Dead Terrorists
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Friday, June 30, 2006 06:11
VIEWED: 8309
PAGE 3 of 11
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist insurgency begin AFTER we invaded? Which would mean that in Iraq at least, we're fighting an enemy of our own making.
Like someone said before, the Vietnam War parallels are astounding. The French were slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu and they realized they would not win a long war. We didn't realize that and then jumped into the fray for the next 9 years or so, all the while running secretive bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos (most heavily bombed country ever, I think). Finally, we gave up in Vietnam and we know how that turned out. Now we go and start shit in Iraq. It's the same shadowy enemy, just a different time period and different ideals. Wonder how this will turn out?
The war on terrorism seems to have a lot of consequences that I don't think outweigh the benefits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Terrorism is... hmmm lets' see... inducing a state of terror by using violence against civilians. Yep, I think that's it. There's nothing in there about whether it's using nukes, chemical weapons, rape rooms or explosive vests filled with nails. I don't want to get overly complicated on this- it might cause me mental discomfort.
You simply seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism.
Quote:Lets' see- Bush killing thousands of civilians is good. Bin Laden killing thousands of civilians is bad. I'm so glad that you pointed out that distinction!
You don't know a terrorist when you see one...good thing your not in the military. It starts with this: Bush, good. Bin Ladden, evil.
Quote:Okay so let me get this straight. Killing civilians is good when we do it but bad when someone else does it. I'm once again grateful for this direction because otherwise my moral compass would be spinning! I must be suffering from a case of moral relativism.!
After that it just gets complicated and I don't want to tax your brain too much. The amazing thing is that grasping that basic concept does not mean becoming conservative...But the basic good vs. evil sentiment is like a moral compass, which unfortunately liberals seem to lack.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist insurgency begin AFTER we invaded? Which would mean that in Iraq at least, we're fighting an enemy of our own making.
I've always argued that the most masterful part of the Iraq strategy was that it created this crucible for the war on terror.
The terrorists were always there in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and scattered all over the Arab world. We knew that in order to successfully prosecute the broader war we would need to engage and kill as many of the enemy as possible. By invading Iraq, in addition to all the other benefits (democracy, Saddam, WMDs, Libya, and so on) we have goaded the enemy to battle on ground of our own choosing and they have come to die by the tens of thousands. Better there then the Mexican border, or Jerusalem, London, Paris, Madrid, or your local street corner.
I think they initially hoped to do this in Afganistan, but it proved to remote to allow most Jihadists easy access.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Terrorism is... hmmm lets' see... inducing a state of terror by using violence against civilians. Yep, I think that's it. There's nothing in there about whether it's using nukes, chemical weapons, rape rooms or explosive vests filled with nails.
Terrorism- "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Webster
Note the defintion is the "use of terror" not the "use of war".
Terror-"1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
"Terrorism" is not a legitimate act by a person or state. War, though constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state or a person at the direction of the state as embodied by, in our case, our elected President. He may be a warfighter, but he is not a terrorist.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, like I said! At least we agree on something!
Terrorism- "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Webster
Quote:Please- once again shown me the error of my ways. Our invasion of Iraq is a legitimate war because...? Hmm, lets see... what are the recognized reasons for war? (rummages through internet...) Self defense? Authorized by UN?
Terrorism" is not a legitimate act by a person or state. War, though constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state or a person at the direction of the state as embodied by, in our case, our elected President. He may be a warfighter, but he is not a terrorist.
Help me out here Hero. You must know the reaons why our invasion was legal.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zero,
Your posts are way too funny. But I seriously hope you don't mean what you post. Otherwise I'd be forced to give up my laughter to ponder the tragedy of the human condition.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, I personally think that GW Bush is one of the biggest terrorists in the world. Still, I don't think that dropping a 500-pound bomb on the White House will solve the world's problems and I therefore don't advocate it.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
But it might be considered a place to start
" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "
The Killers
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist insurgency begin AFTER we invaded? Which would mean that in Iraq at least, we're fighting an enemy of our own making.
Like someone said before, the Vietnam War parallels are astounding. The French were slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu and they realized they would not win a long war. We didn't realize that and then jumped into the fray for the next 9 years or so, all the while running secretive bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos (most heavily bombed country ever, I think). Finally, we gave up in Vietnam and we know how that turned out. Now we go and start shit in Iraq. It's the same shadowy enemy, just a different time period and different ideals. Wonder how this will turn out?
The war on terrorism seems to have a lot of consequences that I don't think outweigh the benefits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simple solution... delete terrorist insurgency insert freedom fighters or resistance movement and suddenly all is well... aren't semantics fun
" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "
The Killers
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Al-Zarqawi was a two-bit player both in the larger al-Qaida and in Iraq. We'll ultimately see how it plays out. But my feeling is it's just another meaningless 'milestone', heralded for home consumption.
I just can't get into the politics flying around this particular thread, but as a former Special Operations intelligence analyst, and as a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I can assure you that Zarqawi was most definitely not a two-bit player. Will his death be the end of the war? No. Will it be the beginning of the end? Probably not. Will it have any effect at all? Maybe, maybe not. Does that mean he was insignificant? Good heavens, no. That man did more to destabilize the country than any other single insurgent leader. Point in case: can you even name another?
And another thing I'm confused about: it may well be the case that the war was a bad idea (jury's still out on that one, as far as I'm concerned). It may also be the case that Bush is a bad president (ditto). But even if both those are true, does it mean I shouldn't be glad that the man that sawed Nick Berg's head off is dead? No, no--don't come back with the awful things others have done; I'm serious--why should I not be glad that he's gone? If for no other reason than that he had it coming to him.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here is what Nick Berg's dad had to say about it:
But even if both those are true, does it mean I shouldn't be glad that the man that sawed Nick Berg's head off is dead?
Quote:www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/berg.interview/index.html
Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.
I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.
I'm not quite the pacifist that Michael Berg is. There ARE some people I fantasize about being slowly eaten by ants... eyes first...* . But our actions aren't sanitized or forgiven by pure motives** especialy if you're on the receiving end.
And your logic works both ways. What do you say about a guy who signed dozens of death warrants and giggled about it? Or who caused thousands of unecessary civilian deaths with no apparent good coming out of it? What does someone like that deserve?
*not Bush
** For the Admin it's always been about oil and money. The soldiers have better intentions.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME