists. In my view it was not. These killed people have rights in this ethical argument as well and they where violated to the point of death for no good reason. The killing of innocents is a tough one when it comes to the ethics of terroism. However the killing of children unassociated in any meaniful way with the conflict is simply wrong.

As for " What are the other alternatives?" it takes little imagination and I will not grace the question with are response other than this.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
WaterStreet, In terms of using terrorism as a dysphemism the Americans (and  Isrealis) win the prize.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
..any way off to bed. Before people get self rightgoeus here I ask was the allied bombing of Germany, the American bombing of Hanoi and the Isreali attack on Jenin justified?
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
>> There is physical harm and death in all instances.

I never said there wasn't. I was responding the the specific statement about humiliation.

Certainly in the case you mention, assuming all the things you say are actually true, and are a direct consequence of the foreign powers actions, I'd agree there is justification. But, the important point is that I would need to be convinced of the direct link between the foreign power and the woes of the society or group.

Regards
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
WaterStreet,

> Activists — the Pakistan Times

:-)

'Terrorists' is a term most abused by Bush until distinctions get blurred, Terrorist this, terrorist that.

Xxavier,

>The question I ask does the horrific killing of 350 innocents (mainly children) form a neighbouring Province who had nothing to do with the problem advance there cause to an extent that was worth that many lives.

Whether it advances their cause is debatable. It will depend on the Russian reaction. Russians are very angry at Putin for lying about the number of hostages, the number of hostage takers and their causes and it has once again put Chehnya on the front page.

If there were alternatives, I don't think anyone would want to blow themselves.  It's an act of desperation.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
gbentley,

>But, the important point is that I would need to be convinced of the direct link between the foreign power and the woes of the society or group.

Just look at any photos of Gronzy. It tell a lot.
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
No photo can show the causal link between the actions of the foreign power and the results! They only show the result, as disturbing as it may be.

As I've said. You asked a question about terrorism in the abstract, and that's how I'm attempting to respond. I'm not interested in discussing any specific case, because I do not have access to sufficient information about the actions taken by all the people involved to form an accurate opinion of the causes, etc. And I don't believe that many people here have access to that information either. Do we know every deal made by the government of the country? Do we know every statement made by a representative of a foriegn power regarding the country? ... Too many unknowns for me.

It's not enough that a result is to the benefit of a foriegn power, it must be the intent of the foriegn power to cause that result before they are responsible.

If for example, the leader of my country sells off all our resources to the USA beggaring the country and resulting in my children starving. I can have no beef with the USA, they are in no way responsible for the results. It's at the feet of the leader. If he is elected, then the fault lies with the populace who elected him.



0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
gbently,

>No photo can show the causal link between the actions of the foreign power and the results! They only show the result, as disturbing as it may be.

I was refering to the results and aren't those results caused by foreign or state powers?

>Do we know every deal made by the government of the country?

Can it be 'condemmed' or 'talked about' only if it is 100% verifiable?

>If for example, the leader of my country sells off all our resources to the USA beggaring the country and resulting in my children starving. I can have no beef with the USA, they are in no way responsible for the results. It's at the feet of the leader. If he is elected, then the fault lies with the populace who elected him.

It is the fault of the leader, because that is not what he was elected for. He betrayed them, how can the fault lie with the populace? It is also the fault of the recepient nation for taking advantage of the situation and enriching themselves with the sell-out.
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
>>I was refering to the results and aren't those results caused by foreign or >>state powers?

They may well be, but the photos don't show that.

I agree one can never be 100% certain, but I would want to see independent evidence, that is not sourced from either the agressor, or the apparent victim, or the friends of either.

If I'm dumb enough to elect a leader who is corrupt, I believe I share some of the responsibility for the results. The consequences of my actions are my responsibility, even if they aren't what I expected, and even if they could not be foreseen. I choose to act without knowing the likely results, I've got to wear it.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
>If I'm dumb enough to elect a leader who is corrupt, I believe I share some of the responsibility for the results.

That would include almost every politician in the world today.

and there are Dictators, Puppet regimes etc. who aren't even elected.
Alawi, Karzai, the Chehnyan President etc.
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
>>That would include almost every politician in the world today.

We always get what we deserve!

0
 
EmmaTechCommented:

Zammi the Malay whami says ---

"No.1 in destruction, No.1 in media manipulation, no.1 in torture, no.1 in stealing other nations resources - the no.1 imperial nation, you are right, I despise your country's policy because of your 'no.1' status."

Here is a little guy who knows that HIS version of everything is correct.  If you call his facts wrong, he will likely make up a story about actually being visiting the location of every incident in the world and talking to eye witnesses.  Zammi will teach his children (if allowed to breed) to also hate America based on this same incorrect philosophy.

The 'type' of terrorism that Bush, and the rest of the world, is fighting is simply the type the wishes chaos and death on all who do not follow their radical religious beliefs, OR simply because that is how they were taught.  

Zamorin is a good example of the terrorist mindset.   He has decided that the U.S. is (see first paragraph) an evil nation.  You can easily take the statements he allows to 'slip' out and see he is not far from believing that all in the U.S. should be killed.

Every day you can see the Internet allowing U.S. haters to get more intimate with U.S. citizens.  They try to create unrest and find the anarchists amoung us.  This is a good example why we need to strengthen our borders between the U.S. and Canada.  Canada is importing potential threats like this everyday by the hundreds.  Once they get to Toronto, crossing into the U.S. is quite easy.

Think I'll cut/paste this thread to a friend I know.   ;-)

0
 
EmmaTechCommented:
Zami........sorry about the "Malay whami" thing.  I said this as an attempt to get you more excited and angry.  Sometimes it helps to see someones core beliefs spill out spontaneously.

:)
0
 
EmmaTechCommented:

definite <unsubscribe>  this time.  You kids enjoy.    ;)
0
 
rfr1tzCommented:
I started reading this thread, but when I got to this part of the question statement "I have great difficulty with the recent massacre in Chechnya." I quit reading because I realized no rational argument would ensue.

So zamorin "has great difficutly" with killing innocent children. Gee, great difficulty. That's just a step or two away from "I'm against it".

0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
EmmaTech,

Why do I feel in an attempt to fustrate me, you have fustrated yourself?

PS: There is nothing to be angry about you calling me a "Malay Whami".
My 'sympathies' are for you.

rfr1tz,

>I started reading this thread, but when I got to this part of the question statement "I have great difficulty with the recent massacre in Chechnya."

Please read carefully, I did not state that.

>So zamorin "has great difficutly" with killing innocent children. Gee, great difficulty. That's just a step or two away from "I'm against it".

I cannot see the difference between killing children or adults, a life is still a life.
What IS preventable, is the Russian state action that provokes this terror. If not this cycle of violence is set to continue and each time the attrocities (on either side) becomes more spectacular(!)

If Putin is doing the right thing, why should he lie to his people about the numbers of hostages (which was put at 354), the no. of hostage takers and just about every statement that came out of Kremlin?
0
 
XxavierCommented:
zamorin,
    I do not know how much the Chechyan struggle but it complex and tragic. Involving the Russians and different rebel factions. Some of these factions are self serving and are akin to warlords. Th Chechyans had their freedom when the Russians gave up and left them to themselves in 1996.  But the Government lead by Chechyans was not abled to combat these factions in particular those dominated by the Wahhabist which is very different  from the more moderate tradtional Chechyan form of Isalam. Wahhabiism as you is from Saudi Arabia. They forced the institution of Sharia law with public executions which is alien to the Chechynans, in essense the Russians had been replaced by another oppressor trying to impose their own philosophies on them. The rebels groups split into those for the traditional Chechyan values and those for a Wahhabist Islamic state. iIn 1999 Putin used this division as an excuse to invade again and boost his chances in the Russian election, hence the second Chechyan war.

    I suspect the group involved in the school massacre are the more extreme Islamists as Arabs where found amongst them. I do not see them as freedom fighters but just another self serving group trying to impose their ways on the Chechyans, they are no better if not worse than the Russians.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
.....have a look at the "Greetings from Grozny" video from http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/video/ which is a pro-rebel site for a good insight into Chechyna.

I gather this thread is not going to be  abled to discuss terrorism in general and is going to be bogged down in specific conflicts. Shame.
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
>>I gather this thread is not going to be  abled to discuss terrorism in >>general and is going to be bogged down in specific conflicts. Shame.
 
I agree!

0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
Let me put it in an another way then:

What is the lowest acceptable standard where "terrorism' becomes legitimate?

Is there such a thing?

Isn't the objectives of a terrorist act, to maximise damage?
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
The objective isn't what makes it terrorism. It's the fact that non-combatants are targetted.

My understanding of a terrorist act, is that the purpose is to instill terror in the target group. To make their lives feel unsafe and uncertain.

Thinking about this some more, I think the general populace of the target country would have to be aware of the acts that are inciting the terrorist, and have some way of effecting those acts. If they have no control over the actions that are occurring, they can't be held responsible, and aren't legitimate targets.

Maybe this is the basic problem. The circumstances and specific people who might represent legitimate targets generally can't be attacked without affecting others who are not legitimate targets. My personal view is that one should always err on the side of the innocent, so there aren't many really acceptable targets.

For example, in the case of jailing people, I don't consider it acceptable to EVER jail an innocent person. If that means some guilty persons don't go to jail, that's fine, provided no innocent ever does. I realise this is at odds with the policies and practices of most nations, but that is how I feel.

Regards



0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
gbentley,

>The objective isn't what makes it terrorism. It's the fact that non-combatants are targetted.

But even if the targets are military, it is still termed as terrorism. ie: - A terrorist strike on military installations or the targetting of a countries soldiers.

>My understanding of a terrorist act, is that the purpose is to instill terror in the target group. To make their lives feel unsafe and uncertain.

Agreed, but not all actions that instill terror are termed a terrorist acts (some are even termed anti-terrorist actions).

>For example, in the case of jailing people, I don't consider it acceptable to EVER jail an innocent person. If that means some guilty persons don't go to jail, that's fine, provided no innocent ever does. I realise this is at odds with the policies and practices of most nations, but that is how I feel.

I very much agree with you on this.
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
I would argue that the reporters using those phrases need to read their dictionaries. Also they are generally trying to get a reaction in the reader, so the use of terms like terrorism, even when they aren't appropriate, is good for circulation.
0
 
JakobACommented:
Terrorism is not so much in the acts as in the motivation.

The terrorist strike in frustration not really caring who gets harmed. Religion is just an excuse, political views are just an excuse, the important thing is anger and frustration. Terrorism is revenge, not surgery.

That is the basic.

After that, as things get organized we get terrorist leaders like Bin Laden (and Bush senior) who direct that lashing out in the direction they want for their own reasons. These are the truly despicable ones, whatever their personal motivation.

regards JakobA
0
 
XxavierCommented:
JakobA,
  How are you defining terrorism? It sounds to me by your last statement that by definition the word refers to an immmoral activity in your mind.

  Do you not see any situations where the terrorist act is a lesser evil than the evil they are trying to redress? Where the fighters in the American war of Independence or the ANC in South Africa immoral? What do you think about the Isreali groups in 1947/48? (eg Stern gang, Haganna).

  The blanket definiton of terrorism as an immoral act is popular amongst those in power, and the painting of anthing that challenging their power is often defined as terrorism. Even though wil they use of tanks and gunships at the drop of a hat themselves if it suits them.

A good example is in Iraq with the US. The counrty has been invaded by a foreign power yet the US defines resitance by nationals of the country (which has to be asymetric warfare) as terrorism.

 
0
 
EsopoCommented:
>>Haven't figured out whether he hates the U.S. because we're #1, because we haven't sent his country an allowance this year, or because he hates Jews.  Usually, it is one of those reasons.<<

Such typicall US blind patriotism that will instantly dismiss any claim and insult the spokeperson.


>>What I'm trying to say is that if you are making mine and my families life unbearable, it is reasonable for me to attempt to make your lives unbearable.<<

The spartans were feared warriors. It is said that when tremendously outnumbered while protecting the Termopilas passage against the persian army, they would use any resource available to hold their positions including faking a retreat and bitting when left unarmed. I don't think these were acceptable fighting techniques back then, but did that make them any less of heroic warriors? I wonder how did the persians look at them back then.

It's easy to stick to protocols and international agreements when you are the one with the big tanks and the $100 mill planes, but any nation has a nature-given right to protect itself.

If you come to my house and attempt to hurt my family, I will not call the police right away, I would first remove your arms (upper extremities) and beat you unconscious with them. I think this is a common feeling any american or otherwise can relate to.

I beleive there is a dual approach to terrorism,
1.- the act of inflicting fear to gain power/respect, and,
2.- the outrighteous attack on defenseless people

The US (and any military empowered country) will use the first as a standard set of tools to win wars, is only logical and natural.

The second is more difficult to judge since people will use basic math to forgive civilian deaths: if 100 deaths means peace for 10000 people...

From this approach, how many deaths are too many? If I were to quote the bible, God was willing to forgive Sodoma and Gomorra to save one fair man. We seem to look at it the other way around, if there is one wrong man then burn the city.

When is it terrorism? the US proposes a new way to judge terrorism, not on its definition but in a Machiavelical kind'a way: its purpouse. Do you guys consider this to be true?
0
 
SunBowCommented:
> The legitimacy of  _________________

Like Anything:                     Beauty  is  in  the  eye  of  the  beholder

Try looking for our sense of reality concerning such issues in the movies.  For a recent example I'd recommend the series that goes something like "Kill Bill"

If you have yet to see, I'll claim the central character is not a hero/heroine, and may at times perform, er, <uh> in ways not up to PC standards (politically correct).  But reason (why/legitimizing) is not missing completely or neglected entirely, and if one is into action genre, it has plenty of that as well.  I, for one, was pleasantly surprised they were done so well.  It does not really go even for legitimizing, when one needs merely to understand enough background for character behavior to make more sense.  Life is not all that different, being 'right' is not really going to get you anywhere. First appearances mean a lot to many people, but they make more sense when one is more aware of their individual background.
0
 
SunBowCommented:
> One persons terrorism is anothers freedom fighting

Thank you

Famous quote of Janis Joplin song (quoting Kris Kristofferson lyric):

              Busted flat  ...
              feeling nearly as faded as my jeans

              Freedom is just another word
              For having nothing left to lose

For "in the eye of the beholder" the first thing comes to mind is a recent story on Chechnya, where a participating "terrorist" had audacity to question involving mere school children in the operation: "Why?".  Since a 'good' leader is not to be questioned, example was made of the way things should be by the leader killing two people to make the example of how important it is for everyone to follow their leader's direction without question.  This is in fact a legitimized form of control in every military operation I've become aware of.  (well, nearly)  Apparently his example was not to kill the hesitant one, but two others, supposedly females having lesser roles.  In a movie the script would have the leader ask: "Anyone else have a question? I thought not".

So in his mind, we can guess that he ("the colonel") "legitimized" his behaviour (murdering members of his staff) since it was useful in obtaining the goal of maintaining control of the operation once it had begun.  

Now, what if one were to ask opinion on legitimacy of that act - ask the women as they were dying if they thought it was really legitimate for them to die for their cause, or rather, to actually die that way - as an example to others of their own kind.  I venture that their opinion on legitmacy of the act would have differed from that of their commander.  Possibly, another member of the group might have not thought it all that legimate either, since the report of ensuing explosion was that it was unintentional, as in not set off to make a terrorism point more valid. Maybe it did not happen there, at that time, but a wise commander may well understand the concept of fragging, which does not have to be only a device of the West, and account for the varieties of human behaviour that can be encountered in the course of a work project.

Answer [lies]:
                                   in the eye of the beholder
0
 
SunBowCommented:
zamorin> In fact, armed assault against an occupying military force is not terrorism; the right of armed resistance is almost universally recognized

Nolo Contendre. No contest. A movie example would include the resistance to Germans in WWII, the big one.

EmmaTech>  Problem is, it does not fit the standard operating procedure of an American military force.

Problem is, the Iraqi occupation as run by the civilians is not SOP for US military, that is also in the news on a daily basis. Same news on countings of the dead, give recent US hitting the magic decimal or a thousand, has footnotes that the host country has lost about a hundred times that amount. Some question legitimacy of carpet bombing runs that 'may' take out a 'suspect' at the cheap cost of mere collateral damage that needs to help justify high cost of rebuilding.  The value of another's life is so much cheaper than that of american who has the right god on same side. Older of example Pope_the_Innocent_One in another thread.

> civilian does not automatically = innocent

agreed, VietNam being another good example of how dangerous they can be.  But making polical decisions to attack and subdue a city or three to teach them who's boss, and dropping mega bombs on households is a bit different than the use of agent orange in just too many ways

OTOH, US spokesperson quotes of low counts of enemy vs high counts of dead and wounded, kids too young to attend school having to learn to go through life without arm, leg, parents, home, etc., now there is a different math that can be used to add up a legitimacy

> War sucks......

agreed, however...

> The U.S. and the rest of the international community engaged in a 'military action' which was announced ahead of time, planned, and agreed

When you question sources of others, I recommend you try that on yourself, the only thing international about plans is US bought and paid for aggreements to follow their lead from a small handful of minor third world countries.  I think "international" would have to include those who were not bought, those who were more traditional allias (europe), and other major players in the world such as soviets and chinese etc.  No way on the earth there is any international agreement going on, the US takes the lead, UK agres, some others follow the scent of the green.

> Yes, there is a moral form of military activity and if you cannot see the difference........you are a sick puppy.

I agree - try it on yourself
Or try asking a vet

> some entire groups made some decisions that in hindsite could be considered wrong

<ugh> I think many can see such with foresight.  There's this four-letter word called "plan". That can lead to pre-agreements and strategies, even a convention in Geneva or a World Court to not support while self_excluding.

> So you PLANNED to killed 800-1000 Iraqi civillian?

One hospital has records for maybe 40,000 in their community (I think that was today's news if interested in numbers), not counting other communities or have time for a judicial review of whether there was innocence among civilians.  To current administration (civilian) they are all 'potential terrorists' and those who get dead can never be swayed to an opposing position.

> You read about an 'eye witness' on the Internet and your 'canned, hollywood fed intellect' says

(btw, going hollywood has been copyrighted by americans) WOnderful thing about internet is that there is more freedom to information, access to other sides of issues than in any free country. Accept it. Keep it that way.

If you want something better, go there. Almost as good, talk to a vet. I have. They are many and travel a lot. Or they used to, apparently the current administration does not want to let any more go home until after the next election, contracts and commitments again be torn up by the fork-ed tongued palefaces.

ET> and we're having to spank some terrorists Muslims

Go back to math class. Muslims are not terrorists. Bombing peoples homes is not a spanking. Different levels of relatively can yield different results, ask Uncle Albert

gbentley> I would look at what is motivating the terrorist.

Yes. Hit nail on head - proceed to Go and collect

> to eliminate terrorism, it seemed to me that the only way to do that is to ensure no person suffers injustice in life at the hands of governments or countries.

yes. Do not neglect that by moving military closer to those wanting to hurt US, that it becomes more convenient for opponents to attack the military mice in the game, than for them to figure out a full scale invasion of US soil, or how to get there long enough to send a flamogram. (don't neglect that for the cases of mailing packaged materiel to US citizens, all of the senders were of US, not building their bombs or chemicals offshore or overseas.)

> The right to terrorist acts does not mean that the acts can be unlimited.

I agree. And that reminds me of the repeated statements of commander Rumsfeld about his "shock and awe" program of winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis at the beginning of the invasion, the shock being the massive bombing, and the awe being how impressively they can be subdued and coerced into subservient worshippers of his way.

WaterStreet > Control and sanitization of the language

right. Peace-keeper missile. Bombs for peace. The defensive first strike (offense).

Xxavier>  ask was the allied bombing of Germany, the American bombing

Back to the pop flicks, ask if the Empire with Darth Vader was PC, justified in using planet destroyers to subdue their potential terrorists (freedom fighters) by taking out a planet here and there to make an example to others who might otherwise think of disagreeing or listen to rebels.  While many us citizens want to do that to entire Iraq, I think that is because they are tired of news coverage and want to move on, nothing personal to members of other faiths. Unfortunately, many in power are attempting just that, the making of examples, in at least three of the major cities, making war on each city as if they are a separate country to conquer, justication that it will keep other Iraqi cities more capable of towing the line, doing as told without question (or free press news, etc).

gbentley> If he is elected, then the fault lies with the populace who elected him.

Just remember that there is not the freedom of choice to really hold them responsible, when the occupying country tells them ahead of time who they can and cannot vote for or against. That's where labeling officials as puppets can become believable.  (not to mention the fate of those who physically survive disagreeing with the administration getting locked up in some hidden place.

Xxavier> Chechyans ... the group involved in the school massacre are the more extreme Islamists as Arabs where found amongst them

I know very less on it, but my media had them retract, no arabs at all, but some individuals from other places. Not locals, or having interest in local affairs.

gbentley> If they have no control over the actions that are occurring, they can't be held responsible, and aren't legitimate targets.

Hey, nice. I grant you all the 'free parking' you desire.

> I don't consider it acceptable to EVER jail an innocent person. If that means some guilty persons don't go to jail, that's fine, provided no innocent ever does.

Hear here. Among problems in Iraq, (example) understaffing of troops and overtasking them with high media ambiguities, such as "go get 'em" (why?) if criminal (what crime) aiding terrorist (how) incitefule rhetoric (for example) saying anything that sounds disagreeable to the american way, disagreeing on body counts, etc.   What we're left with is a handful of people that have to subdue a crowd of people, while not having the time to properly document what offense for whom. Prisoner camps overflowed with insufficient care (including food & clothing), inadequate legal processing, housing, and supervision. Soldiers cannot be expected to be good lawyers.

zamorin> But even if the targets are military, it is still termed as terrorism

Agreed, but I stil say that the impact internationally would have been different had 9/11 been only Pentagon and similar target types.  The sinking of the two towers is an entirely different form of animal, in my opinion.  In either case, there remains it being an act of war, not an act of a sole suicidal maniac.

JakobA> terrorist strike in frustration not really caring who gets harmed. Religion is just an excuse, political views

good, I am not disagreeing but wanting to add as I've tried elsewhere: illiteracy.

Basically, even with religion, having to be told what the contents of official beliefs are, and not know they are out of context to manipulate them. Unable to read the proper text or law.  Another word on that line could be: gullible. Like most wars, the leaders are not the ones to go to front line of war or be lead by example for suicide candidates.  I my leader tried to pull that, I'd at least raise an eyeball when I hear a "Let's go die for god and country and mom and freedom - you go first".  I'd at least hesitate, and want to think about it over a cold beer about what is so great about me that I have to go first, and what kinds of freedom I get once I've succeeded in the death wish.

Maybe that is what they need over there to settle back down.  Someone get them some truckloads of cold beer.  Just make sure the drivers are citizens of the destination country and get paid an honest wage.

Xxavier> US defines resitance by nationals of the country (which has to be asymetric warfare) as terrorism.

Check back to WaterStreet comments. Their PC is calling it all an

            "Insurgency"            of            "Insurgents"

Of course when they get rounded up or hounded they can still be called terrorist, wherever confined, or whenever found.

Esopo > come to my house and attempt to hurt my family, I will not call the police right away, I would first remove your arms

I agree. From religion I be pacifist. Hurt no one.  In practice, I'm stuck with hormones or whatever makes a sinner out of me, keep my family out of it or all bets are off, and we do not need the time to draw up any legal ramifications of the proper way to defend one's home. Involve my family - at your own risk.

> I beleive there is a dual approach to terrorism,

agreed.  all of that

>  Do you guys consider this to be true?

I prefer answering this way: The US demands worldwide trials for war crimes and terrorists, with provisions that all americans be pre-excluded from any possible contention that they be criminally capable (saying they can take care of their own)
0
 
EsopoCommented:
Sunbow,

That was beautiful. Would you mind ruling my country for the next 4 years?
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
:-)
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
Sunbow for Dictator.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
SunBow,

Good one.
---------------------------------

Bush claims the war on terror has brought results. It has killed or captured 2/3 of the Al-Queda leadership, put them on the run, reduced terrorist attacks and made this world safer.

but the facts are this:

For every 1 Al Queda he has eliminated, more of them has taken their place
By putting them on the run, they have merely become untrackable(ghosts) plotting more terror attacks, there are more terrorist strikes now than before 911.

This week alone there were nearly 3 major terrorist strikes.

The more oppressive the state becomes, the more terror it breeds.

It is 'state terrorism/oppression'  that is the root cause of 'state defined terrorism' in any country, correct? any exceptions?
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
"Legitimacy" is a legal concept. I guess it is up to whatever set of laws you are judging an act by to determine whether it is legitimate or not... and up to EE's P&R area to determine what the best set of laws are 8-)
0
 
EsopoCommented:
>>Sunbow for Dictator.<<
Actually yeah, I don't beleive in old forms of goverment but the last thing my country needs right now is this lousy excuse for democracy that we have right now, so, Sunbow for Dictator!!
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
rstaveley,

There are unjust laws as there are unjust men - Gandhi

Esopo,

Ditto, my country (democracy it seems)
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Zamorin,

Very true, but your title wasn't "the justifiability of terrorism". Understandably justifiability has been the central theme of this debate, with differing interpretations of the term terrorism. My point was simply that "legitimacy" is a legal concept. While law-making is influenced by good intentions in all cultures, the law itself is a technical matter and legitimacy is something for lawyers to debate according to the parameters of local laws rather than philosophers. The law is an ass.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> something for lawyers to debate according to the parameters of local laws rather than philosophers

That didn't come out very well. I meant to say that lawyers rather than philosophers should be able to figure out what it or isn't "legitimate".
0
 
JakobACommented:
>>  It is 'state terrorism/oppression'  that is the root cause of 'state defined terrorism' in any country, correct? any exceptions?

Sorry. but that is not correct. what matters is frustration.

It can be as simple as seeing 'no hope for the future'. A very important factor in ANY society is the public belief that people can attain their goal by working towards them. When that belief is lost terrorists appear and crime rates go high.

A more insidious source of frustration is progress. It sounds like a paradox, but when reforms have started a lot of people get frustrated because those reforms do not happen fast enough. Historians call it 'revolution of rising expectations'.

Or then again it may stem from an intolerable personal situation with no relation to politics.

So the only function for 'state terrorism/oppression' is to act as a focus around which a group or terrorists can form. It is not a cause, just a symptom.

regards JakobA
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
That's well put, JakobA. Contentment is incompatible with ambition. If we were content, we'd not be progressing. There's no sense of ever having reached our goals. Maybe the Buddhists has got it right?
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
It's true.  Terrorism is a smoke screen for the real battle.  The US is fighting Islamic fanaticism/fundamentalism.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
>The US is fighting Islamic fanaticism/fundamentalism.

This is in the appearance; actually US created this invisible enemy and enlarged it by their huge media machine to achieve its project and for another purposes using the theory that say: “If you do not have an enemy create one“.


>Chechyans ... the group involved in the school massacre are the more extreme Islamists as Arabs where found amongst them

Excuse me! did you involve Arabs in this event also! From where did you get this information! Is it from US Media? Sorry Jews Media?

Sorry Zamorin I did not want to go far from the main question's subject but I cannot be able to keep silent while I hear like this lies.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
Abdu_Allah,

>>Excuse me! did you involve Arabs in this event also! From where did you get this information! Is it from US Media? Sorry Jews Media?<<

This is what the media was reporting although SunBow suggests this has now been retracted. There are Arabs in Chechnya, probably young middle class idealist who want to get involved in Jihad (ps young middle class exist in all cultures and have existed through out history).  Abu al-Waleed al-Ghamdi for example was a prominent Saudi fighter who was recently killed there, and there are others see http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/ .

Chechnya has many "rebel" groups some who can be classed a merely attempts at warlordism. The groups vary from those trying to attain a tradional Chechynan Muslim state, some a srtict Wahabii Muslim state and others are just selfserving warlords. I would claim only the first of those groups has any legitimate claim to the use of terrorism. The Wahabii influenced groups have some Arab fighters with them, a point they do not dispute. Wahabism is alien to the Chechyan people who have a their own form of Islam that is centuries old and is a more moderate form of Islam.  

For these  Arab fighters the cause is more important than the people they perport to fight for, and the people of Chechyna are merely a vehicle for their own self serving Goals.

And do not forget I will criticise all parties when I think they are wrong (even if I broadly agree with there goals). I have  strongly defended the Palestinian cause on this site but if they screw up on anything I will let my feelings let known loud and clear. Also even though I have great problems with the Sharon Government and Isreal I will (and have) respond to irrational anti-semitism



0
 
XxavierCommented:
Zamorin, Are we going to leave specific conflicts alone here and argue the general case of terrorism? (using specific conflicts for purposes of example only). Although I did note that you quickly introduced a specific case yourself at the begininng of this thread.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>actually US created this invisible enemy and enlarged it by their huge media machine to achieve its project and for another purposes using the theory that say

Just the opposite.  The US "media machine" and government has long downplayed the threat posed by this group, and it took the massacre of 9/11 to open their eyes fully to the enemy who confronted us.  Every "terrorist" act prior to 9/11 was largely ignored.


>>Excuse me! did you involve Arabs in this event also! From where did you get this information! Is it from US Media? Sorry Jews Media?

How about Russian officials?  The media simply reported the initial statements coming out of Russia who indicated that several of the "rebels" were Arab.  Get over yourself.  We actually have a free press here.  This isn't North Korea.


Abdu_Allah,
Any relation with MohdAsalah?
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
Xxavier,
Yes their are Arab in Chechnya but not involved in the school massacre.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
AzraSound,
I will not get into unproductive debate with you, but I will brief my respond by replying your last question:

>Abdu_Allah,Any relation with MohdAsalah?

Yes, we can see the side that you can not see it.

Peace.
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
AzraSound,

<Abdu_Allah,
Any relation with MohdAsalah?>

Could be closer than you think, AzraSound.  Consider the following:

(a) Abdu_Allah starts posting on 8/11/04 right after the disappearance of MohdAsalah’s whose last comment here was on 8/6/04.  
(b)  He complimented MohdAsalah three or more times in a recent thread (http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Philosophy_Religion/Q_21047995.html).  I don’t ever recall MohdAsalah getting so many complements – and from one person and in the same thread.
(c)  His first comment in EE is “I want to complete from the point that MohdAsalah stoped.”  How did he know that MohdAsalah stopped and did not (in fact) continue.
(d) They both ask questions in ASP technical Section
(f)  Abdu_Allah doesn’t deny relationship.  Could have said “no” in his answer to you.
(e) And finally, they both can’t resist their urge to find a hateful way to bring Jews into the discussion.  Perhaps some things can’t be disguised for long.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, and we wouldn’t know for sure unless it were the case that EE suspended MohdAsalah for his conduct in the  http://www.experts-exchange.com/Miscellaneous/Lounge/Q_21067661.html thread and he simply tricked them by applying with a new member name, or got a friend to do it for him.  

So, Abdu_Allah if I’m completely wrong, sorry, but don’t expect me to react kindly to you if you continue the same hateful talk as MohdAsalah.  I guess time will tell.
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
AzraSound,

 <Just the opposite.  The US "media machine" and government has long downplayed the threat posed by this group…>

Agree.  The so-called “Jewish media” has trouble even calling them terrorists.  See the twenty euphemism articles that I mentioned in my post above.  Some American(?) examples were:

 Assailants - National Public Radio.
 Fighters — the Washington Post.
 Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.
 Insurgents — in a New York Times headline.
 Militants — the Chicago Tribune.
 Perpetrators — the New York Times.

