Why terrorists will ultimately fail...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 00:13
VIEWED: 9344
PAGE 14 of 14
Quote:That’s an excellent analysis. And sums up to a tee what I meant by a lack of perspective. Although I suspect there is more to it then just the Western condescension, I think there is a specific hatred of Bush among some who feel they were jilted in the 2001 election, and irrationally blame Bush for every ill they perceive since then. I started to make a similar comment several times, but I just don’t have the patience.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
My feeling, coming out of left field so to speak is that your opposition to the war has nothing to do with concern for the Iraqis, you are feeling guilt by association for what you see as a failed policy. Had Rumsfeld been right (how ever unlikely that seems) and we were now on our second year of reconstruction I think you'd be rar raring with the best of them. The only consistant part to your many arguments is the assertion that somehow there HAD to have been a bloodless alternative that absolves us from all responsability. There wasn't, in fact there was "blood on our hands" almost every year since 1991 you just never looked for it until now. No matter what we did it was never going to be clean. Our only real hope was that we could make it final.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um, it was the 2000 election. But while I don't think we can blame Bush for terrorism (US embassies and warships and cities were being targeted already. The problems was long-simmering.) it's not irrational to blame him for his irrelevant, unsuccessful and inflmmatory invasion of Iraq.
My feeling, coming out of left field so to speak is that your opposition to the war has nothing to do with concern for the Iraqis, you are feeling guilt by association for what you see as a failed policy-Fletch
That’s an excellent analysis. And sums up to a tee what I meant by a lack of perspective. Although I suspect there is more to it then just the Western condescension, I think there is a specific hatred of Bush among some who feel they were jilted in the 2001 election, and irrationally blame Bush for every ill they perceive since then. I started to make a similar comment several times, but I just don’t have the patience.-Finn
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, there are lots of good reason to criticize this administration and this war, but that’s not what you’re doing. What you’re doing is calling Bush a terrorist because of some number of collateral damage, while advocating policies that would result in as many if not more deaths and ignoring the fact that no action taken including taking no action would be without a significant human cost. Effectively, whatever criticism you have for the war is secondary to attacking Bush, and as such it devalues whatever real criticism you may have for this war. And as I stated earlier, that is the problem with these kinds of anti-war arguments. It’s hard to take you seriously.
And yes, it was the 2000 election, my bad. That 1 snuck in there.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Huh. Usually it's the antiwar faction that's accused of moral relativism. I'm NOT comfortable with "eye of the beholder" interpretations.
Personally I'm far more comfortable viewing this as an eye of the beholder issue, there are two sides to every story and each side has to see themselves as the heroes. I personally take sides but understand that I'm motivated in part by national and cultural norms to see my side as the only "good" guys.
.
Actually what I'm saying is not relativism. I'm saying in effect that who the Terrorists are is dependent in large part to where you are on the question.
I raised the French Resistance because they are generally seen as freedom fighters. They were recognised as a legitimate group by the Allies at the time and where trained and armed by them. After the war members received medals as servicemen would. For a time in France having been a member of the Free French or the Resistance was nescessary if you wanted to run for political office. Historically they are seen as using justifiable means in response to invasion.
Now if you look at Iraq a lot of what goes on there has parallels with the French, ---roadside bombings, targeting of civilian "collaborators" etc --- if it was justified for the French then equivancy suggests that it's ok for the Iraqi's it's just unfortunate this time someone is doing it to us. So by definition groups that limit themselves to that kind of activity can not be considered terrorist organisations.
And that's basically where I hit a bump. I'm pretty sure that the Germans saw the French as Terrorists, we didn't because the French were on our side and we saw their action as justified. In Iraq the bombers are not on our side and we don't think it justified. The point about the law is that it should be equitable but it is clear that this definition varies depending on your point of view. I therefore argue that this somewhat legalistic definition you are attempting to build is inherrently flawed because I don't believe it can be equitably applied.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
And that's basically where I hit a bump. I'm pretty sure that the Germans saw the French as Terrorists, we didn't because the French were on our side and we saw their action as justified. In Iraq the bombers are not on our side and we don't think it justified. The point about the law is that it should be equitable but it is clear that this definition varies depending on your point of view. I therefore argue that this somewhat legalistic definition you are attempting to build is inherrently flawed because I don't believe it can be equitably applied.
OK, hair-splitting time here, perhaps.
The French maquis was waging a guerrilla war againt the Nazis and their supporters. The classic unconventional warfare. Kill the enemy and their support system, including collaborators, by stealth. Apply terror against those who actively oppose you.
If the insurgency in Iraq, to use your example, was only targeting Coalition forces and the Iraqis who provide support to them, no matter the means, I'd call them guerrillas. However, if they attack civilians who have no connection with Coalition or Iraqi government forces, in the most horrific ways possible, for the purpose of spreading fear and divisiveness - that I'd call terrorism. So that's where my concept of attacking primarily civilian populations being a criteria for terrorism originates.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem here is that the people fighting us in Iraq are not a single group with unified objectives and a single command but a number of groups with differing objectives. Therefore if group A kills civilians but group B only targets the coalition then I don't see that it's fair to brand group B because of group A's action. I deliberately limited my point by specifying a group whose actions were limited to French resistance level activities.
I'm reminded of an interview before the Iraqi election with a leader of a Sunni militia. This guy was a former Baathist who broke with Saddam before the war to become an Islamist militant. On poling day his men would be stopping every car going near the square where the poling station was and searching anyone in bulky clothes. The reason? The Sunni's were afraid that Al Queda would suicide bomb poling stations during the elections. He said something to the effect of "these men are killing OUR people" and had to be stopped. Now I'm not saying this man is a noble soul or that he would feel the same way towards the Shiites in the next town, but he wasn't willing to see other Sunni's killed by outsiders or kill them himself for political points.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The problem here is that the people fighting us in Iraq are not a single group with unified objectives and a single command but a number of groups with differing objectives. Therefore if group A kills civilians but group B only targets the coalition then I don't see that it's fair to brand group B because of group A's action.
Absolutely. I have no problem stating some factions in Iraq are guerrillas and some terrorists. I do think you can diffrentiate between the two by their actions. If a group is attacking valid Coalition and Coalition support targets and also committing targeted killings of random civilians to further their agenda, they are terrorists.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
the mohammedanism thing, a mindset of islamo jihadist crap
after the chaos of decades in Afghanistan it still seems complicated
Drone Rocks US Oil Field In Iraq
https://funker530.com/video/drone-rocks-us-oil-field-in-iraq
Footage reportedly shows a suspected Iranian Quds Force drone striking a US-operated oil field in the vicinity of Dohuk, in Iraq's northern Kurdistan region. Reportedly there were no human casualties, but the strikes shut down the facility, and reduced oil output by 150,000 barrels a day, which has the possibility to raise global oil and fuel prices.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
and soon after they called Pamela Geller a terrorist a racist simply for cartoon drawings
Sultan is a board member of Stop Islamization of Nations, an organization founded by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Anders Gravers Pedersen.
Geert Wilders
Erdogan: Hamas are liberators.
https://x.com/geertwilderspvv/status/2091555601310535877#m
The man is a total freak and a dangerous Islamist himself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME