2 years later, and bin Laden is winning... [Archive]

megashawn

Sep11-03, 09:56 PM

Perhaps what is meant is the changes that have been going on since 9/11.

For instance, it is more difficult for an honest person to fly nowadays. Homeland Security will soon be cracking down on personal freedom and privacy, probably has been.

Also, seems one of Bin Ladens goals was to get attention. For himself, AL Queada and Islam in general. Following the attacks, you'll notice several schools picked up an Islamic class.

And not to mention that terror acts around the world seem to be increasing each day.

We're speanding countless dollars to capture the terrorist ring leaders, when almost certainly there will be plenty of replacements should they be needed. Instead of eliminating the source of the problems (paving over the holy land) we are merely attacking the effects. Kinda like chasing our tails.

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:31 AM

The biggest decline in terrorism is in...South America? America has started a campaign to attack the Middle East, with Iran and Syria next on the list? Iraqis are worse off than they were a year ago, and subject to the same terror as they were under Saddam Hussien? America is feared and hated around the world? America is going into debt while freedom is threatened by the Bush Administration?

Yep, sounds like more than what the terrorists could ever have hoped for.[:(]

drag

Sep12-03, 09:36 AM

Greetings !

I agree it's quite strange, to say the least, that Bin
Laden is still at large. I mean, you'd think that once
the US is really after someone with it's huge resources and
immensly advanced capabilities on all fronts they'd get'im
in two years.

As for the part about learning Islam to "understand" it, it's
TOTAL BS and it can only cause more damage. There is
nothing to understand about Islam for a normal person, there
are just ways to fight it.

Live long and prosper.

Zero

Sep12-03, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I agree it's quite strange, to say the least, that Bin
Laden is still at large. I mean, you'd think that once
the US is really after someone with it's huge resources and
immensly advanced capabilities on all fronts they'd get'im
in two years.

As for the part about learning Islam to "understand" it, it's
TOTAL BS and it can only cause more damage. There is
nothing to understand about Islam for a normal person, there
are just ways to fight it.

Live long and prosper. Next post like this, and I'm contacting Greg to see about banning you. Good luck.

BoulderHead

Sep12-03, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by drag
...There is
nothing to understand about Islam for a normal person, there
are just ways to fight it.

*shudders*

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep12-03, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Winning what? I haven't heard of him coming forward to claim his prize.

Well, let's see. He's destroyed the WTC. That's pretty significant. He's got a large percentage of the american population living in fear. The whole world is turning against us, although that's more Bush's ineptitude, than bin Laden's accomplishment. He's tricked us into attack Iraq and desposing Saddam, one of his mortal enemies, thereby greatly tieing up american military resources that could have been used elsewhere. Although again, that's mostly Bush's ineptitude. He's gained thousands to millions of new supporters, now that we've screwed up. He probably is as happy as a clam?

What have we got? Our constitution has been raped. We've got history's biggest deficit. World opinion was solidly with us two years ago, that's gone. Oh, and now Tommy Chong is in prison.

God Bless, America.

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Well, let's see. He's destroyed the WTC. That's pretty significant. He's got a large percentage of the american population living in fear. The whole world is turning against us, although that's more Bush's ineptitude, than bin Laden's accomplishment. He's tricked us into attack Iraq and desposing Saddam, one of his mortal enemies, thereby greatly tieing up american military resources that could have been used elsewhere. Although again, that's mostly Bush's ineptitude. He's gained thousands to millions of new supporters, now that we've screwed up. He probably is as happy as a clam?

What have we got? Our constitution has been raped. We've got history's biggest deficit. World opinion was solidly with us two years ago, that's gone. Oh, and now Tommy Chong is in prison.

God Bless, America. Ironic, isn't it, that Bush is the biggest tool of the terrorists?

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep12-03, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Ironic, isn't it, that Bush is the biggest tool of the terrorists?

I wouldn't really say ironic. 9-11 was the best thing George Bush has going for him.

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
I wouldn't really say ironic. 9-11 was the best thing George Bush has going for him. "Best" or "only"?

megashawn

Sep12-03, 03:28 PM

Oh, and now Tommy Chong is in prison.

What? Tommy Chong is in jail? What for?

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep12-03, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
What? Tommy Chong is in jail? What for?

For helping terrorists. Tommy Chong is co-owner, and is front man for a company which sold bongs over the internet. So Ashkroft and the SS are hauling him off the a concent... uh... federal prison for nine months.

First they came for the jews, and I said nothing...

megashawn

Sep12-03, 06:53 PM

What in the world does selling bongs have to do with helping terrorists? Was the money being used to help fund terrorist activitys? If yes, then I can understand him being in jail.

You are of course talking about tommy chong of cheech and chong fame correct?

I could see bong saling as helpful to terrorism as gasoline.

Mattius_

Sep12-03, 07:43 PM

TOTAL BS and it can only cause more damage. There is nothing to understand about Islam for a normal person, there are just ways to fight it

Next post like this, and I'm contacting Greg to see about banning you. Good luck.

speaking of free speech...

russ_watters

Sep12-03, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Mattius_
speaking of free speech... That concept does not apply to an internet bulletin board.

Zero, if drag had been talking about Branch Davidians instead of Muslims, would you have responded the same way? Why is it ok to condemn one religion and not another? What makes one a viable religion and another a cult? Is it simply the number of people who practice it?

I sincerely tried to keep an open mind about Islam. I used to believe that it couldn't possibly be bad - it just must be perverted by a few extremists. You may even be able to go back through my posts in the forum and see where I started to read the Koran and change my opinion. The Koran is a violent, mysoginistic, hateful, racist writing. What we call "extremists" are not extremists, they are the norm. The majority.

I believe that Islam has caught on so well in the middle east because they are destitude. Fat rich people don't complain, don't get bitter, and don't hate. When you are poor and hungry you are willing to latch on to a scapegoat. Hitler did it and it worked quite well.

I do not take this opinion lightly - I have thought through its implications as I believe drag has. Neither of us are the reactionary type. If you want to censure it because its unpopular, thats your perogative. Maybe thats easier than considering its validity.

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep13-03, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by megashawn
What in the world does selling bongs have to do with helping terrorists? Was the money being used to help fund terrorist activitys? If yes, then I can understand him being in jail.

You are of course talking about tommy chong of cheech and chong fame correct?

I could see bong saling as helpful to terrorism as gasoline.

The 9-11 terrorist were muslim, there are muslims in afghanistan. Opium come from Afghanistan. Opium is a drug. Marijuana is a drug. Drug users use bongs to smoke marijuana. Tommy Chong sells bongs.

Ergo- Tommy Chong supports terrorists and hates america.

John Ashkroft told me.

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep13-03, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
That concept does not apply to an internet bulletin board.

Zero, if drag had been talking about Branch Davidians instead of Muslims, would you have responded the same way? Why is it ok to condemn one religion and not another? What makes one a viable religion and another a cult? Is it simply the number of people who practice it?

I sincerely tried to keep an open mind about Islam. I used to believe that it couldn't possibly be bad - it just must be perverted by a few extremists. You may even be able to go back through my posts in the forum and see where I started to read the Koran and change my opinion. The Koran is a violent, mysoginistic, hateful, racist writing. What we call "extremists" are not extremists, they are the norm. The majority.

I believe that Islam has caught on so well in the middle east because they are destitude. Fat rich people don't complain, don't get bitter, and don't hate. When you are poor and hungry you are willing to latch on to a scapegoat. Hitler did it and it worked quite well.

I do not take this opinion lightly - I have thought through its implications as I believe drag has. Neither of us are the reactionary type. If you want to censure it because its unpopular, thats your perogative. Maybe thats easier than considering its validity.

The Branch Davidians killed cops and raped little girls. All of them, right there complicitly. They could have surrendered, and they would have gotten a trial with full due process. Nobody hates them because of their cultism, but because they kill cops and rape little girls.

Islam, on the other hand has hundreds of millions of worshippers here in america and abroad. 99.99 percent of them have never done anything wrong to anybody.

Furthermore, the Koran is no more racist, violent, misogynistic, or racist than the Bible. And christianity has sparked just as much murder and terrorism as Islam, Northern Ireland and the KKK are just two example. Really, there's very little difference between the religions, or there followers.

Also, the Middle East is hardly destitute. The countries that we haven't sanctioned and bombed into submission are so rich that they have to import blue collar workers. Osama bin Laden has millions.

So, it seems, you've just biased yourself against hundreds of millions of human beings based on the action of nineteen. You say you've studied the Koran, criticize it while ignoring the teaching and actions of religions, shall we say, closer to home.

No, Russ. I don't think you've come to this decision lightly. More likely it comes from deep-seated, possibly childhood, fear, hate, and ignorant bigotry towards people different than yourself.

drag

Sep13-03, 01:29 PM

Greetings !

I feel that perhaps some of you did not understand
what I mean to say (for example Zero told me I threaten
violence against 1/5 of humanity). The fact that some
people actually see my words like that, in my opinion,
is already a partial indication of how people's minds
can get twisted today. In no way do I support violence
against people of any religion or belief. The only people
I support violence against (and preferably the effective type)
are those who act on those beliefs and try to.

To speak of violence is to make us the same as them.
It means that we hate the people and want them dead
because of that. THAT IS WRONG ! Hate is wrong and
killing is wrong !

The type of struggle that I'm talking about is an
ideological struggle. A struggle between the ideals
and morals formed in the western world and solidified in the
past half a century and those formed in the Islamic world
mainly in the past half a century. Instead of "values" of hate,
murder of the infidels and laying blame for your own
low level of life on others, "values" dictated by the
religous laws of the sharia, "values" that do not support
the tiniest level of equality between males and females,
"values" that preach for a total Islamic world and "values"
that view technological and scientific progress as unwanted:
Instead of these values these people must be educated according
to the modern values of freedom, equality, progress and respect.
Inclusion not seclusion is the way of free societies.

The Soviets or the Chineese or the Cubans did not engage in
senseless murder or hate towards other peoples even if they
did use force to rule. They shared some of these values and
they respected and accepted the other sides as human beings
living on the same planet, though having completely different approaches as to how to achieve the modern utopia.

But these people are not taught these things, they are taught
to hate the people not just their ideas. They are taught
blind obidience to their faith - the "will" of which
originates from their leaders - wheather religious or
political.

It is easy to believe in certain idealised perspectives
when you're born and live in the western world. But it
is surprising how simple it is - through lifelong education
and ideology preachings to have a totally different world view.
The kind of view that the Nazis educated their youngsters to
in just a decade, due to which they were not bothered with
the intentional mass murder of helpless people that did
not "belong" to their "race".

It is this flow of poison that we must stop through different -
western ideology, through financial and political pressure and manipulation against these regimes and presecution of
religious leaders/educators and preachers and finally through
the occasional - as limmited as possible, international
military action in specific cases against specific people
who pose a real and present danger.

The war on the infiltration of western ideals into Muslim
countries had begun there a long time ago, fueled by the
cold war machinations of the USSR, US and Europe.
It is time to start a serious counter attack - a counter
attack of the ideals we believe in and follow and live
according to, ideals that work to advance humanity
rather than plunge it back into the dark ages.

Peace and long life.

BoulderHead

Sep13-03, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by drag
I feel that perhaps some of you did not understand
what I mean to say (for example Zero told me I threaten
violence against 1/5 of humanity). The fact that some
people actually see my words like that, in my opinion,
is already a partial indication of how people's minds
can get twisted today.
Hello Drag,
I don't believe that it's a matter of people's minds getting twisted as much as simply taking your words at face value;
…There is
nothing to understand about Islam for a normal person, there
are just ways to fight it.
If you did not mean violence perhaps you shouldn’t have chose to use the word “fight”, or at least have expounded on what you meant by that word. You didn’t speak of fanatical, fundamentalist, foaming at the mouth, factions, instead you painted, with a very broad stroke, all of Islam as needing to be fought. I find that especially curious after your comments in another thread Re;
Every religion that ever came out of the middle east has been a cancer on society.
You posted that;

…Abviously, historical issues aspecialy
something as huge and as fundumental an issue as this one can not
be oversimplified into such a singular point of view.
I think it is fair to say you are oversimplifying when you speak of Islam not needing to be understood, but only needing to be fought.
Now, back to the threatening violence thing, looking at what you posted in another thread…;
Church of Satan ? Yeah... I know this one. It's called
modern Islam - and there is only one way to stop it:
The hard way...

Asta la Vista, baby !
…I think that the “Asta la Vista, baby!” sounds like a reference to the Terminator, which would justifiably be interpreted as a call to kill what in this case you termed “modern Islam”.

…In no way do I support violence
against people of any religion or belief. The only people
I support violence against (and preferably the effective type)
are those who act on those beliefs and try to.
I’m glad to hear you say this.

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep13-03, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by drag
Nineteen ? [:D]
Yep, I'd say someone has some learning to do, not Russ though.
As for actions, actions are limmited by reality, intentions
are not - do some studies and see what the intentions are -
not of the above many many phousands (instead of nineteen)
but of the majority.

It's called Islamutopia.

Live long and prosper.

And what are these intentions of the majority of muslims? Hmm? Invade our countries, kill our leaders and preachers, convert us to their religion?

Isn't that what you just advocated doing to them?

Sounds like you've got a serious case of "Holier than thou" mixed in with and healthy dose of Us vs. Them.

And if you switch US vs. Them, basically you're saying the exact same thing that Osama bin Laden says.

Zero

Sep14-03, 01:40 PM

Zero

Sep14-03, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak

No, Russ. I don't think you've come to this decision lightly. More likely it comes from deep-seated, possibly childhood, fear, hate, and ignorant bigotry towards people different than yourself. And, I think we can seriously try to limit comments like this as well.

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep14-03, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And, I think we can seriously try to limit comments like this as well.

I humbly, and respectfully disagree. If one makes a bigoted comment, it's within everybody's best interest to point out that said comments are indeed bigotted, thoughtless, and morally bankrupt. Often bigots are such without realizing it, and IMHO, this should be pointed out both for the sake of the person who said it, and any number of people who could be offended by it. Of course, we shouldn't resort to personal attacks. Needless to say, everybody should be highly offended by racist, sexist, homophobic etc. remarks, but by resorting to childish name calling only ostracizes the bigot. And is, of course, against forums rules.

Zero

Sep14-03, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
I humbly, and respectfully disagree. If one makes a bigoted comment, it's within everybody's best interest to point out thatsaid comments are indeed bigotted, thoughtless, and morally bankrupt. Keep your comments on what people say, then, and not direct your criticism towards them...its a fine line.

megashawn

Sep14-03, 03:13 PM

The 9-11 terrorist were muslim, there are muslims in afghanistan. Opium come from Afghanistan. Opium is a drug. Marijuana is a drug. Drug users use bongs to smoke marijuana. Tommy Chong sells bongs.

Ergo- Tommy Chong supports terrorists and hates america.

John Ashkroft told me.

Heh, they were muslim alright, and they learned to fly in american schools and practiced there attacks one MS Flight Simulator. Bill Gates produces and distributes this game, so he is a terrorist.

Also, Opium has been in use for quite some time. Much longer then people have been going to Afganistan to get it. And what in the heck does marijuana have to do with opium, a relative of herion?

Most the marijuana I've known of comes from mexico or Billy bobs back yard. Should we now declare war on Mexico and all the Billy bobs across the SE?

I kinda sense some sarcasm in your reply, but I may be wrong. Honestly, I'd hope you don't truly believe such a shallow statement.

I read a few storys about Chong, and the arrest, and none of them mentioned anything about terrorism. I'm also wondering why he's been arrested, but all the local head shops are still in full operation?