My point being that the so-called “Jewish media” conspiracy theory doesn’t jump at the opportunity to label these people what they really are: Terrorists, intentional baby killers, intentional children killers, murderers, evil, etc.  I wonder how many times an Arab newspaper would refer to acts of Israel with minimal bias as the so-called “Jewish media” does for Arab terrorism.

Back to zamorin’s question.  If one insists at labeling the American media as the “Jewish media,”  it’s this so-called Jewish media which has gone a long way toward legitimatizing terrorism by sanitizing their acts with its euphemisms, etc.  
Strange world, huh.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
WaterStreet,

I am really wonder how some people suppose thing and start from it in thier judjement!

WaterStreet, No I am not MohdAsalah, I knew that MohdAsalah leave the thread after he stoped posting and stoped replying to the people that post to him! I am start from his point because he did not complete his point and because the point that he was disscuss it relate to Arabic language which no one of Moslems in that thread as I saw know Arabic language!
I complimented MohdAsalah in many times because he predicted something that was right.

>(d) They both ask questions in ASP technical Section

As I see here from MohdAsalah background that he have many questions in different technical sections ASP, C++,VB.

>(e) And finally, they both can’t resist their urge to find a hateful way to bring Jews into the discussion.

I tracked MohdAsalah posting history, Actually what make us bring Jews into the discussion that both of us disscuss points that directly or not directly related to Jews.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
>My point being that the so-called “Jewish media” conspiracy theory doesn’t jump at the opportunity to label these people what they really are: Terrorists, intentional baby killers

Conspiracy or not conspiracy, what we/I know that Jews use their media or make use from some events to label Arabs and Moslems(their first enemy) as terrorists.
Please do not disscuss thing that you do not know it well.
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
Abdu_allah,

1.  <…what we/I know that Jews use their media or make use from some events to label Arabs and Moslems(their first enemy) as terrorists.>

What would you call those 9/11 terrorists; “activists?”  Maybe Irish, Chinese, Dutch?
Your media complaint is not unique to the Jews.  Didn’t you read my posting about euphemisms and all the different publications?  Certainly they don’t all have Jewish ownership.  And, if they did, you’re implying a Jewish conspiracy by even mentioning Jews in connection with this.  You’re saying that all Jews have the same worldview – to label all Arabs and Moslems as terrorists.  Can’t you see that?  

Well they are not the only ones.  Lets look at what a group of Moslems have to say about this.

              <start of quote from http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=148>
After numerous admissions of guilt by Bin Laden and numerous corroborating admissions by captured top level Al-Qaida operatives, we wonder, does the Muslim leadership have the dignity and courage to apologize for 9-11? If not 9-11, will we apologize for the murder of school children in Russia? If not Russia, will we apologize for the train bombings in Madrid, Spain? If not Spain, will we apologize for suicide bombings in buses, restaurants and other public places? If not suicide bombings, will we apologize for the barbaric beheadings of human beings? If not beheadings, will we apologize for the rape and murder of thousands of innocent people in Darfour? If not Darfour, will we apologize for the blowing up of two Russian planes by Muslim women? What will we apologize for? What will it take for Muslims to realize that those who commit mass murder in the name of Islam are not just a few fringe elements? What will it take for Muslims to realize that we are facing a crisis that is more deadly than the Aids epidemic? What will it take for Muslims to realize that there is a large evil movement that is turning what was a peaceful religion into a cult?

Will Muslims wake up before it is too late? Or will we continue blaming the Jews and an imaginary Jewish conspiracy? The blaming of all Muslim problems on Jews is a cancer that is destroying Muslim society from within and it must stop.

Muslims must look inward and put a stop to many of our religious leaders who spend most of their sermons teaching hatred, intolerance and violent jihad. We should not be afraid to admit that as Muslims we have a problem with violent extremism. We should not be afraid to admit that so many of our religious leaders belong behind bars and not behind a pulpit. Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims. We can no longer afford to be silent. If we remain silent to the extremism within our community then we should not expect anyone to listen to us when we complain of stereotyping and discrimination by non-Muslims; we should not be surprised when the world treats all of us as terrorists; we should not be surprised when we are profiled at airports. Simply put, not only do Muslims need to join the war against terror, we need to take the lead in this war.
           <end of quote>

My point being that when you simply mention the “Jews” without any specific and accurate examples that can be verified, you are stirring up hatred as MohdAsalah.

Whether or not you are MohdAsalah,  I would add another similarity to the list.  The other thing MohdAsalah would do is make assertions about the Jews without even referencing a credible source or giving an example that we could verify:

(g) They both raise a controversial points without showing a credible reference or source that can be verified by the rest of us.

2. <Please do not discuss thing that you do not know it well.>

After your 04:13PM EDT posting saying you are not MohdAsalah, I went shopping for two hours and thought to myself:  I’ll take his word for this, and give him the benefit of the doubt.  After all, he’s new here; maybe he will have a more effective approach with those of us who don’t share his background.  In my opinion, we need more representatives of the Islamic / Arab viewpoint who can carry a discussion without inflaming sensitivities.  I would really like to see this work.  And, if we can’t do it here in virtual space, how can we ever hope to do it in the real world.

Then I came back and saw your unsubstantiated 04:23PM EDT comment about the Jews and your insulting comment: <Please do not discuss thing that you do not know it well.>  

That kind of talk will get you nowhere with the people here.  Before your 04:13PM EDT posting I would have added it to my list of MohdAsalah similarities as item (h), below.  In my opinion, that and unsubstantiated assertions was what gave him all his trouble here.

(h)  Both MohdAsalah and Abdu_Alla both use the same kind of insults when people don’t agree with them.  Maybe they attended the same “MohdAsalah School Of Winning Friends And Influencing People.”

3.  So to be fair, you should be given a chance to clarify what you said.  Maybe you were right and I misunderstood.
You might start explain what you mean by: “Jews use their media or make use from some events to label Arabs and Moslems(their first enemy) as terrorists.”
(a)  Which general US media were you talking about in your 11:08AM EDT posting?
(b)  How does this involve Jews in a way that would be different from some other media without Jews?
(c)  Show references to specific quotes that support your assertion.
(d)  What did you mean as Moslems being their first enemy?  I always thought it was the biblical Amalak (who attacked them upon leaving Egypt).  The idea of Moslems being Amalak is new to me.

Since you felt free to give advice to me, I think you should keep some things in mind:  
1.  Its hard to recall MohdAsalah ever answering my questions so this might lead to item (i) on the list of similarities:
(i) When given specific questions to substantiate their wild assertions, neither will clearly respond.
2.  You can help establish your credibility, and be convincing, by not being insulting and by backing-up your assertions with examples and source references that the participants can verify.
3.  Also, please remember your own advice to me: “please do not discuss thing that you do not know it well.”

I hope our future discussions will make me forget about the list of MohdAsalah similarities entirely.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
   The Americans yesterday fired missiles on a disabled Bradley fighting vehicle surrounded by curoius civilians (probably some looters as well) 15 dead and 55 injured, many very badly. The strong seem to have justification for these type of deaths citing laudable motives but the weak are cast as terrorists. Ah but you say they had no better means of achieving their goal, well neither does the so called "terrorist". I am making no judgement on the action and  merely made an analogy and pointing out a hypocracy.

 (The Isrealis do this sort of thing on a regular basis often in crowded streets yet are the most vocal users of the word terrorist)
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:

"The Isrealis do this sort of thing on a regular basis often in crowded streets yet are the most vocal users of the word terrorist"

Sure.  Who else has had such a history of suffering terrorist attacks?
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
WaterStreet,

>What would you call those 9/11 terrorists.

When the investigation about 9/11 is positive then I do not mind to discuss it with you.

>saying that all Jews have the same worldview.

Did someone hear me said something like that! from where did you get 'all' !

>to label all Arabs and Moslems as terrorists

WaterStreet the campaign of labeling Arabs and Moslems as terrorists started before 9/11 events. There are many proofs about that the best one are some of Hollywood movies, actually I forget their names but if you insist to show it to you I will make some searches for you.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
>Then I came back and saw your unsubstantiated 04:23PM EDT comment about the Jews and your insulting comment: <Please do not discuss thing that you do not know it well.>  

Please do not misunderstand me I do not mean any insulting, I just wanted to advise you .

>Since you felt free to give advice to me, I think you should keep some things in mind:  
1.  Its hard to recall MohdAsalah ever answering my questions so this might lead to item (i) on the list of similarities:(i) When given specific questions to substantiate their wild assertions, neither will clearly respond…

Please do not give me lessons of how should the discussion be , study and keep them to yourself you need it more than me.

WaterStreet, Please do not let us get into lengthy and unproductive discussion, the conflict between us is informational not more so please instead of discredit my information just study this issue by yourself and you will find what I said was right.


Peace.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
>>"The Isrealis do this sort of thing on a regular basis often in crowded streets yet are the most vocal users of the word terrorist"

Sure.  Who else has had such a history of suffering terrorist attacks?<<

You have lost any moral high grond you might have had. If that is your thoughts on the matter then do not complain about attacks on Isreali civilians. Thas how the Nazi controlled their occupied populations, kill a few locals if there is a trangression on the aprt of the populus. Isreals policy of collective punishment is revolting to Western ideals.

The IRA launched numerous bomb attacks on civilian targets  but the British government never launched attacks of the nature Isreal does.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Parents of toddlers are all too aware that "eye for an eye" mentality is inate. The best thing to do with toddlers is to distract them with ice cream. The best thing to do with irate victims of injustice is to distract them with opportunity. Ireland has become a land of opportunity.
0
 
XxavierCommented:
...you are right, the comfortable middle class is not noted for revolution.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
JakobA,

>what matters is frustration

Unabomber?  home-grown variants?

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

>Terrorism is a smoke screen for the real battle.  The US is fighting Islamic fanaticism/fundamentalism.

PNAC is real. The rest are bogeymen. U.S is not fighting Islamic fanatism, it's creating it. and like fighting the vietnamese communists, it's the objectives that are muddled.

For a freighted person, even darkness will look like a ghost.

Russians are committing genocide against the chechnyans, Xxaviers link has it captured on video. (but as long as the victims are muslims, the world looks the otherway)

There may or might not have Arabs amongst them, so?  There were Ingustians, chechnyans & Russians among them too.

>Just the opposite.  The US "media machine" and government has long downplayed the threat posed by this group, and it took the massacre of 9/11 to open their eyes fully to the enemy who confronted us.  Every "terrorist" act prior to 9/11 was largely ignored.

The power of propaganda to corrupt! go to http://www.pnac.org and see how these are pre-determined course of action.

>We actually have a free press here.

Free to lie. Free to pander to executives, free to profit from death!
'Free press' is not automatically  'fair press'

Abdu_Allah,

>Yes their are Arab in Chechnya but not involved in the school massacre.

It might or might not be true. There are bad people among all races. There are bad Arabs as there are good arabs.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>U.S is not fighting Islamic fanatism, it's creating

Both are true, and the hatred is too deep to mend, so we're at war.  There will never be an understanding between all the involved parties.


>>Free to lie. Free to pander to executives, free to profit from death!

Again, and probably for the last time, I remind you that you do not live here.  So blah blah blah blah.  BTW, what is the point of all these references to this PNAC thing?
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
Ooooh, THAT pnac.  I didn't understand the reference to the "Pontifical North American College".
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> "Pontifical North American College"

Yes this is the face of world domination: http://www.pnac.org/Rector/rectorimages/Rector_Cropped.jpg :-)
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
Zamorin,

>It might or might not be true.

What is that exactly? There are two issues here:
1-Arab in Chechnya.
The point one is correct.

2-Arab in the school massacre.
Absolutely, all of them was Chechnyains.

>There are bad people among all races. There are bad Arabs as there are good arabs.

I completely agree.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>Absolutely, all of them was Chechnyains

Yes.  Russian officials have come forward now saying that of all the "rebels" killed or captured, none have been Arab.  Their initial reports were apparently based on assumptions.
0
 
SunBowCommented:
SunBow> Check back to WaterStreet comments. Their PC is calling it all an "Insurgency" of "Insurgents"

Read some news this week, I take it back. The administration is calling: terrorists, the ones they may be dropping bombs on in their wars against several cities. Maybe they only exclude the ones in Bagdad for that label, or maybe it only applies to Sunni insurrectionists, but it is terrorism word used against both the Iraqis and their US political opponents (suggesting Iraq and twin towers would have had more terrorists were it not for this administration)

I tend to disagree as some above for the following reason, that although the bombings may be taking out a terrorist here and there, reducing their number, the missiles that target also the bystanders, or reporters and ambulances full of wounded (witnesses), may well be increasing the numbers of those disagreeing with current enforcement policies.

> SunBow for ....
(sorry, neither your personal preference nor write-ins for changes of heart are permissable by the powers that be)

zamorin> By putting them on the run, they have merely become untrackable(ghosts)

This is the known historical problem with assassination.  When the head is cut off, sense is lost of the direction that will be taken afterwards, when the leadership change goes underground and off of the front page news. Old quote goes: "Better the devil you know than the devil you do not know" - you have at least an idea of what to expect, and who you may (or not) negotiate with.  The admin is in denial, constantly underestimating the problems and negativity, while overestimating their own individual abilities and overprotecting their prior actions and decisions.  The battle continues, for example, on whether there was sufficient troop support in numbers, equipment, and supplies.  Get caught thinking that there might not be enough and you get relocated.  Not as bad as a Stalin sending you to a Siberia, but a similar philosophy of intolerance for alternative opinions from those who may have better information and resources. Very top down, and the military itself suffered much due to such changes (chaos).

> This week alone there were nearly 3 major terrorist strikes

Someone got quoted for a daily average of 87, going up again. Maybe that only attacks, not all major.  Last one I saw, insurg action led to about 20 dead in places like downtown Bagdad, so US bombed up a couple hundred in Fallulah in retaliation.  But the Bradley that some street people were hanging out on apparently had none killed by insurgents, all deaths were from the "peace-preserving" attack helicopters sent in to blow up their own equipment, with missiles, again and again.  After refuel, they returned to take out and ambulance full of would be survivors (witnesses).  They also got a news team who had the camera rolling.  Purportedly, prime time Iraq news had one reoprter dying - on film, shouting, "I'm dying" -- US killings of the bystanders/non-insurgents is getting live prime time coverage, complete with freshly blood-splattered lens filtering the scene of the life force oozing from the faces they used to know.  Is this by design? Some mad scheme to ensure a rebellion is sufficiently fueled to provide cause to maintain a regime of suppression?

OTOH, I read a nice story over the weekend about a very hot media show(s) around town, one is rebuilding, featuring a family getting their bombed out house back to as good as new - first, the demolition part....  another is a camera that just goes about town silently, filming everday events.  This is pretty cool stuff, real life TV, and the recipients really enjoy this part of their new world.

> for Dictator!!

well, I am not yet in mood, but you've all got a good point there, that a people do like a leader with a clear sense of direction, and a firm grip on things. They are very willing to let the leader have flaws, such as girlfriends, etc, provided they remain taken care of with a real sense of stability.

Abdu_Allah>  “If you do not have an enemy create one“.

agreed. Not too unlike: self-fulfilling prophesy

Xxavier> For these  Arab fighters the cause is more important than the people they perport to fight for,

Thank you. Another problem with going for assassination of other leaders - if you are opposed to the cause, then you've missed the target completely. (intentionally?)

Xxavier>  pointing out a hypocracy. (The Isrealis do this sort of thing on a regular basis ...

thank you

WaterStreet> Who else has had such a history of suffering terrorist attacks?

er, they claim to be more than a new state, but a people carrying on from OT tradition, so who else? - the jews (lowercase) for sure.  Check out their book.

rstaveley> The best thing to do with irate victims of injustice is to distract them with ...

usually the answer is drugs, at least alcohol.  Among reasons some religions won't tolerate it. It is a formal pacification program to control or inhibit/limit the masses.

> it's the objectives that are muddled

It only sounds muddled if you listen to official justifications, which have little need to heed truth outside of being mere soundbytes or slogans.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
AzraSound,

>Both are true, and the hatred is too deep to mend, so we're at war.  There will never be an understanding between all the involved parties.

So you support Bush's doctorine of permanent war? U.S is at war because it has better weapons. King Luis 14 did it for France, Hitler did it for Germany. Bush is right when he said he was making history.

Understanding will come when the world is led by a more civilized power.

>Again, and probably for the last time, I remind you that you do not live here.  So blah blah blah blah.

At this time and age, We get most American news channel plus BBC, Al Jazeera and others, we get a fairer mix unlike the blatent 1 sided media you are accustomed to.  What is this thing about "I need to live in the U.S to know what happens there" stuff?

>Abdu_Allah,

>2-Arab in the school massacre.
Absolutely, all of them was Chechnyains

My mistake, the Russians initially stated there were 9 Arab fighters (to give in an 'international flavor', 'Arab=Terrorist' dimension).

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

Each time an American military vehicle is destroyed, there is spontanious celebration by Iraqis. To avoid this happening in the future, a U.S helicopter fires a missle killing 20 civilians, I'm sure that would have discouraged the Iraqis from appearing 'happy' on news channels thus giving this 'fight against terror' an undesirable exposure for manufacturing consent.  

Wonder how many terrorist/freedom fighers it created?
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
SunBow,

>> The best thing to do with irate victims of injustice is to distract them with ...

>usually the answer is drugs, at least alcohol.  Among reasons some religions won't tolerate it. It is a formal pacification program to control or inhibit/limit the masses.

I enjoy a conspiracy theory as much as the next man and I can see a glimmer of a tongue-in-cheek smiley in that :-J , but bearing in mind the crime problems binge-drinking causes, it is hard to see our puppeteers pouring booze down our throats to pacify us.

Zamorin,

> To avoid this happening in the future, a U.S helicopter fires a missle killing 20 civilians

Your interpretation crossed my mind too. I found that whole incident very disturbing. If your take is a genuine strategy, quite aside from being grotesque, it is extraordinarily inept. It never ceases to amaze me how inept the GW Bush administration has proven itself to be, but I find it easier to believe that the actions were the hot-headed response of someone lower down the chain of command.
0
 
JakobACommented:
>>  rstaveley

"        It never ceases to amaze me how inept the GW Bush administration has proven itself to
     be, but I find it easier to believe that the actions were the hot-headed response of someone
     lower down the chain of command.
"

Is not that always the case. Whenever US troops do something horrible it is an 'exception' or an 'abberation'; but when a muslim do something horrible that proves that ALL muslims are bad.

>> AzraSound
  I would like to hear your thak on that helicopter incident.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>So you support Bush's doctorine of permanent war?

Absolutely not.  However, I supported the Iraq invasion because of the instability Saddam posed, his rash and aggressive behavior he exhibited as a leader, and his ability to give, if not actual weaponry, the knowledge to build/obtain that weaponry to fanatics.  Once Iraq and Afghanistan come under relative peace, and we help them rebuild, I see no reason for us to remain a force in either nation, except as part of a NATO or other peacekeeping alliance.  I would like to see us pull ourselves out of all ME affairs militarily/politically.  This should give the fanatics/fundamentalists no reason to continue attacks against us or our interests abroad.  If they do, however, we will, as usual, respond in kind.  Chances are, they will continue, because although they fight under the guise of anti-Semitism, anti-Westernization, etc., they're real motivation is the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and world dominance.


>>What is this thing about "I need to live in the U.S to know what happens there" stuff?

You may get some American news, but clearly not all.  We hear plenty of the atrocities in our own media, especially the anti-Bush leaning media, who make it a point to smear Bush's image whenever possible because when they can make America look bad, it makes Bush look bad.  Which is fine, but don't claim we don't hear about these things.



>>but when a muslim do something horrible that proves that ALL muslims are bad

Absolutely not true, but insomuch as when people talk about Americans and our government, it sounds as if they are smearing all of our citizens, I apologize if my words have ever sounded as if they tarnish all Muslims.



>>I would like to hear your thak on that helicopter incident

The military can claim whatever it wants, that they destroyed the vehicle to prevent looting or whatever, but it was a horrible act that I hope is never duplicated again.  Our nation's bravest aren't always necessarily our nation's brightest.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> Whenever US troops do something horrible it is an 'exception' or an 'abberation'; but when a muslim do something horrible that proves that ALL muslims are bad.

That is not the way I think, JakobA. I believe that both camps have systemic problems. I believe that neither camp is inherently bad.

zamorin suggests that the incident was a cold calculation. If it was a cold calculation made by a leader of an evil super-power, it was extraordinarily inept. I'm less cynical (more naive?) than zamorin and prefer to think that it was the action of a hot-head.
0
 
JakobACommented:
>> AzraSound

"      Comment from AzraSound
       Date: 09/11/2004 09:46PM PDT
      Comment
      It's true.  Terrorism is a smoke screen for the real battle.  The US is fighting Islamic
      fanaticism/fundamentalism.
"

Are you now saying that that comment was irony or something ?
(if so I am very glad to hear it.)

regards JakobA
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
No, I mean that.  Is that not who we are fighting right now?  Is that not who is fighting to keep Iraq/Afghanistan from democracy?  Is that not the doctrine set forth by OBL and those who share his beliefs?  There is a common theme amongst these suicide bombers and "insurgents" in Iraq/Afghanistan.  They are Islamic fundamentalists, and they want their power and they want to force their belief system on the people of these countries.  Muqtada Al Sadr is in a quest for a power grab in Iraq.  He knows if he relies on the political process he will not have it, because he and his radical followers are in the minority.  This entire ideology is in the minority, and they know that intimidation and force is their only means to their ends.  OBL declared, openly, war against the "crusaders and Jews" in 1998.  He declared that they will "kill Americans and get rid of them".  If you read transcripts of his various audiotapes or videotapes, he rarely makes references to fighting back due to a particular policy, but rather that he is merely doing God's will and following the doctrine of Muhammad.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>they want their power and they want to force their belief system on the people of these countries

Okay, apply the same to the US, granted, but how about we stop killing the civilians and let them decide for themselves.  US helicopters would not have to fly around Baghdad if the "insurgents" laid down their arms, let Iraq heal, and let Iraqis move on to their next moments in history.
0
 
gr8gonzoConsultantCommented:
After reading all this, I have to shake my head. Granted, I am sometimes left-wing, but I have less respect for this administration than any other Republican one before it - all because of the hypocrisy of their actions and supporters. (Not saying Kerry is a peach, but he's more typical politican than Bush)

That party has tried so hard to make the American public into a patriotic, mindless zealot-follower that anytime anyone disagrees with them, they are "Anti-American." All I have heard during this election year are things like "the Blame-America-First crowd," "terrorist sympathizers," and so on. It's as if nobody can criticize the administration without being blasted for being an America-hater. This is plain and simple, by-the-book fascist politics, period. I don't want a democracy-dictatorship salad in the White House ruling simply by fear and patriotism.

People say that the lack of terrorist activities is proof that the Bush administration is doing a good job. Well, I haven't failed any exams lately, so does that mean that I've been doing an excellent job on all my exams? No! It's because I haven't been given any tests in a very long time.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Bush handled the next terrorist attack (yes, there will probably be another one regardless of who is in the White House) just as badly as he did this one. And if you think he did a good job, then consider this:

1. When notified about it, he sits there for 7 minutes, with a dazed look on his face. I don't care what Michael Moore thinks Bush was thinking - he's the leader of the country - he needs to stand up immediately and go take care of the problem. If one of our major databases crashed one day, and I just sat in my chair with a stoned look on my face for 7 minutes, my job would be on the line.

2. Yes, he hugs firefighters and puts on some calming face for the country - even Ross Perot would probably do something like that (although he might have to stand on something). That's just photo ops - that's not something that sets him apart as a good leader in this case.

3. A good leader sees the correct action and takes it despite public opinion. Bush's attitude was clearly shaped (and has been for a while) by public opinion. And this isn't the democratic type of public opinion - this is the temporary angry mob, irrational public opinion. All they wanted to see was blood vengeance, and Bush gave it to them with Afghanistan.

4. We did the whole "we're doing this for the good of the people" charade for Afghanistan and showed lots of pictures (from embedded reporters who are controlled by the military) of soldiers giving candy bars to children, women being free, and so on. Once the mobs died down along with news of what was happening in Afghanistan, we left that area in ruins and let warlords take it all back again. Someone who doesn't finish what they started is not a good leader.

5. Then this whole time, they were trying to dig up dirt on Iraq. I could go into a Lewis Black type of rage on this one. WHAT?! Why would you have to go SEARCHING for evidence linking anything to Iraq? It's not like we didn't have plenty of other credible leads to follow. Believe what you may about their reasoning for going into Iraq, but regardless of it, we're now in a situation where our soldiers (and their soldiers and civilians) are dying everyday, rebels keep fighting (hmmm this sounds like Vietnam), and the country is in shambles, while companies make money off of the rebuilding process. Iran was a prime example of a very good lead, and it was even an "axis of evil" but they ignored it in favor of Iraq. I'm sure it's on their list of things to do, but it sure wasn't high enough in priority.

6. When going to search for the "truth" behind 9/11, they come up with a lengthy report and black out a ton of pages about Saudi Arabia. Hello?!! Is anyone thinking in there? Did they not "like" the truth and instead decided to go in another direction? That's called lying, people. Granted, if we accused Saudi Arabia and they pulled their assets out of our... rear ends, then we'd go into a MAJOR economic depression. But I don't see Bush trying to disassociate the U.S. from the Saudis. So a leader that recognizes what SHOULD be done, but doesn't do it...

7. The administration then lies on camera to the press about different things they said and didn't say. Comedy and politics are my hobbies, so I'm very glad that the Daily Show with Jon Stewart has the balls to mix it up a bit by showing some of the "flip-flopping" with video clips. You can call it left-wing, but it's right there in front of you, and there's usually enough of the clip to know that it's not being taken out of context.

8. Then there's the election year, where Bush is being supported by principles of doing well on the war on terror and also by attacking Kerry's "flip-flopping." Another bit of hypocrisy - every politician, and I mean EVERY last one of them flip-flops, and they all do it as much as or more than Kerry. It's like two brown-eyed men standing there, with one of them pointing out to the crowds how much the color of the other man's eye looks like "poo." Bush has flip-flopped quite a bit on MANY, MANY issues over the years. My biggest complaint with Kerry is that his campaign doesn't use all the extra firepower that is just sitting around when he's fighting for his political life. Bush has done a horrible job, and Kerry has done nothing to point it out to the public, probably on moral grounds or something, but when all it takes is an accusation to make the American public believe something, you just can't turn the other cheek.

9. And as a last point, there still has been no president yet that has been concerned about closing the School of Americas, a well-known, real-life, terrorist training camp located in Georgia that was started during the Cold War.

Terrorism is legitimate, and it always has a cause. But you can't fight terror with guns and soldiers. It's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

- Jonathan
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
Azrasound,

>Absolutely not.  However, I supported the Iraq invasion because of the instability Saddam posed, his rash and aggressive behavior he exhibited as a leader

You should equally support the elimination of current criminals (and U.S allies) of Uzbeskistan and multitude of other U.S puppets around the world. Why pick and choose? Why support then and destroy now?, why is it a habit? Why wait until U.S enforced sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children?

>Once Iraq and Afghanistan come under relative peace, and we help them rebuild, I see no reason for us to remain a force in either nation, except as part of a NATO or other peacekeeping alliance

U.S looked the other way when CIA sponsered Taliban wrecked havoc on Afghanistan and when CIA sponsered Saddam Hussein murdered Iraqi intellects in the guise of fighting communism. Rebuilt?

>This should give the fanatics/fundamentalists no reason to continue attacks against us or our interests abroad.

But it gives you all the reason to maintain those imperial interests abroad?

>he military can claim whatever it wants, that they destroyed the vehicle to prevent looting or whatever.

Those cunning Iraqi's! They might even have sold the Bradley design to the Russians. According to a U.S General it was destroyed to save the Iraqi's! WoW!

>That is not the way I think, JakobA. I believe that both camps have systemic problems. I believe that neither camp is inherently bad.

"Inherently good or bad" has nothing to do with it.

>rstaveley,

>zamorin suggests that the incident was a cold calculation

What I said was: It was a cold,pre-meditated, calculated war crime. Those who lay down the laws are usually beyond it.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
>I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Bush handled the next terrorist attack (yes, there will probably be another one regardless of who is in the White House

It's pitifull to beleive that Bush can take care of it, neither can Kerry.

0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>Why wait until U.S enforced sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children?

So you would support an "illegal invasion" prior to applying sanctions?


>>U.S looked the other way when CIA sponsered Taliban wrecked havoc on Afghanistan and when CIA sponsered Saddam Hussein murdered Iraqi intellects in the guise of fighting communism. Rebuilt?

Are you able to look in the here and now, or do you live in the past?


>>But it gives you all the reason to maintain those imperial interests abroad?

I'm all for free trade.  Hey, third world countries have an edge because of cheap labor.  If anything is going to bring the US down, its economics.  Why OBL insists on warfare, I have no idea.


>>Those cunning Iraqi's! They might even have sold the Bradley design to the Russians. According to a U.S General it was destroyed to save the Iraqi's! WoW!

You do realize I was actually on your side this time right???
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
gr8gonzo,
After reading all you said, I have to shake my head.

1.  A prompt reaction from Bush sitting in front of children probably would have scared everyone in that room half to death.  Even a calm, cool, "I have to leave" would have sparked fear amongst the adults.  The teacher on hand there has praised him for remaining calm given the news that was offered up out of the blue.  The fact that this is your first post in demonizing Bush says a lot about what to expect from the rest of your "points", which is way I will refrain from even clogging this thread with pointless American politcal banter.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
AzraSound,

>So you would support an "illegal invasion" prior to applying sanctions?

I prefer you stop medlling with other nations, Iraq could be a start of the long road to non-exploitation.

>Are you able to look in the here and now, or do you live in the past?

What Saddam did is current and what you did is a past?  (it occured in parellel)

>I'm all for free trade.  

I'm not, like before it doesn't equate to 'fair trade'

>You do realize I was actually on your side this time right???

Took me a while to grasp! :-)
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>I prefer you stop medlling with other nations, Iraq could be a start of the long road to non-exploitation

Fine.  That's my vote.  Let them kill eachother off...no skin off my back.  I will be voting Libertarian in this year's election, a small but growing political party that believes in isolationism.  Random foreign aid just for the sake of giving aid?  No thanks, not unless we take care of all of our own economic problems first.  Military intervention such as in Gulf War I?  No thanks, like we said, we don't want to get involved.  However, if anyone attacks us on our own soil, we will hit back...hopefully 10 times harder.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
I prefer you stop medlling with other nations, Iraq could be a start of the long road to non-exploitation.

I'm just kidding, you can do nothing about it, they call it democracy.

If you hit 10 times harder you create a 100 times reaction
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
We can do something about it, and they call it democracy.  That's the nice thing about it, is that people have the power to change the leadership.  I believe Kerry is an idiot.  Bush is inadequate.  Our foreign policy has not helped, even socially/economically, so if thats what they think they are doing over there, even then it is for the wrong reasons.  More and more people are leaning towards an isolationist standpoint, and we make that desire heard through our votes.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
80 over % of British was against this war, no less than 70% of the citizens of the countries in the 'Colliation of the willing'  were supportive of it.

What's democracy again? Will of the majority? come again?

It's in their interest to maintain this facade.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
I can't speak for Britain, or Italy, or Spain, etc., but a majority of the American people were in favor of going into Iraq, an element of truth that even you were caught trying to deny when you said it was somewhere around 35% when, in fact, your article noted that the 35% was in reference to those opposing invasion.


>>What's democracy again? Will of the majority? come again?

Okay, we're a representative democracy, if you want to get into semantics.  Your point is still what?
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
35% when, in fact, your article noted that the 35% was in reference to those opposing invasion.

I was wrong there(U.S Support for the Iraq war),  still despite of all this....


0
 
gr8gonzoConsultantCommented:
> 1.  A prompt reaction from Bush sitting in front of children probably would have scared everyone in that room half to death.  Even a calm, cool, "I have to leave" would have sparked fear amongst the adults.

Oh, it's good, then, because I guess they didn't get scared later. He doesn't seem to have a problem sparking fear now, though.

> The teacher on hand there has praised him for remaining calm given the news that was offered up out of the blue.

That's nice that she mirrors your opinion, but that really makes no difference. He doesn't have to break out in a panic and scream. A calm, cool "I have to leave" would have sparked fear, sure, but it would've been the most appropriate thing to do.

>  The fact that this is your first post in demonizing Bush says a lot about what to expect from the rest of your "points"

I picked Bush as the subject because his campaign and the subject of terrorism go hand-in-hand. I have to start somewhere, and I was proffering it as my response to the many Don't-Criticize-America posts so far. If you don't want to respond to the other points, then I'll just assume you're ill-equipped to do so. But to leave Bush's inadequacies out of the terrorism talk is like trying to ignore your leg being cut off.

> which is way I will refrain from even clogging this thread with pointless American politcal banter.

Ah, banter like how much of the American public was in favor of going into Iraq?

And in response to that, I say of course so many were in favor of going to Iraq. This goes right back to one of my points (#5), which mentioned that the administration was actively looking for ways into an Iraq war. One of Cheney's on-camera lies was that there was "definitive" evidence linking Al-Quaeda to Hussein. They iterated that point on every media channel possible, and as I mentioned before, it only takes an accusation for people to believe it's the truth.

- J
0
 
SunBowCommented:
Author Comment > What's democracy again? Will of the majority? come again?

Not democracy, capitalism.  Each country participating was bought & paid for, often including options to particippate (make money) in the aftermath, such as one 30 billion check to Turkey

> It's in their interest to maintain this facade.
 
That can be shortsighted to planners who do not do good homework. Example this week is Turkey beginning to plan a pullout, not because of insurgents beheading their exported workers when seeking god-almighty-dollar, but for US' strafing and killing Iraqi civilians of Turkish descent (familial relationships still count).

AzraSound> I can't speak for Britain, or Italy, or Spain, etc., but a majority of the American people were in favor of going into Iraq, an element of truth  

I disagree.  Although I'll allow for element of truth that some certain surveys may better support such claim leaving even current anti-administration political candidates posturing as pro-war, I think they are still incorrect about underestimating the passism, the greater desire of them for R&R and participation in the next round of beer. While a more clear majority did not mind chasing after OBL/911, they had not heard he'd high-tailed it to Bagdad, so that is a much murkier position, where more Amers prefer'd nuking Bagdad to nuking Afghans (not same as being there, downtown, after tour of duty is over).
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
US Gives Conflicting Accounts of Rocket Attack By PATRICK COCKBURN
http://counterpunch.org/patrick09162004.html

The US sought yesterday to defend the two helicopter pilots who fired seven rockets into a crowd on Sunday killing 13 people and wounding 41, saying they had come under "well-aimed ground fire". This is different from the first statement by the US military claiming that they had opened fire with rockets in order to prevent a Bradley fighting vehicle hit by a bomb from being looted of arms and ammunition.

Col Jim McConville, the head of the First Cavalry Division's aviation brigade, said two helicopters armed with heavy machine guns had swooped over a crowd when they were shot at from near the Bradley. Both helicopters then attacked.

The US account of the incident in which Mazen al-Tomeizi, a Palestinian television producer working for al-Arabiya satellite channel was killed, was contradicted by the film taken by his cameraman at the moment the rocket struck. There is no sound of firing from the crowd in the moments before the helicopters attacked.

The US military's accounts of incidents in which it claims to have targeted insurgents but only civilians have died are frequently discredited by Arab television pictures of the incident which US officers apparently do not watch before issuing statements. At the weekend the US was claiming to have precisely hit insurgents in Fallujah while Iraqis were watching pictures on television of an ambulance gutted from the air in which a driver, paramedic and five patients died.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
more lies...
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
I've been thinking about this question over the last week, and although I sympathise with many of the people(s) who are committing terrorist acts, I cannot think of any justification for terrorist acts that target children.

By "target" I mean not taking all possible precautions (including the precaution of not making the attack at all if you can't be sure) to ensure no child is injured. If you don't take these precautions, you are, in my view, targetting the children.

I guess part of the reason I'm having so much trouble is my personal beliefs in this area. I don't consider that the way a child deserves to be treated should in any way be determined by who that child's parents happen to be.

Put another way, I believe all children have the same rights regardless of their place or time of birth. I also extend this to say that all adults have a personal responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of all children regardless of borders, religions, whatever.

I know many people will read this and say "but it's 'natural' to treat your own better". It's also 'natural' to react violently to some situations, but we fully expect people to control their 'natural' tendencies in this area. As we expect them to curb any other 'natural' desire that is contrary to the wellfare of the society or indeed of the species as a whole.

So, I see the difference simply as a matter of degree. Personally I consider it reasonable to expect people to act according to the principle of "the needs of the many outway those of the few(or the one)" at all times and in all circumstances, but I know many disagree, any many more don't act this way.

Regards
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
If there is video evidence contradicting what Col Jim McConville says, I'd expect there to be a disciplinary hearing. Let's see how the story progresses. It doesn't surprise me that soldiers are twitchy in war zones and mistakes get made, but cover-ups do make them look as if they are part of a master plan.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
gbentley,

> I consider it reasonable to expect people to act according to the principle of "the needs of the many outway those of the few(or the one)" at all times and in all circumstances

But A's perception of B's needs are different from C's. Is A right to force his views upon B through violence?
0
 
gbentleyCommented:
But B is not many and A or C few, they're each individuals.

I'm trying to say if anything I do in pursuit of my desires causes any group of which I'm a member to be worse off in any way, I have acted unethically. That my highest goal and greatest drive in life should be the betterment of the group even if this is to my detriment. And I mean "highest", above all other drives including perhaps the disposition of your immortal soul!

Now all I'm doing here is interpreting a commonly stated ethical principle in such a way as to make the real meaning clear. It's easy to say "the needs of the many..." but if you say you should sacrifice your life to save those of any other two people in any circumstance, it's a bit more in your face, a bit more real. But, two is more than one, so that's what it really means.

This might seem harsh, but I'm simply taking people at their word. It is our responsibilty to make sure we mean what they say before saying it, after is too late, we're stuck with it.

In terms of the example you give. I would say you have the right to do whatever you want, provided that in so doing you do not impinge upon the right of any other person to do as they wish. Now you can't know what I might want except by asking me, so you can never assume that your actions will meet this standard unless you check with anyone who could be affected before taking the actions. If you can't check, the only ethical action would be to not carry out the actions. In other words always err on the side of caution.

Regards
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
gbentley,

>By "target" I mean not taking all possible precautions (including the precaution of not making the attack at all if you can't be sure) to ensure no child is injured. If you don't take these precautions, you are, in my view, targetting the children.

No such precaution are taken when the targets are muslims. It's either collateral damage, the terrorists are using children as Human shields (like it gives the  pepetrators a moral right to hit through them) and others.

The helicopter is an example (one of the many) of such crimes. and you will never get to hear the facts as they are by the colluding media. Al Jazeera is making life difficult for U.S media to cover up these facts, hence the U.S decission to kill their journalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

rstaveley,

>If there is video evidence contradicting what Col Jim McConville says, I'd expect there to be a disciplinary hearing.

There isn't going to be any. Unlike Abu Ghraib, this is not even considered a crime!

>It doesn't surprise me that soldiers are twitchy in war zones and mistakes get made, but cover-ups do make them look as if they are part of a master plan.

How do you fire (not 1) but 7 missles into unarmed civillians and consider it "not a mistake"? Plus there were 2 helicopters firing, no hostile fire returned (recorded) and an Al Arabiya journalist killed. Someone did give the orders.

"Twitchy" is not an excuse for killing civillians either. The security for an occupied people is the responsibility of the occupational army (not the other way round)
0
 
mogadishuheroCommented:
in an urban environment civilians would really get killed thats why in somalia we blend with civilians so that when we get killed, civilians to will also get killed to make international issue! I am with the other militia in the height of the US in the country. even in world war 2 civilians get killed, in a war there is death! you cannot call war a war without collateral damage. Imagine we have nuke that would destroy a city with large population, and we enclosed our selves in a hospital, how would you react? we set the bomb 10 minutes! its our enemies option to sacrifice the civilians, you people put standards what must be good or not, right or wrong, you dont know what the hell war is!
0
 
mogadishuheroCommented:
im selling my ak47 for an ak74
0
 
mogadishuheroCommented:
i need RPG7
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
gbentley,

Your philosophy is very close to the evolved altruism described by Richard Dawkins (the Selfish Gene guy). Look after you, your family, your town, your county, your country, your continent, your species.

> In terms of the example you give. I would say you have the right to do whatever you want, provided that in so doing you do not impinge upon the right of any other person to do as they wish.

OK, but there are so few rights that don't impinge on others. I'm sure you wouldn't say, "You DO NOT have the right to do whatever you want, IF in so doing you DO impinge upon the right of any other person to do as they wish." You get into a chicken-or-egg situation, where you need to judge who established their right to do what first, because so many rights are excluded by others' existing rights. I do not have a right for silence, if you already have a right to make a noise :-)

zamorin,

>> disciplinary hearing.
> There isn't going to be any.

I hope you are wrong. Let's see.

> "Twitchy" is not an excuse...

I agree that "twitchy" isn't an excuse, but it is an inevitable human condition in warfare. Can 7 missiles be said to be a twitch? Frankly I don't know. I imagine there is a lot of hysteria in the war zone. Once the first missile was launched the rest could have been a hysterical out-pouring.

So does that mean that evil burger-eating rstaveley is justifying the slaughter of innocents? No of course not. I just think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees.

The American alliance, which includes my countrymen, illegally invaded Iraq. The war is bad. Resistance forces took the battle into built up areas, effectively creating human shields around themselves. The battle is bad.

If there is an excuse to me made, it is that soldiers have been put into a situation where they are required to fight a battle amongst civilians. It is the alliance's fault because the war is bad. It is the resistance's fault because the battle is bad.

In your original post on this matter, you said:

> I'm sure that would have discouraged the Iraqis from appearing 'happy' on news channels thus giving this 'fight against terror' an undesirable exposure for manufacturing consent.

It sounds like you suspect that the helicopter attack was part of cold calculation by the alliance. I sincerely hope you are wrong. Let's see if more evidence emerges which support your view. I don't see any compelling evidence yet.

> Al Jazeera is making life difficult for U.S media to cover up these facts...

You are right. Al Jazeera has a very important role to play for balance. For those readers not already familiar with Al Jazeera's journalism, I recommend looking at the Iraq special report at http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8245212D-39CC-4E6E-80FF-2E1F29F72BC5.htm
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>No such precaution are taken when the targets are muslims

If the US military was as wreckless as you wish to paint them, there would be no people left standing over there.  If you wish to go back to the days of mass, random carpet-bombing, I'm afraid you won't find yourself surrounded by many friends.

I think the obvious targeting of children recently in Chechnya speaks volumes about the mentality of these people.  They could have attacked any number of targets, but they decided a school full of children was the best option.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> these people

Ouch
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
To clarify for the overly sensitive ...

"these people" refers to Islamic fundamentalists/fanatics who have zero regard for human life, and who can use Zionism and US foreign policy as a guise for their attacks/movement, when, in fact, their true motivation is the spread of their fanatical and distorted view of Islam.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Shamil Basayev?
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
I get the impression that Islamic fundamentalism has been a marriage of convenience for Shamil Basayev: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/460594.stm
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
mogadishuhero,

>in an urban environment civilians would really get killed thats why in somalia we blend with civilians so that when we get killed, civilians to will also get killed to make international issue!

Very noble of you. you blend in (your military) with the civilians?

Have you heard of the geneva convention?

rstaveley,

>Sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees.

It really is.

>It is the alliance's fault because the war is bad. It is the resistance's fault because the battle is bad.

how so?

AzraSound,

Is there a point, even?
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
"The AH-64D Longbow Apache is equipped with the Northrop Grumman millimetre-wave Longbow radar. The Longbow fire control radar incorporates an integrated radar frequency interferometer for passive location and identification of radar emitting threats. An advantage of millimetre wave is that it performs under poor visibility conditions and is less sensitive to ground clutter. The short wavelength allows a very narrow beamwidth which is resistant to countermeasures.

The Longbow Apache can effect an attack in thirty seconds. The radar dome is unmasked for a single radar scan and then remasked. The processors determine the location, speed and direction of travel of a maximum of 256 targets."
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
>> the battle is bad.
> how so?

because the resistance chose the battle ground (cf. mogadishuhero)
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> Longbow Apache etc.

Maybe I'm being thick, but I don't understand the relevance of all the military hardware references.
0
 
mogadishuheroCommented:
can a poor country and culture (our clan fighting) let Geneva convention change the standards of war? when the opposing clan fought the US in 1993 they blended with civlians, this is the new war, i have read that the US claims urban warfare if the future war that is why even the basic soldier trains cqb against ground enemies, we have thought them what is the future for they suffered casualties here. We watched and monitored the raid and it is really impossible not to have civilians lost lives, but a good commander would do the best to minimize casualties from his team and civilians based on the resources they have. I learned few years back that the task force ranger operation the commander requested AC130 as air support for he knew what would happen but was not granted. And rescue team given was not sufficient. To the author about your comment to me, have you heard of hostage situation in your city? Its principle is the same from what we are doing, only you people put "brighter colors" on a simple issue here. when you are in danger your instinct is to protect yourself by any means. If you are getting to be killed by someone arent you going to do the hiding? comeon wake up all of those things are the same only the numbers here are in question!
0
 
mogadishuheroCommented:
im selling my ak47 for an ak74, i also need an rpg7
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
rstaveley,

>because the resistance chose the battle ground (cf. mogadishuhero)

The resistance is caused by the U.S occupatation. The U.S chose the battleground.
Tomorrow if the U.S invades Iran, who is choosing the battleground? who is choosing the battle?

Do you expect any nationality to willingly subjugate in the face of tyrany, however overwhelming it is? The U.S army isn't exactly defending Texas in Iraq.

>Maybe I'm being thick, but I don't understand the relevance of all the military hardware references

It simply means an insurgent (even if there were any) armed with a pistol is no match for an Apache helicopter. Using dispropotionate force is a war crime (among the countless other crimes committed by the U.S on a daily basis)


mogadishuhero,

>can a poor country and culture (our clan fighting) let Geneva convention change the standards of war? when the opposing clan fought the US in 1993 they blended with civlians,

Why, do you expect the insurgents to idenfify themselves before they engage the U.S military?

Lack of which, the U.S discriminatly  kills civillians. and that is fair?

The U.S is neither a trustworthy ally nor an honorable enemy!

>We watched and monitored the raid and it is really impossible not to have civilians lost lives, but a good commander would do the best to minimize casualties from his team and civilians based on the resources they have.

One can't claim to minimize casualties yet at the same time use dispropotionate force against civillians. It is clear and deliberate violation of any rules of engagement. But as usual, the U.S is above it all.

U.S Snipers (in Fallujah) killing a 6 month baby carried by his grandmother was a threat to him too (1 km away)? It was hard to ignore the threat posed by the infant and his grandmother to the U.S army, indeed!

0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
zamorin,

> The resistance is caused by the U.S occupatation.

Correct. If the war hadn't been waged there would be no need for resistance. War is bad. US alliance take the rap for that.

> The U.S chose the battleground.

I can't agree with that. The insurgents operating from within Fallujah have chosen their battleground. They chose to put citizens at risk by taking cover in that way.

> Do you expect any nationality to willingly subjugate in the face of tyrany

No I do not, but are the means justified? [Returning to your original question]

> ...deliberate violation of any rules of engagement. But as usual, the U.S is above it all.

No of course not. The US alliance is guilty of an illegal invasion. Of course it is not above UN condemnation, but the UN doesn't have teeth, so we hope that the citizens of the US, UK etc will come round to seeing the war as a Bad Thing and not do it again.

In the first place, I thought that the invasion was Good Thing despite its illegality. I believed Tony Blair, when he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed against me in 20 minutes and that Sadam was negotiating with groups that want to kill me (for reasons beyond my ken) and looked set to put those weapons into their hands. I now know that it was a Bad Thing, because I was misled. I'm probably representative of a significant proportion of UK voters, being altruistic when selfishness doesn't get in the way; I think most people now in the UK believe that the invasion was a Bad Thing.

> U.S Snipers (in Fallujah) killing a 6 month baby...

Are you seriously suggesting that the US military wants to kill 6 month old babies? Perhaps there are demented individuals who do, but you weaken your argument by muck-raking like this. Crimes are committed by individuals and by nations. If you don't differentiate between the two, your nation is guity of every transgression caused by its citizens.

> Using dispropotionate force is a war crime (among the countless other crimes committed by the U.S on a daily basis)

There you go again. Is the sniper incident US policy? Is the helicopter incident US policy? Certainly they are a result of the US policy to wage the war in the first place, but given that there is now this wretched war, do they indicate greater depths of immorality in the US nation or are they the acts of individuals?

mogadishuhero,

> i also need an rpg7

I am sorry to hear that.

I understand that the greatest killer in the world is poor water supply. Are the supplies in Mogadishu contaminated?
0
 
mogadishuheroCommented:
Author-how i really wish you experience living in a war torn and poor country! I pray to Allah that in any way you go to a place wherein your experiences would change you and will be forced to eat all of your words! The point here is war is war! There is no war without collateral damages, you are strong to say that because you are not afected and see war in tv, movies, games damn it, join us here i dare you im sure on the months you stay you would learn to fight and become different.

rstaveley-yes food is really, scarce and water here is polluted because people are very weak to do normal chores here, the weak dies here, i remember a friend whom i watch die of starvation. that is why i learned to use weapons to fight the other clan.  No one wants to do it but its a matter of survival here, do you want to die of starvation, of course no?
0
 
mogadishuheroCommented:
author-if you dont know to accept reality you should have not posted this kind of question you cant handle
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
I'd like to press the reset button:
--------------------------------------
Terrorism: Destructive and/or violent acts performed by people not on behalf of a government intended to scare civilians to further a cause.

Let's start here.  

Terrorism in the best case:  A race of people are being brutally repressed by their government and, after failing repeated attempts at gaining attention for their cause, they blow up a train station (after it is evacuated).

I would say this is terrorism.  I can't think of a much milder or justifiable example.

I would also say that it is NOT justified in this example because:
- Deciding when the ends justifies the means needs to involve concensus (or representative concensus).  People deciding what's fair on their own accords and acting out on that basis can only lead to chaos.
- Terrorism affects people that never had it coming



0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
>"these people" refers to Islamic fundamentalists/fanatics who have zero regard for human life

Using general term like this way is offensive!
If you mean Iraqis resistant then "Those people" are trying to defend on their countries.
Please you have to discuss each case separately without use general terms and without mix between different issues like the school event.

>who can use Zionism and US foreign policy as a guise for their attacks/movement
>when, in fact, their true motivation is the spread of their fanatical and distorted view of Islam.

what a point of view! what a reasonable thinking! congratulations, AzraSound, you are the best.
 


0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>If you mean Iraqis resistant then "Those people" are trying to defend on their countries

Most of "those people" are not Iraqis.  More Iraqis are killed everyday by attacks from "those people" than anyone else.  Doesn't sound like much of a defense for them.


>>what a point of view! what a reasonable thinking! congratulations, AzraSound, you are the best

I watched a documentary just the other day, where the reporter interviewed a Pakistani who had traveled to Afghanistan to join Osama Bin Laden.  The Pakistani man said that their goal is to spread their interpretation of Islam, and that it meant taking control of a nation state as the first step.  He said if they couldn't have Afghanistan, they'll find somewhere else.  "These people" who blow up Americans as well as Iraqis are not there to help fight the occupation.  If that were the case, they would not target the Iraqi people themselves.
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
<<<"these people" refers to Islamic fundamentalists/fanatics who have zero regard for human life>>>

This is how we felt about the Russians.  When it comes down to it we are all people.  
There is a culture war going on.  There isn't a lot of difference between Ashcroft and Osama.  I have no use for either of them and I think the world would be far better off if the idiots on their side just fought the idiots on our side and left us decent people alone.

<<<"These people" who blow up Americans as well as Iraqis are not there to help fight the occupation.>>>
In a very real way, they are.  They have watched as the US uses governments as pawns.  They watch as American culture invades and offends.  They watch as America illegally invades a soveriegn nation under false pretenses.  Should they be OK with America setting up a government that violates their values (secular, sexually equal, ...)?
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>Should they be OK with America setting up a government that violates their values (secular, sexually equal, ...)?

Most of these people are not even Iraqis.  If it is the Iraqi people who do not want us there, let them display their displeasure.  I bet you if all of the foreign "insurgents" left Iraq the attacks would all but disappear.
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
<<<I bet you if all of the foreign "insurgents" left Iraq the attacks would all but disappear.>>>
This belief was promoted by the Bush admin.  It's clrear from all the news reports that it isn't true.


<<<Most of these people are not even Iraqis.  If it is the Iraqi people who do not want us there, let them display their displeasure. >>>
Hey pot -- you're black.  We went halfway around the world and one of 'reasons du jour' was to free the Iraqi people.  If you are OK withg us meddling in their country, you should be OK with someone from their neighborhhood doing so.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>It's clrear from all the news reports that it isn't true

Really?  The news reports seem to indicate that most of these groups carrying out the attacks are foreign fighters.  What are you reading?


>>If you are OK withg us meddling in their country, you should be OK with someone from their neighborhhood doing so

You're right, what nerve we have ousting a ruthless dictator and trying to help the country rebuild.  If I were over there, I think I would prefer having continued fighting between coalition forces and my wonderful Muslim neighbors too.  Better yet, I wish I were back under sanctions and suppressed by Saddam.  Yeah, good times, good times.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
AzraSound,

You take everything that Bush throws at you as the "truth"

Who are the people fighting in Iraq?

First it was the Saddam remenants, then the foreign fighters, terrorists, then insurgents.
If there are foreign fighters, how do they operate in Iraq without their corporation?

Who is Moqtar Al Sadr and his million followers? Non Iraqi's?

What is Fallujah? Abu Zarqawi's hometown?

There are about 200,000 foreign fighers in Iraq. 140,000 of them wear the U.S uniform!

0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>You take everything that Bush throws at you as the "truth"

I take everything I read, and then interpret, as MY truth.  Do not chastise me.  I've had enough of your attacks.


>>Who is Moqtar Al Sadr and his million followers? Non Iraqi's?

He has a million followers??  Well, then, they must be coming largely from Iran.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
mogadishuhero,


>Author-how i really wish you experience living in a war torn and poor country! I pray to Allah that in any way you go to a place wherein your experiences would change you and will be forced to eat all of your words!

I wish no one was. I wish no one have to be killed every year somewhere by U.S forces, torture, rape and other crimes.
The country with the biggest criminal record in history is advocating morality!
The country with the record number of prisoners in the world is advocating freedom!
The country that bombs foreign news stations, kills their journalist is advocating freedom of speech!

One word : Hypocrisy

Why waste time praying to allah, Jesus, Buddha or others. Why not spend time looking beyond state sponsered propaganda and your nations bondage to the state by fear?

>The point here is war is war!

The point is your country is the authors of this war and many other wars that has killed so many.


>Join us here i dare you im sure on the months you stay you would learn to fight and become different

I rather remain where I am (in my underdeveloped part of the world), than be or associated with  the most efficient killing machine.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
AzraSound,

>Most of "those people" are not Iraqis.

Actually you are not amazing me, I already suspected that you have a misinformation and misunderstanding about what is going on in Iraq and middle east. Unfortunately your government mislead you, they want to let you imagine that they fight against -heh- the terrorism for your secure, at the time that they fight for their personal purpose. But what amazing me that some of you still believe them!
Anyway most of those people are Iraqis and most of Iraqis -if not all- supports those resistant, not just that but all Arabs and Moslems and even people of another countries support them, I live in this area and know really what is going on here.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
AzraSound,

> More Iraqis are killed everyday by attacks from "those people" than anyone else.

You get back again to mix between resistance and another some of events that happened by some other groups in Iraq.

> watched a documentary just the other day, where the reporter interviewed a Pakistani who had traveled to Afghanistan to join Osama Bin Laden.  The Pakistani man said that their goal is to spread their interpretation of Islam.

Do you apply what happened with this Pakistani man on what is happening here in Iraq!
Yes their is a limited group of Al-Qaeda entered in Iraq at the time of the war, no one deny that but most of attacks against US military done by Iraqis.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
AzraSound,

>I take everything I read, and then interpret, as MY truth.  Do not chastise me.  I've had enough of your attacks.

Therein lies the problem (the interpretation). I've no real reason to chastise you. That was a sample of your style (which ofcourse you did not like), lets argue our points/beliefs instead of attacking each other, it's pointless.

I chastise your country and it's policies because they are wrong and dirty.

>He has a million followers??  Well, then, they must be coming largely from Iran

There are more Shiates than Sunni's in Iraq. His followers didn't have to come from anywhere, but ofcourse that's what Bush want's everyone to beleive.

Wondered why almost all the dead insurgents were Iraqi's, if they came from Iran?
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
Many Iraqi's claim the attacks on them are deliberatly created by the U.S to keep the country unstable. Beleivable when the country is looted daily by U.S oil companies.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
Zamorin,

>Many Iraqi's claim the attacks on them are deliberatly created by the U.S to keep the country unstable.

This is high possible.
Zamorin, Did you hear also about the Iraqis scientists that have been killed in last months? till now there are more than 30 Iraqis scientists killed by unknown group.


AzraSound,

>>He has a million followers??  Well, then, they must be coming largely from Iran

Are you kidding or what!
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>That was a sample of your style

Bullcrap.  You are the attackers.  You and Abdu constantly are on the attack.

I'm through with all of you.  I will continue to read my sources, a lot of which comes from Iraqi blogs, but they are probably just members of the Bush administration under the guise of an Iraqi.  The world is lost.  Good luck to you all.
0
 
JakobACommented:
>> AzraSound    "You are the attackers"

   Sometimes it is difficult to believe that you are a real person :(

regards JakobA
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
You are all blind.  Any time I have shown hostility is in response to someone else being hostile first.  Either they accuse me of being a liar, an idiot too stupid to think for myself, or something else.  As soon as I retort to defend myself, I am the bad guy.  I am sick of it.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Abdu_Allah & zamorin,

> Many Iraqi's claim the attacks on them are deliberatly created by the U.S to keep the country unstable

Is that what you both believe too, or do you think those "many Iraqis" are wide of the mark?

What are your information sources? How do you know that many Iraqis are indeed making that claim?

Abdhu_Allah, it sounds like you're geographically closer to Iraq than most of us. Are you getting your information from Iraqi evacuees?

Gentlemen, I'm not trying to shoot you down for your assertions, I'm trying to evaluate them. The only thing that I know for sure is that I don't know much at all.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
FWIW, I read much of my information in Iraqi blogs, e.g.,

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/


There are plenty of links to others from those as well.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Those'll keep me quiet for a while. Thanks, AzraSound.

Abdu_Allah & zamorin, do you have similar blogs supporting what you say... or are they all Arabic?
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
AzraSound,

<<<news reports seem to indicate that most of these groups carrying out the attacks are foreign fighters>>>
Ah, so how are things on Fox News these days?

Here's some hard data:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

It's in the president's interest to distort the truth and he isn't shy about doing it.  How can you feel good about <<what nerve we have ousting a ruthless dictator>> when the truth is they don't want us there.

I was recently reading a story about a disillusionsed US soldier who was subjected to an RPG attack.  The thing that *really* bothered him was that when he went back to the place where the ambusher had been waiting, it was out in the open, the ambusher had apparently been waiting for a long time, eaten lunch, ...

You are, no doubt, a Bush supporter.  People who are well informed aren't.

0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>Ah, so how are things on Fox News these days?

Lame assumption.


>>You are, no doubt, a Bush supporter.  People who are well informed aren't.

Lame attack.  I add you to my list.  I have even said in this thread I think Bush is inadequate.
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
Oh Noooo!!!!!!!!   Not THE LIST!!!!
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
Here you go Bob.  This one isn't even from Fox News...just for you:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040623-094344-1804r
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
rstaveley,

>Is that what you both believe too, or do you think those "many Iraqis" are wide of the mark?
>Abdhu_Allah, it sounds like you're geographically closer to Iraq than most of us. Are you getting your information from Iraqi evacuees?

All of Iraqis who I met them believe that and most of Iraqis that appears in different media believe that.

There are many events happened in Iraq say that who did it try to destroy the civilization & culture in Iraq, the best example is the killing of Iraqis scientists and most of those scientists are in physics and computer felid. I get this information from the official human rights committee in Iraq and this event is mentioned on many medias include AL-Jazeera and they also published their names
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
AzraSound,

>I read much of my information in Iraqi blogs, e.g....

I do not wonder why you have like this situation if you believe like these things. These blogs are part of US government propaganda campaign that aims to get more supporter.
I see that you are the person who is very easy to be tricked. If that so tomorrow I want to create new blog that talking against US government and claim it is an Iraqi blog, Who will know!

AzraSound & rstaveley,
The thing that you do not know it that all Iraqis (except small group) against US. And all of them want the US military to get out from Iraq. So from this point you have to start to rethink of US war against Iraq.
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
AzraSound:

Although all Arabs might look and sound alike to us, they don't to other Arabs.  Iraq was ethnically homogenous before the war and the foreigners that come in stand out.

It's no surprise that foreigners have come to Fallujah to help their Sunni brothers fight the Great Satan.  But in other parts of the country, they stand out.  They are easy to identify and easy to arrest.  They also don't have a family/tribe support system so they would be likely to be turned in anyway.

So they function mainly as soldiers (most suicide bombers are also foreign).

So, yes, foreign fighters/suicide bombers do come in.  But they aren't a part of the incidious problem.  The 2% that are in prison is a very telling number.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>this event is mentioned on many medias include AL-Jazeera
>>These blogs are part of US government propaganda campaign that aims to get more supporter.

So, you believe Al-Jazeera is a credible news source.  Ok, I did some digging:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/62B296B5-4EF2-4DAE-9F6F-4F4B29D77707.htm

"Salam Pax's diary

Web-logging, in which internet users post their observations, experiences and thoughts on websites, first became a news source for conventional media after the US-led invasion of Iraq.
 
The blog by an unidentified 29-year-old man, who goes by the name of Salam Pax, was seized upon for its vivid description of daily life as the war unfolded. The diary is being turned into a film."


