Real World Event Discussions

Why I Support Our Troops

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 2, 2005 15:49
VIEWED: 13777
PAGE 4 of 10

OPUS

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Which brings me to another couple of questions: Apparently your definition of terrorism isn't limited to stateless fanatics. It seems to include by definition "the state" as a terrorist actor, and automatically places WMD or potential WMD into the category of terrorist weapons. Am I correct?

As for your second point- Which terrorists was Saddam harboring? The ones responsible for attacks on US interests eg. our African embassies, the Cole, and 9-11?

The "state" can perform acts of terrorism seperate from what would be classified as "traditional" for lack of a better term, acts of agression. In other words simply exploding a bomb wouldn't be terrorism, where, how and why you did , could make it so. If a "state" is sponsoring terrorism, or engauging in it, then WMD would have to be on the table.
How about Abu Abbas.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:37 PM

Quote:
Original post by SergeantX:
I'm on the side of freedom and justice (these used to be known as 'American' values). The GWOT is a ruse designed to inspire the easily frightened into supporting perpetual warfare.

Perpetual warfare isn't necessarily the goal, its part of the means to obtain the goal, i.e. control. George Orwell type control. I don't know what its like in America but in London you can't take a step without it being recorded on a dozen cameras.

G1223 : TANSTAAFL as in gamedev.net?

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:31 AM

Sorry for asking so many questions, I'm sure they sound picky, but if we're warring against "them" I want to know who "they " are.

Quote:
The "state" can perform acts of terrorism seperate from what would be classified as "traditional" for lack of a better term, acts of agression. In other words simply exploding a bomb wouldn't be terrorism, where, how and why you did , could make it so. If a "state" is sponsoring terrorism, or engauging in it, then WMD would have to be on the table.
How about Abu Abbas.

I think in another thread we developed the concept that a terrorist is someone who seeks to create a state of fear by striking at civilians. We never did decide whether that would apply to a government like China or Iraq terrorizing their own population, or whether we would just call that "tyranny". Any opinions? But by limiting the definition to "attacks on civilians to create a state of fear" we were able to eliminate considering whether it was done by stateless fanatics (IRA, Al Qaida) or national leaders (Taliban), whether conventional (explosives) or non-conventional (WMD) weapons were used, or whether the goal seemed to be political (Sunni Arabs) or monetary (Colombian rebels.. which would likely be used to further their agenda).

Does the definition seem too broad to you? Another thing we never decided: What would you say about a nation like North Korea that threatens to use WMD? Is a large enough threat sufficient to be a terrorist act, or do you actually have to go through with it? I dunno- what do you think?

KNIBBLET

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:18 AM

Opus, I get so tired of seeing that list as 'proof' of some war that Islam has been fighting against us for years etc.

Those acts were committed by a wide variety of groups for a wide variety of reasons. It's like lumping everything any Western country has done into a list and claiming it as a 'war against Islam'.

Bullshit from you and bullshit from anyone. Bullshit on both sides who try that argument.

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/

JADEHAND

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:22 AM

Hey all,
I normally stay out of these things because it seems boths sides turn blind eyes to whatever disagrees with them, and alternate definitions to suit their needs. But I shared some of the first few posts with some friends of mine who have and do serve in order to get the inside perspective. I just want to share the following response from one of them:

Quote:
During my service, I never once witnessed a US soldier commit a barbaric
act. In fact, I’ve witnessed the opposite in that US soldiers frequently
exposed themselves to danger to protect non combatants. In every unit I
served with, I found it an unwritten rule to expunge any sociopath that
slipped through basic. We simply reeducated them or threw them out of the
Army. Yes, a US soldier can commit barbaric acts but these acts will be rare
and (are)due to an individual and even rare(r) yet, units. Most importantly, conduct
unbecoming of a US soldier and against international rules of war “WILL”
result in prosecution if exposed. It is against the law.
Terrorists and Insurgents use barbarism to promote terror as a tool in their
war to destabilize the peaceful formation of a new government.
Any attempt to compare the US military with the terrorist or insurgent in
these respects smack of the insanely irrational apologist or deceitful
propagandist demagogue. One needs to be educated as to the truth and guided
back to rational thinking while the other needs to be tried for
insurrection, sedition and espionage then publicly have their tongue cut out
and left hanging in a gibbet for a few weeks from the capitol if found
guilty after all the appeals run out.