Oh ya, another victory for BL, gas prices seem to be on a steady rise, in which I'm sure he somehow benefits.

russ_watters

Sep14-03, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
The Branch Davidians killed cops and raped little girls. All of them, right there complicitly. They could have surrendered, and they would have gotten a trial with full due process. Nobody hates them because of their cultism, but because they kill cops and rape little girls. Killing cops and raping little girls was what made them a cult. They did those things BECAUSE they were a cult. How is that different than the murders comitted by members of organizations that are part of the MAINSTREAM of Islam? No, Russ. I don't think you've come to this decision lightly. More likely it comes from deep-seated, possibly childhood, fear, hate, and ignorant bigotry towards people different than yourself. Read my past posts on this board on this subject. I came to this opinion recently as a result of reading the Koran. It is a shocking read. Virtually EVERY chapter talks about violence toward non-believers. Originally posted by Zero
If he had said 'Christians' or 'Jews' I would have jumped on him just as hard. I wouldn't tolerate, for instance, someone saying that all Catholics are child molesters because some priests are. See my reasoning? Yes, but it hasn't worked that way. Just take a quick look at the Christianity bashing in the religion forum. I don't mind criticism of Christianity, but there must be some consistency: no religion should be above criticism.And, I think we can seriously try to limit comments like this as well. I realize its against the TOS but it doesn't bother me to have people try to analyze me like that. Keep your comments on what people say, then, and not direct your criticism towards them...its a fine line. There is no line. If a statement a person makes is bigoted, that makes the person a bigot. Yeah, maybe it sounds nicer to comment on the statement and not the person, but the meaning is identical.

In any case, this is the politics forum - a discussion on the merits of a particular religion is something for the religion forum where hopefully (yeah, right) the debate can be more objective.

Zero

Sep14-03, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Killing cops and raping little girls was what made them a cult. They did those things BECAUSE they were a cult. How is that different than the murders comitted by members of organizations that are part of the MAINSTREAM of Islam? Read my past posts on this board on this subject. I came to this opinion recently as a result of reading the Koran. It is a shocking read. Virtually EVERY chapter talks about violence toward non-believers. Yes, but it hasn't worked that way. Just take a quick look at the Christianity bashing in the religion forum. I don't mind criticism of Christianity, but there must be some consistency: no religion should be above criticism. I realize its against the TOS but it doesn't bother me to have people try to analyze me like that. There is no line. If a statement a person makes is bigoted, that makes the person a bigot. Yeah, maybe it sounds nicer to comment on the statement and not the person, but the meaning is identical.

In any case, this is the politics forum - a discussion on the merits of a particular religion is something for the religion forum where hopefully (yeah, right) the debate can be more objective.

Good luck with that...I think all religions are poisonous. Does that make me objective?

schwarzchildradius

Sep15-03, 06:36 AM

Newt Gingrich has said that people hate Bush because 1) he's from Texas and 2) they dont like the way he looks. Oh, NOT because he botched the war on terror?
Bin Laden "won" on 9-11-01, since our cold-war tactics against a guerilla war fighting enemy haven't worked to stop his attacks.
Now we humiliate and get humiliated in Iraq. Did it work? Are Arabs trembling in fear. Or are Americans now full of fear?

Zero

Sep15-03, 07:44 AM

Oh, and every time some moron says 'all Muslims are evil', bin Laden gets a point.

Zero

Sep15-03, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Newt Gingrich has said that people hate Bush because 1) he's from Texas and 2) they dont like the way he looks. Oh, NOT because he botched the war on terror?
Bin Laden "won" on 9-11-01, since our cold-war tactics against a guerilla war fighting enemy haven't worked to stop his attacks.
Now we humiliate and get humiliated in Iraq. Did it work? Are Arabs trembling in fear. Or are Americans now full of fear? Well, that is the idiot Republican stance for you...make up retarded reasons for the behaviour of your opponents. 'Terrorists hate our freedoms' is another brown nuggest of Republican wisdom that manages to be wrong on several levels.

russ_watters

Sep15-03, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Good luck with that...I think all religions are poisonous. Does that make me objective? If you can defend it with facts and logic. I realize its a can of worms you'd rather not open - and I've tended to avoid the religion forum as well.

Zero

Sep16-03, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
If you can defend it with facts and logic. I realize its a can of worms you'd rather not open - and I've tended to avoid the religion forum as well. Not in this thread...I'd rather discuss in greater detail things like the notion that a 'war on terror' can only have one solution...victory for the terrorists.

megashawn

Sep16-03, 06:29 PM

Well, I think it was a track on Crazy Town's cd:

"Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity"

Bold edited for the all the innocent eyes roaming.

But I can totally agree with that. How is dropping bombs and such on an area suspected of housing terrorists going to help anything.

I mean, you drop a bomb. Now you have a big pile of rubble, bodies, etc. How many times have we been certain they killed Saddam, or Bin Laden?

How could they identify that the people killed were the terrorist they pursue? And not to mention the death of innocent victims, such as peoples fathers, brothers, sisters, etc, will only bring about more hatred towards the US. I mean, one man with alot of money and enough contacts wreaked alot of havoc in the US 2 years ago. It doesn't take a massive army to destroy a city nowadays. All it takes is one person pushed on the edge.

And also try to put yourself in the position of one of the civilians living in say, Afganistan. Do these attacks coming from everywhere seem like a war on terror? Or terror itself?

Personally, I think more attention should be focused on defense. The simple fact that less then 20 people could cause the damage they did should really tell us something. And instead of improving these weaknesses, we start pumping billions over seas.

drag

Sep17-03, 07:09 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by BoulderHead
If you did not mean violence perhaps you shouldn’t have chose to use the word “fight”, or at least have expounded on what you meant by that word.
Nope, that's precisely the word I meant to use.
In this case you must fight an ideology not just
mildly oppose it.
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
And what are these intentions of the majority of muslims? Hmm? Invade our countries, kill our leaders and preachers, convert us to their religion?

Isn't that what you just advocated doing to them?

That is partially correct, indeed. So ?
Or perhaps your current way of life, society foundations
and ideology seems wrong to you and you would like
to live under the law of the sharia ? Or perhaps you
believe that these people live better lives in such
conditions ? Or perhaps you view it as a better future
for humanity ?

Or,
perhaps you simply realize that the result of this
cultural struggle will not realisticly happen anytime
soon and as for the people that die in this struggle...
you don't really care ? I mean, it's not like there's a
significant real chance of terror hurting you personally
in any significant way, right ? So you just don't think
the fight is worth the resources and sacrifices of the
countries involved, isn't that right ? So a few people
die here and there, a few hundred per year, several phousands
per year, many phousands here and there in chemical or
biological attacks... I wonder, when will that worry you ?
How many people and how many terrorist acts do you
need to see before it is worth to do something ?
Or maybe you just won't see the connection between those
bodies on your screen and the late night action movie until
you feel it yourself ? Well, I'm sorry, that can take forever,
and some PEOPLES' LIVES don't have the luxury of that time.

Peace and long life.

Zero

Sep17-03, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Nope, that's precisely the word I meant to use.
In this case you must fight an ideology not just
mildly oppose it.

That is partially correct, indeed. So ?
Or perhaps your current way of life, society foundations
and ideology seems wrong to you and you would like
to live under the law of the sharia ? Or perhaps you
believe that these people live better lives in such
conditions ? Or perhaps you view it as a better future
for humanity ?

Or,
perhaps you simply realize that the result of this
cultural struggle will not realisticly happen anytime
soon and as for the people that die in this struggle...
you don't really care ? I mean, it's not like there's a
significant real chance of terror hurting you personally
in any significant way, right ? So you just don't think
the fight is worth the resources and sacrifices of the
countries involved, isn't that right ? So a few people
die here and there, a few hundred per year, several phousands
per year, many phousands here and there in chemical or
biological attacks... I wonder, when will that worry you ?
How many people and how many terrorist acts do you
need to see before it is worth to do something ?
Or maybe you just won't see the connection between those
bodies on your screen and the late night action movie until
you feel it yourself ? Well, I'm sorry, that can take forever,
and some PEOPLES' LIVES don't have the luxury of that time.

Peace and long life.