This referenced blog is here:
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

This very blog links to the blogs I pointed to above.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> The thing that you do not know it that all Iraqis (except small group) against US

Yes, you are right. I don't know that. You say that's true, but haven't substantiated. I remain ignorant. You might be living three doors down the street from me for all I know and have no better information sources than I do. Where do you get your information?

> If that so tomorrow I want to create new blog that talking against US government and claim it is an Iraqi blog, Who will know!

The comments would look pretty suspect, if you did that. On the other hand AzraSound's blog links and links thence are compelling. If they are part of an elaborate US propaganda war, I have to say that they are very convincing. If you have no truck with the main copy, have you read through some of the comments? They are quite diverse.

Is EE part of this great conspiracy? Perhaps you're all CIA agents trying to ensnare rstaveley, because you're all wary about my doubts about the US. That makes Abdu_Allah and AzraSound co-conspirators. Wow. Perhaps not.
0
 
dhsindy SparrowRetired considering supplemental income.Commented:
To confront a superior opponent directly is stupidity or suicide.

There are several examples of passive resistance having better results.  In India against the British for example.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
AzraSound,

Let us suppose that these blogs are real, so do you think that these few blogs represent more than 10 milions of people!
There are few like this Salam Pax,but do you expect that all of Iraqis people 100% against US!  
This is not reasonable man!
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
I never said that, but the fact that there are Iraqis speaking out against the foreign militants, the Al-Sadrs, etc., should give some idea that it also isn't 100% anti-US.  There are several blogs I read from Iraqis who are anti-US as well.  One of them actually switched from anti-US to pro-US during the course of the occupation (can't recall which, exactly).  All I am saying is that, I am not using these links to these blogs as evidence that many Iraqis support the road to democracy (interesting link to a poll at Salam Pax's site addresses this, though), but the content within these blogs as a source of information since these people are telling real stories that are really happening day to day in Iraq.  You should take the time to read some of them as many are quite interesting.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
rstaveley,

>You say that's true, but haven't substantiated.

There are many surveys done in Iraq show that most of Iraqis want US army to get out from Iraq, Actually I am trying to find an online English version.

>Is EE part of this great conspiracy? Perhaps you're all CIA agents trying to ensnare rstaveley, because you're all wary about my doubts about the US.
 
I do not say that their is a conspiracy or something like that, my point when I mentioned the story of killing Iraqis scientists was to show AzraSound that Iraq now have many different groups with many different purposes, other than Alqaeda and resistant group, but unfortunately AzraSound as US media paint all these group with one color to show that those groups are terrorists to get more supporters and something like that.

0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
Here is the survey from Salam Pax website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf


>>I mentioned the story of killing Iraqis scientists...have many different groups with many different purposes

Oh, I absolutely agree that there are groups with different agendas.  However, none of their agendas seem to be to help restore order to Iraq as soon as possible, and let the country start to rebuild.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
AzraSound, again those blogs do not represent Iraqi people, anyway I took a look at them and realized that most of these blogs are Kurdish blogs which not even consider themselves as Iraqis and someother against who bombing Iraqis not intend the resistant.
if you want really to know how Iraqis feel toward US and their military come to Iraq and walk in its streets if you are lucky they will kill you without cutting your head.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
>However, none of their agendas seem to be to help restore order to Iraq as soon as possible, and let the country start to rebuild.

The first priority for Iraqis now is to kick you out from Iraq and then start to rebuild what you damaged.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Abdu_Allah, are you in Iraq?
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
>Here is the survey from Salam Pax website.

You rely too much on Salam Pax!
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
By the way Pax is not Arabic name! I suspect this guy is Kurdish!
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
By the way, there are several number of factions within Iraq (Sunni, Shite, Kurds).  You probably won't find many Kurds who don't like us.  You probably won't find lots of Sunni that do.

Another huge issue is whether Iraq descends into civil (or regional) war.  Apparently this is a strong possibility.  If it happens, it might be that almost everyone will miss Saddam.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
Pax = peace

It is a pen name
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>You rely too much on Salam Pax!

He just came up in this discussion a few posts ago.  I have never referred to him, ever, in any other discussion on this website.  I only used him because he is the one Al-Jazeera referenced in their article.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
>Are you in Iraq?

rstaveley, We are who live in Arabic countries consider ourselves as a one country for many reasons religius, culture, ethnic and many other reason, we have the same direction, same enemy, there is no difference between us.



0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
I'll take that as a no then.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
AzraSound,

Ignorance is bliss! you might be a nice guy.

You claim the foreign fighters are from Iran, I ask you, then why almost all dead insurgent are Iraqi's? Do you have an answer?

Now you claim the factuallity of Iraqi blogs. Which Iraqis will find the Internet most accessible? Those who support the occupation (less than 20%) or those who oppose the occupation (more than 80%)? Where and who set up the internet cafes in Iraq? U.S in the Greenzone?

Another contradiction from you:

You claim I don't know U.S politics because I'm not in U.S, but you are not in Iraq either, atleast Abdu_Allah has the advantage of proximity, yet you claim to know better.

>I never said that, but the fact that there are Iraqis speaking out against the foreign militants, the Al-Sadrs, etc., should give some idea that it also isn't 100% anti-US.

82% of the Iraqi's detest the U.S presence, what don't you get? The U.S puppets will surely support the occupation, their collusion/enrichment/life depends on it. No one said it was 100%.

>Oh, I absolutely agree that there are groups with different agendas.  However, none of their agendas seem to be to help restore order to Iraq as soon as possible, and let the country start to rebuild.

For that to happen, the U.S needs to get out of Iraq or they are eventually going to be driven out anyway. The group with the biggest agenda(U.S) needs to be out first.

rstaveley,

>Is that what you both believe too, or do you think those "many Iraqis" are wide of the mark?

If the U.S is committing even worse attrocities, I don't think it's very much off the mark.

>Abdu_Allah & zamorin, do you have similar blogs supporting what you say... or are they all Arabic?

There is no point reading manufactured blogs (they are as useles as the main-stream media like fox, cnn etc), Try independant ones instead. I don't have a link at the moment plus I'm not Arabic ;-)

PS: Did you hear anything about the helicopter enquiry yet, which is supposed to happen?
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> I don't think it's very much off the mark.

In what respects do you think that it is off the mark? What do you believe the extent of this great conspiracy is? What is the US masterplan?

> Try independant ones instead.

Could you share some of these sources with us?
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> PS: Did you hear anything about the helicopter enquiry yet, which is supposed to happen?

No I haven't. I'm not well informed, but these things normally take a while to take place. Have you heard anything to indicate that the inquiry is not going to take place? It would be pretty poor if it doesn't. I'm hoping that it is made into a public enquiry.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
rstaveley,

>What do you believe the extent of this great conspiracy is? What is the US masterplan?

To a big extend, what is proposed in the PNAC. A world dominated by Pax Americana. A world at permenant war. Afterall it enriches the authors with minimal cost. What's a 1000 dead U.S soldiers to them? What's dead Iraqi's for them?

>Could you share some of these sources with us?

I rarely read blogs, but this one is recommeded by zmag:
http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=03/12/18/2212237&mode=nested&tid=15

>Have you heard anything to indicate that the inquiry is not going to take place?

No I haven't, but if history is a teacher, I'm 101% sure there isn't going to be any. Time will tell.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> PNAC

You've got to extrapolate a good deal from the position set out by PNAC to reach the conclusion that...

> the attacks on [Iraq] are deliberatly created by the U.S to keep the country unstable

Like you, zamorin, I have a lot of problems with the idea about the US positioning itself as the world policeman, but the ideals of PNAC don't equate to an *intention* to keep...

> A world at permenant war

...even if the practical implications of US attempts do have a contributory role to world instability, which in my opinion they do... and most certainly in the Middle East.

> Afterall it enriches the authors with minimal cost. What's a 1000 dead U.S soldiers to them? What's dead Iraqi's for them?

If the authors are evil, you are right. If they are well-intentioned but misguided, you are wrong. My overall impression of US foreign policy is of incompetence rather than malevolence.

> zmag

From http://zmagsite.zmag.org/zmagtop.htm ...

"Mission: Z is an independent monthly magazine dedicated to resisting injustice, defending against repression, and creating liberty. It sees the racial, gender, class, and political dimensions of personal life as fundamental to understanding and improving contemporary circumstances; and it aims to assist activist efforts for a better future."

If that's your mission too, you and Abdu_Allah are united with respect to stopping US supremacy, but I imagine you are divided about government by Sharia (&#1588;&#1585;&#1610;&#1593;&#1577;)?

Thanks for sharing that.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
rstaveley,

>You've got to extrapolate a good deal from the position set out by PNAC to reach the conclusion that

Let me clarify. Whether it is now called the PNAC or something else before, their eventual outcome is a peace enforced by the U.S. This is not a new phenomena, it happens with every empire and like every empire before it, it can only fail with a tremendous cost to lives, or more accuratly "poor peoples" lives.

Clinton has started more wars than Bush, it's a continious and calculated policy whoever become "President"

>PNAC don't equate to an *intention*

PNAC equates an intend, otherwise whatelse? An opinion? It's already in motion.

>If they are well-intentioned but misguided, you are wrong.

How can they be misguided? They have access to more information than anybody else on this planet. It's very much a calculated outcome.

>My overall impression of US foreign policy is of incompetence rather than malevolence.

Incompetence? What other resources do you need to be competent? How come nations with far less resources are not that incompetent in their foreign policies? Imperial Overstretch?

"Incompetence" is just a word to cover up real intend. Achieving real peace is not that difficult, but then again peace is less profitable than war.

>If that's your mission too, you and Abdu_Allah are united with respect to stopping US supremacy, but I imagine you are divided about government by Sharia

I'm against the Sharia law as much as I'm against U.S policies. Since I'm not a muslim, it doesn't effect me.

If you like Zmag, you will like counterpunch.org too. :-)
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
You misread my post. My assertion was:

PNAC don't equate to an *intention* to keep... > A world at permenant war

The ellipsis was designed to get you to continue to read the following line as the continuation of the sentence.

You asserted that the US has an intention to keep the world at permanent war and used the texts of PNAC to back up your point.  Certainly PNAC has intentions. You and I are both uncomfortable with them to varying degrees.

However, you have asserted that the the authors of PNAC want the world to be in a state of permanent war, which I believe is unsubstantiated. If the authors had their Utopia, there is nothing to suggest that permanent war would be part of it... unless you are referring to a permanent stand-off (cf. the Cold War), which doesn't involve blood-letting... and therefore isn't really war at all.

> How can they be misguided?

I ask myself that too.

I keep reflecting on the incompetence of the whole WMD fiasco. If there was a competent conspiracy going on Bush and Blair must have factored into their considerations that they were going to look like idiots, when the paucity of their intelligence came to light. I can't see what was to be gained by doing that. If the US administration had the means at their disposal to wage a propaganda battle of the sophistication that has been suggested in this thread, why didn't they put it into motion?

> If you like Zmag, you will like counterpunch.org too

I do. I think you put me onto counterpunch a while back. They are by their own admission "muck-rakers", but it's good stuff.

I quite like the political satire at some of the sites you can find at http://www.satiresearch.com , but I must confess that I'm getting a bit too middle aged and boring to giggle along to a lot of the smut.
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>you might be a nice guy

I am probably one of the nicest people around.  I get along with everyone, I live very humbly, and am quite generous with my time and money.  I'm sure if we met, and we weren't talking about politics, we'd get along just fine.


>>You claim the foreign fighters are from Iran

Abdu claimed Sadr had millions of followers, and my retort against that number was that many of those supporters must be coming from Iran for that number to be so high.  My comment about Iran was tongue in cheek, a joke, sarcasm, etc.


>>Now you claim the factuallity of Iraqi blogs

So are you saying the information in those blogs is false?  Have you read their accounts?  Do you care that Al-Jazeera even claims they are factual?


>>82% of the Iraqi's detest the U.S presence, what don't you get?

I've made it a point not to believe any of your numbers unless you provide a source for them.  You're 35% for supporting invasion was wrong.  You're 21% registered voters in Afghanistan was manufactured.  I get my news from news sources, all around the world, and when I make points to collective data, I post my source.  Please offer me the same consideration.


>>There is no point reading manufactured blogs

You see, it's pointless.  You have already blown these off as lies and propoganda.  Is it too painful to read something from an Iraqi who may actually have something positive to say about the U.S., or negative against Al Sadr?  Like I said, I've read other blogs that aren't friendly to the US from Iraqis, but I read them.  I could blow them off as propoganda too, but I don't.  I read news from Al Jazeera even though I could blow that off as propoganda too.  It's important to listen to both sides.
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
<<<What do you believe the extent of this great conspiracy is? What is the US masterplan?>>>
I personallay have wondered about this a lot.

Here's my take:

There was no "master plan", just personalities.  

Cheney thinks of the whole thing like a business venture.  Haliburton was found guilty of stok manipulation (or something like that) while Cheney was CEO.  He's only interested in the bottom line.  In the future, as oil becomes a scarcer resource, the wise businessman competes vigorously for scarce resources that can be acquired cheaply.  A US installed/friendly government would be a big US asset (not to mention that his cronies would profit big time).

Rumsfeld, neocons, etc think of this as a chess game.  Saudi Arabia is the black queen.  She is dominating the world chess board on the oil front.  That's how she can get away with being benign to terrorists, have bad human rights, etc.  With a strong US piece sitting in Iraq, she can be neutralized somewhat.  The 14 US military bases being built in Iraq is no coincidence.  We are now breathing down Syria's and Iran's throats.

Condi is naive and eager to please.

Powell is a good soldier and follows orders he disagrees with.

Ashcroft sees this as a holy war.  He probably wishes he'd been around for the Spanish Inquisition.

Bush is an idiot.  He's not really unintelligent, but he is the shallow water.  Bush thinks he's entitled to success.  What is success?  Think like a cowboy movie:
"I kicked my daddy's nemesis's ass.  I punished the A-rab who had the nerve to defy the US.  They told me this was a fight against terrorism and that's good too.  My pals in the oil business sure will be proud of me"

The US citizens have ego invested in being sold a pile of dung.  We are like the idiot teenager that has been told he has bought the "hottest car on the planet"  Even despite increasing evidence that it was a terrible deal, we defend our purchase by refusing to confront our stupidity.  I was a masterful sales job and we were an easy mark.  Kill an A-rab for Christ!
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>Kill an A-rab for Christ!

I'd say that's completely uncalled for.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
> defend our purchase by refusing to confront our stupidity

I gather it is a uniquely human failing to throw good money after bad. In the rest of the animal kingdom, predators quit as soon as it becomes clear that they are not onto a winner.
0
 
BobSiemensCommented:
[[[[>>Kill an A-rab for Christ!

I'd say that's completely uncalled for.]]]]]]

I wasn't trying to be rude (glib, not rude).

I was watching a popular country video (at a cool bar the plays mostly rock) that talked about the Iraq war.  The sentiment expressed is that payback is required.  

By why Iraq?  They were uninvolved.  Bush worked hard to tie Iraq and 9/11 together.  How???

9/11 was done by Arabs from Moslem nations.  Iraq was defined to be part of the Axis of Evil.  Born-Again Bush has even used the word crusade.

"Kill an A-rab for Christ!"?  That *is* a part of what's going on.  And, yes, it is appalling.

0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
Azrasound,

>I am probably one of the nicest people around.

You sure are. your brilliant quotes include:

>The US is fighting Islamic fanaticism/fundamentalism.

>This should give the fanatics/fundamentalists no reason to continue attacks against us or our interests abroad

>they're real motivation is the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and world dominance.

>US helicopters would not have to fly around Baghdad if the "insurgents" laid down their arms

>Hey, third world countries have an edge because of cheap labor.  If anything is going to bring the US down, its economics

>Let them kill eachother off...no skin off my back.