Now for a review of a () comment

”I choose to support our troops by opposing George Bush. He and his Cabinet
have been humping for Mideast invasions for YEARS, and it's all because of
oil. I respect our troops more, I feel more responsibility for them, than
Bush does.”

First off no, they have not been “humping” for an invasion for years. No US
government in recent history has desired colonies and empire. That method of
power projection has proven itself a failure and they know it. Also, to
prosecute a war on a whim would be political suicide for a president and a
party. The writer’s implications are irrational and illogical.

Next…
The Middle East has been seething since well before the fall of the Soviet
Union and, “powers” in that region have destabilized without the cold war
support of the US and SU. The US has invaded for oil only in that the
regional destabilization forces it too so, in reality; Bush sent US troops
into Iraq to assist the region in correcting its problems. Safe oil is only
an effect, not the cause.
There are no grandiose “Neocon” (said with my best Darth Vader accent)
imperial aims for oil. If one was to read the philosophy and the goals of
the so called Neocons, they would find the philosophy quite the
philanthropist in that it states the underprivileged nations need financial,
political and military assistance in getting back on there own “independent”
and “self sustaining” feet so as to become safe havens of civilized behavior
and not seething shit holes breeding starvation, misery and terror.
Yes, there are individuals and corporations that desire a piece of the
action and profit; I’ll give you that. There has always been those corrupt
that indulge themselves in war profiteering but, they are not the reason we
invaded Iraq.
I witnessed the President and most of his cabinet on the news for months
state quite clearly that the US would invade because Saddam refused to abide
by “international law”. Yes, the reasoning for the invasion may have been
flawed (WMD data that was not falsified, only inaccurate.) but not only did
Saddam violate the law, he demonstrated complete contempt to the US, UN and
international community in his repeated incorrect actions. WMD and oil pale
in comparison to his contempt of the world, humanity and the Iraqi people.
Example had to be made or others would have tak

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

OPUS

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think in another thread we developed the concept that a terrorist is someone who seeks to create a state of fear by striking at civilians. We never did decide whether that would apply to a government like China or Iraq terrorizing their own population, or whether we would just call that "tyranny". Any opinions?

I would think it would be tyranny, as they're going after their own people and trying to maintain control.

Quote:

But by limiting the definition to "attacks on civilians to create a state of fear" we were able to eliminate considering whether it was done by stateless fanatics (IRA, Al Qaida) or national leaders (Taliban), whether conventional (explosives) or non-conventional (WMD) weapons were used, or whether the goal seemed to be political (Sunni Arabs) or monetary (Colombian rebels.. which would likely be used to further their agenda).

Does the definition seem too broad to you? Another thing we never decided: What would you say about a nation like North Korea that threatens to use WMD? Is a large enough threat sufficient to be a terrorist act, or do you actually have to go through with it? I dunno- what do you think?

I don't think the size of the threat is relevent in regards to whether something is terrorism.
If they're saying,"if you attack me, I'll launch my nukes" then no, I would say it's not terrorism.
But any implied threat, if it get's the desired response is the same as doing it.
"power percieved is power achieved"
So yes, I would say it's concievable that a threat could equal an act.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:28 PM

Opus- Many people have (rightly!) accused me of perservation: a behavioral issue that coincides with autism and other syndromes. Thanks for hanging in with me for so long through my perservative phase.

The definition of terrorism/ terrorist has logical extensions. Any organization or group that threatens to use WMD on innocent civilians is guilty of terrorism. Any organization or group that harms non-combatants to instill a sense of fear is guilty of terrorism. Because even terrorists can create a fine-sounding rationale (freedom) or historical justification (to avenge the ____________massacre) those definitions apply regardless of stated purpose or temporal sequence ("who started it"). It follows that USA threats to nuke Mecca, threats to attack "Muslims", or threats to invade bystander nations would be rightly perceived by the targets and most observers as terrorism.

We know what effect terrorism has on us. Why would we expect that engaging or threatening to engage in the same behavior would have a different effect on others?

HERO

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Any organization or group that threatens to use WMD on innocent civilians is guilty of terrorism.

What do you mean by "any"? What about the whole theory of detterance? That mught be too general. How about John F. Kennedy, was he a terrorist when he threatened nuclear war against Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Just trying to nail down the particulars. Maybe its those you oppose are terrorists, like Bush, and those who oppose Bush, like Saddam and Bin Ladden, can't be. That doesn't make sense.

So, does your argument make Saddam a terrorist for his use of such weapons in the '80s and if so, does it not then make prewar US claims of Iraqi ties to terror much more obvious?

Or maybe your concern is innocet civilians. Who are they? We know the Bush-haters, liberals, and appeasors have said that American, British, and other pro-Isreali anti-terrorist civilians are not innocent. Is that your position? A kind of relative innocence test?

H

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:21 PM

Quote:
How about John F. Kennedy, was he a terrorist when he threatened nuclear war against Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Just trying to nail down the particulars. Maybe its those you oppose are terrorists, like Bush, and those who oppose Bush, like Saddam and Bin Ladden, can't be. That doesn't make sense.

So, does your argument make Saddam a terrorist for his use of such weapons in the '80s and if so, does it not then make prewar US claims of Iraqi ties to terror much more obvious?

Or maybe your concern is innocet civilians. Who are they? We know the Bush-haters, liberals, and appeasors have said that American, British, and other pro-Isreali anti-terrorist civilians are not innocent. Is that your position? A kind of relative innocence test?

Hmmm... is there another meaning to the word "any" that I don't understand? "Any" is pretty inclusive. It's possible... in fact, it's likely... to have terrorists and innocents on BOTH side of a conflict, it's not an either/or definition.

Deterrence is not necessarily a form of terrorism if you are attempting to deter hostilities by threatening the other side's military. (It's like deterring crime- you don't threaten everyone with jail time to deter some, you only punish the guilty... the innocent can be reasonably assured that they will be screened out of the system and should not feel threatened.) But MAD- the threat of annihilating the entire globe- is terrorism on a global scale.

Specifically-
"So, does your argument make Saddam a terrorist for his use of such weapons in the '80s and if so, does it not then make prewar US claims of Iraqi ties to terror much more obvious?" If he used chemical weapons against his own population I think we decided that falls under "tyranny". If he used chemcial weapons against Iranian soldiers (combatants) that would make him a war criminal. If he used chemical weapons (or in fact ANY sort of weapon) against Iranian civilians, that would make him a terrorist. I don't know for sure what his record was on targeting Iranian civilians.

"We know the Bush-haters, liberals, and appeasors have said that American, British, and other pro-Isreali anti-terrorist civilians are not innocent." Yes, I think there are degrees of innocence. A civilian living in tyranny is less culpable than a civilian living in a democracy, for example, because they have almost no influence on what their government does. But while I believe that we civilians living in a democracy have a personal responsibility for our government's actions, the rules of war attempt to separate the combatants from the non-combatants, and the combatants are made to bear the brunt of our decisions. Touching civilians is not fair, doing so makes you a terrorist.

HERO

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But MAD- the threat of annihilating the entire globe- is terrorism on a global scale.

Then we are all victims. If only we had chosen a more sensable path and died in the fires of global annilation...

Damn us Americans and our diplomacy, we've condemned the world to live. Why? Oh God, why?

When you take your next breath ask your if you are breathing because you want to or because America's MAD policy has made it possible?

H