>However, if anyone attacks us on our own soil, we will hit back...hopefully 10 times harder

>we make that desire heard through our votes.(when 20,000 african americans where defrenchised)

>we're a representative democracy

>The US is fighting Islamic fanaticism/fundamentalism.

>There will never be an understanding between all the involved parties.

>Again, and probably for the last time, I remind you that you do not live here

>However, I supported the Iraq invasion because of the instability Saddam posed, his rash and aggressive behavior he exhibited as a leader, and his ability to give, if not actual weaponry, the knowledge to build/obtain that weaponry to fanatics.


just a few of your "nicest guy" statements. Then again how can I judge what is nice?

0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
A nice bigot

0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
LOL!  LMAO!!  I suppose by nice it means I cannot voice my opinion.  Apparently, since I have to clarify, I am talking about the fanatics/fundamentalists, not peaceful and kind Muslims who are clearly in the majority.  I hold the same views towards fanatical/fundamentalist Christians, or any religious fanatic.

The only statement above that can be deemed not "nice" would be:
>Let them kill eachother off...no skin off my back

Which is the result of frustration trying to talk to you.  Naturally, I wouldn't actually wish this on the people of the Middle East.  If you want to play the "nice" game, I could post all of your "brilliant" posts, but, this thread is too long already.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
zamorin,

> I'm against the Sharia law as much as I'm against U.S policies. Since I'm not a muslim, it doesn't effect me.

Genuinely ignorant question from me:

Aren't there states in Malaysia, which are under PAS control, which approved bills for hudud law? I gather that Mahathir Mohamad was effective at blocking them. Is Abdullah Badawi under increased pressure from PAS with the increase of anti-US sentiment in Malaysia?

Could there a prospect of Islamic law for you down the line?
0
 
dhsindy SparrowRetired considering supplemental income.Commented:

Doesn't the word terrorism imply it is illegal by definition.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
BobSiemens,

There is also an important person with another reasons for Iraq invasion in addition to the persons that you mentioned and in addition to the oil reason :

Paul Wolfowitz, the godfather of the invasion, his loyalty to Israel as a Jews pushed him to work for Israel favour to get rid from Iraqi regime that enemy of Israel in this region.
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=1756

For more information:
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/poywolf.html
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/10/JerusPost021003.html
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
AzraSound,

>I am talking about the fanatics/fundamentalists, not peaceful and kind Muslims who are clearly in the majority.

It has been repeated many times that the root cause of Islamic fundematalism is created by the policies of your country and the American support to the state terrorist, Israel, yet you repeat the same tiring rubbish. I have spent hours searching and providing you with links and information yet...

rstaveley,

>Aren't there states in Malaysia, which are under PAS control, which approved bills for hudud law? I gather that Mahathir Mohamad was effective at blocking them. Is Abdullah Badawi under increased pressure from PAS with the increase of anti-US sentiment in Malaysia?

PAS controls 2 out of 14 states. About 80% of those state are muslims. But unlike most Arab countries where the Shariah law is enforced on all regardless of religion, in Malaysia, it is only applied to muslims in all 14 states(I assume majority of them don't like it either). It will apply to me only if I were to consume alcohol in a mosque or if I get caught with a muslim girl alone etc.

Badawi & Mahathir are part of the same regime, only the leadership has changed and since Badawi won with a huge majority, PAS has limited ability to pressure the government.

Malaysians generally are not anti-US, it's only the minority (like me) who are. For most of them as long as they get their Mc Donald's and Starbucks, they are happy.

>Could there a prospect of Islamic law for you down the line?

I don't think so. Malaysia consists of 50% Malays, 35% chinese and 7% Indians, and others. Out of that 50% Malays, most of them oppose the Shariah law. They will not get the majority to change the law unless some disaster like U.S invasion(liberation) happens.

dhsindy,

>Doesn't the word terrorism imply it is illegal by definition

A state decides who is a terrorist, what if the state itself is the terrorist?

Abdu_Allah,

>Paul Wolfowitz, the godfather of the invasion.

He alone cannot do much. It take the U.S congress to grant the President the right to wage war (it was handed to Bush in a silver platter). So almost all of the current administration and the U.S congress is at fault (including Kerry)
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
rstaveley,

>However, you have asserted that the the authors of PNAC want the world to be in a state of permanent war, which I believe is unsubstantiated. If the authors had their Utopia, there is nothing to suggest that permanent war would be part of it... unless you are referring to a permanent stand-off (cf. the Cold War), which doesn't involve blood-letting... and therefore isn't really war at all.

"Permenant war" doesn't mean "without break", 1-2 years break, then start another war. Permenant.
American wars in the last 100 years (blood-letting included):

2003-Present - Third Persian Gulf War "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
2001-Present - Afghanistan War (Operation Enduring Freedom)
1999 - Kosovo War
1998 - "Desert Fox" Campaign
1994 - U.S. Occupation of Haiti
1994-1995 - Intervention in Bosnia (Operation Deliberate Force)
1992-1994 - U.S. Intervention in Somalia
1991-2003 - "No-Fly Zone" War
1991 - Second Persian Gulf War "Operation Desert Storm"
1989 - U.S. Invasion of Panama
1987-1988 - The Tanker War "Operation Earnest Will"
1983 - U.S. Invasion of Grenada
1982-1984 - U.S. Intervention in Lebanon
1981, 1986 - U.S. Libya Conflict
1980 - "Operation Eagle Claw"
1975 - The Mayaguez Rescue Operation
1965 - Dominican Intervention
1958 - U.S. Intervention in Lebanon
1956-1975 - The Second Indochina War "Vietnam War"
1950-1953 - The Korean War
1941-1945 (American involvement only) - World War II
1919-1921 - Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War
1917-1918 (American involvement only) - World War I
1916-1917 - Pershing's Raid Into Mexico
1914 - U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz
1909-1933 - The Banana Wars
1903 - U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution
1899-1902 - U.S.-Philippine War

Then there are other forms of war that kills or harms millions, the trade embargos, sanction regimes, economic warfare, war on drugs, destabilisation, puppet installations, dirty wars etc. The sanction regime in Iraq alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children, while further empowering S.Hussein and despite knowing all this, it continued.

Madeline Albright, then the U.S secretary of state was asked about the Iraqi  sanctions, her response: It's a small price to pay, but worth it.

"State Terrorism/ Terrorism" doesn't get any better than this!
0
 
BCVNCommented:
I think most of the discussions are way out of the original subject, which is terrorism. Things such as why and how the war in Iraq was started should be discussed in a different thread.

Having said that, I want to contribute my humble opinion as follows regarding terrorism:

As Vietnamese, we have fought many wars thorough history. Many powers came to our land and we were always in a disadvantageous position, such as superior technological weapons of the French and the Americans, or numerical superiority of the Chinese where we had to fight 1 against 20 of them. However, we never resorted to terrorism. We never purporsedly attacked or kidnapped innocent civilians. Our ethical standards don't allow us to do that. Our society never accepted that behaviour. Whoever does that will have to think of how mankind will judge them thorough history.

So I personally think it is not a question of legitimacy, but the question is how humankind will judge this kind of behavior, not only in this generation but in generations to come.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
zamorin, you'll find the wikipedia definition of "Perpetual War" has a lot of sympathy with what you say - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_war but it lacks a link to PNAC at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC 

You might want to hit the edit button on one or other of those definitions. It will be interesting to see how the definitions evolve. There's a lot of insight to be gained from hitting the history tab on wikipedia to see how contributors put their spin on definitions.
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
BCVN, I couldn't agree more. Legitimacy is one person's rule book or another. The broad judgment of humankind is a much better metric for good vs bad... provided humankind doesn't succumb to propaganda.
0
 
Abdu_AllahCommented:
Zamorin,

>He alone cannot do much. It take the U.S congress to grant the President the right to wage war

First, he did not do that alone; there are many other Jews in the white house and defense ministry like the leading Pentagon advocates of Washington's permanent war doctrine and Israeli aggression are Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams and Richard Perle, both staunch supporters of right-wing Jewish-American organizations.

Second, He is a defense policy maker and his reports widely used by US management.

Third, Those Jews work with other oil broker to convince many of congress members separately and personally about the usefulness of war against Iraq.

These events are documented by different writers and there is no doubt about its credibility.
Please read the following link:
http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/H-war/02-iraq-war/2004/05H2-02-19-04-how-israeli-agents-around-bush-planned-iraq-war.html
0
 
AzraSoundCommented:
>>It has been repeated many times that the root cause of Islamic fundematalism is created by the policies of your country

Trust me, we have enough Christian fanatics over here to know that it does not require another country's foreign policy to make people obsessive over their religious beliefs.  While I CAN agree, to an extent, that some of their hatred and fire comes from Israel and US foreign policy, it is not those things, specifically, which breed fundamentalism.  It seems members of the Palestinian population are beginning to see the faults in the PLO, and their inability to provide anything to their own people other than calls of hate against Israel.  While these calls are not unfounded, it seems so much more can be done to improve the lives of EVERYONE over there.

Abdu & zamorin...perhaps you can explain something to me that, as a Westerner, I have an incredibly difficult time understanding, and I imagine, largely contributes to our differences when it comes to things like the Aghanistan/Iraq wars.   Do most Muslims support Islamic law, in so much as how it is/was levied in places such as Iran/Afghanistan?  Is the suppression of freedoms simply accepted, or are there large calls for change?  Is treating women as second class citizens accepted, or are there large calls for change?  How do Muslims handle the struggle between religious faithfulness and the argument of human rights?
0
 
Jason210Commented:
I thin JakobA had a good definition of terrorism - that the ultimate motive behind it is revenge / frustration. And he expressed it in so few words.

Whilst acts of terrorism may be entirely rightful and justified in the minds of those who commit them, those who are the victims of such attacks rarely deserve it; therefore, most of these victims will feel frustration and a need for revenge too, and may commit equally atrocious attacks. This will just go on and on and on until people eventually wise up and stop pissing each other off by being greedy, and acting out of irrational fear.

People need to step out of this anger and hate cycle.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
BCVN,

>However, we never resorted to terrorism. We never purporsedly attacked or kidnapped innocent civilians. Our ethical standards don't allow us to do that. Our society never accepted that behaviour.

Ethical standards? Didn't the NVA declare a ceasefire during the Tet Offensive and break it? Plus weren't many innocent S.Vietnamese civillians also killed by the NVA? Or the killing of American POW's?

Plus acts of terrorism was committed by the vietnamese army in Laos.
more: http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/polcaus/becvars.html

>So I personally think it is not a question of legitimacy, but the question is how humankind will judge this kind of behavior, not only in this generation but in generations to come.

The dynamics of the Vietnam war is different from Iraq. THe NVA had the backing of 2 superpowers, USSR and China, and there was safe haven, weapon factories in N.Vietnam, none of which is available to the Iraqi resistance.

End game of any resistance is the ejection of occupational forces. A cruel occupation will breed a cruel resistance, there are no ethics involved (all is fair in love and war)
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
AzraSound,

>Trust me, we have enough Christian fanatics over here to know that it does not require another country's foreign policy to make people obsessive over their religious beliefs.

Christian fundemetalism in U.S was not created by an external force, the major contributory factor of Islamic fundementalism is American polices which support dictators who supresses their own people with weapons, support and political cover by the U.S. Though it will exist to a smaller extend even without U.S inteference.

> Do most Muslims support Islamic law, in so much as how it is/was levied in places such as Iran/Afghanistan?

Do they have the choice? when almost every major Islamic nation (except maybe Turkey, Bangladesh) is ruled by an American pupet which enforces these laws. It's like asking whether they prefer Freedom to oppression.

Let me clarify:

Before the involvement of USSR and USA in Afghanistan, before the 70's, Kabul was a metropolitian city with nightclubs and universities, where women wore modern clothes and partied etc. (There was no Buqra). It was only after their country was destroyed and the fanatics came to power, Islamic fundementalism began to thrive.

There is another reason for the enforcement of Islamic fundementalism, for it eliminates 1/2 the workforce of the country (women cannot work) further wreaking the economy and putting them at the mercy of the superpowers and in this state of hoplessness, imperialists thrive, by invading/looting the country under the pretext of liberation/freedom.

Afganistan at present (under U.S occupation) grew the record quantity of heroin. Women still have to wear the Burqra and yet Bush claims Afghanistan is a model for women's liberation. It has actually worsened. Before Taliban used to execute rapists, now these prepatrators are the chief allies of the U.S in Afganistan.

>Is the suppression of freedoms simply accepted, or are there large calls for change?

The calls for change are usually supressed by American supplied weapons and the U.S training of their secret police/intelligence. (even Saddam's MUkabarat was set up with the support of the CIA)

>Is treating women as second class citizens accepted, or are there large calls for change?  How do Muslims handle the struggle between religious faithfulness and the argument of human rights?

I don't think Islam subscribes to the treating of women as second class, that's a Wahabism speciality.

In my country (where more than 50% are muslims) they are not opposed to drinking, partying and gambling (even women), they are just like you and me.
0
 
BCVNCommented:
Some isolated incidents conducted by some individuals are not considered as a policy. In any war there are atrocities committed by both sides. There are instances like the atrocity committed by American soldiers at My Lai village against civilians but these are again isolated incidents, it is not the policy of the American government.

What's different from what happens in the Middle East right now is that terrorism is conducted in such a way that everybody in the world think about terrorism, they think about a Middle Eastern phenomena. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Many other countries in different parts of the world were occupied at one time or another, but I don't know of anything like what's happening right now in the Middle East, i.e., kidnapping and killing innocent civilians.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
BCVN,

>Some isolated incidents conducted by some individuals are not considered as a policy

It is not an isolated incident. Many villages were destroyed in this manner, the difference being, only My Lai was caught on film.
more at : http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/v1114tak.htm

Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Sherbenegan was/is "not policy"?
More than 100 U.S torture centres around the world is not policy?
Naplaming an entire village was "not policy"?

>In any war there are atrocities committed by both sides

You stated earlier that the vietnamese followed ethical standards. Is there such a thing in war? (when war itself is the attrocity)

>What's different from what happens in the Middle East right now is that terrorism is conducted in such a way that everybody in the world think about terrorism, they think about a Middle Eastern phenomena. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Belasan, Bali, Philipines (Abu Sayaf), Tamil tigers(LTTE), IRA, Basque, Kashmir etc. are not middle-eastern. More people have been killed by Tamil Tigers than all terrorist acts in middle-east combined.

How different should "terrorism" be conducted inorder for it to be legitimate?
0
 
rstaveleyCommented:
My Lai clearly was not legitimate. If the US has a policy of carrying out illegitimate acts, it doesn't legitimise illegitimate acts for the rest of us.

> ethical standards... Is there such a thing in war?

War is attrocious, but human beings live through wars and continue to live according to their ethics.
0
 
BCVNCommented:
I don't even look at the links you showed. I lived long enough through the war to understand and to know what's was happening.
But I know from the news that what's happening at Abu Ghraib and others are again comitted by some individual soldiers and they are now being put on trial. I'm curious to know where are those 100 U.S. torture centers around the world set up by the US government that I didn't hear about.

What I mean by ethical standard is from my personal experience, we only fight against military targets during the war. We don't target civilians. If some civilians died because of some battle it just happened by accident.

As I know from the news, the IRA or the Basque don't kidnap unarmed civilians and used as leverage. But I know that acts of terrorism where civilians are purposedly targeted come from the Middle East, and either by culture or affiliation, it spreads through the Philipines and Indonesia recently.

The bottom line is, terrorism is a tool used by some groups of people against superior ennemies. Instead of fighting face to face on the battlefield, they tried to target easier targets such as unarmed civilians. Such act will never be tolerated by a civilized world.

The author of this thread seems to be in favor of legitimizing terrorist acts, otherwise it should not be asked at the first place.

We are living in a civilized world.
0
 
zamorinAuthor Commented:
>I don't even look at the links you showed.

I didn't even look further than that statement.