Drag, you are the biggest bin Laden supporter on the board, and you don't even know it. Your response is EXACTLY the response that terrorism exists to create. bin Laden wants a holy war, and you are playing right into his hands by suggesting one. You spout your simplistic 'us vs them' rhetoric, and suggesting that we need to hurt 'them' before they hurt 'us'...and your counterp[arts in government do as much long term damage as any car bomb.

Chemicalsuperfreak

Sep17-03, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Nope, that's precisely the word I meant to use.
In this case you must fight an ideology not just
mildly oppose it.

That is partially correct, indeed. So ?
Or perhaps your current way of life, society foundations
and ideology seems wrong to you and you would like
to live under the law of the sharia ? Or perhaps you
believe that these people live better lives in such
conditions ? Or perhaps you view it as a better future
for humanity ?

Or,
perhaps you simply realize that the result of this
cultural struggle will not realisticly happen anytime
soon and as for the people that die in this struggle...
you don't really care ? I mean, it's not like there's a
significant real chance of terror hurting you personally
in any significant way, right ? So you just don't think
the fight is worth the resources and sacrifices of the
countries involved, isn't that right ? So a few people
die here and there, a few hundred per year, several phousands
per year, many phousands here and there in chemical or
biological attacks... I wonder, when will that worry you ?
How many people and how many terrorist acts do you
need to see before it is worth to do something ?
Or maybe you just won't see the connection between those
bodies on your screen and the late night action movie until
you feel it yourself ? Well, I'm sorry, that can take forever,
and some PEOPLES' LIVES don't have the luxury of that time.

Peace and long life.

We've killed tens of thousands of civilians because 9-11 was so terrible. Now if killing 3,000 innocent civilians is so bad and inexcusable, how does killing tens of thousands make it better. Is it because They are muslim and We are christian, is it because They are Brown and We are white, is it because they are third world and we are first? Do our civilians have a greater entitlement to live then theirs?

And just exactly do you expect to accomplish by bombing people in countries that had nothing to do with 9-11, hmm? Are people angry enough to give their own lives for their cause going to say "hmm, the US bombed people in a whole other country, I'd better stop before I get hurt."

Do you feel the same about white christian americans after Oklahoma city as you do about muslims?

russ_watters

Sep17-03, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
We've killed tens of thousands of civilians because 9-11 was so terrible. According to whom?

Zero

Sep17-03, 12:59 PM

That number sounds rather too high...injured that many? Certainly. Ruined the lives of that many Iraqi civilians? Most likely. Several thousand killed sounds more probable.

The Christian Science Monitor says 5-10 thousand, while the Iraqi Bodycount website puts in at about 6-8 thousand.

Zero

Sep17-03, 01:08 PM

And, of course, every innocent Iraqi(like the 9 Iraq police gunned down by U.S. troops,for instance) has surviving friends and families that will likely look at terrorist attacks on America in a more favorable light now.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Sep18-03, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by zero
Keep your comments on what people say, then, and not direct your criticism towards them...its a fine line.
Followed by
Originally posted by zero
Well, that is the idiot Republican stance for you...make up retarded reasons for the behaviour of your opponents.
That is the very reason for things like terrorism, people who do NOT follow their own rules, but want everyone else to!

Aside from that, "War on Terrorism" is a 'Cause on it's own effect' because "War" is a cause and it's effect is "Terror" so a "War on Terrorism" is (sorta) self generating.

That's kinda why Bin laden (Probably dead, in a body bag, in a freezer, somewhere in America, to keep this all going) has the appearence of still being in a winning position, his Ghost is still inciting terror.

drag

Sep18-03, 04:04 PM

This is really funny...[:D]
I mean some of you really sound like you've just landed
straight from the 70s. What is all this NEVER FIGHT and
NEVER WAGE WAR and Turn The Other chick crap ?! [g)]
Seriously, though, like I said, I mainly reffer a war
of ideologies and only a little actual physical actions
when really unavoidable, I can not understand this at all.
So people die and what's you solution ? Tell me what it is
exactly ? Do nothing ? Universal love ? Weed smoking ?
Seriously, what is YOUR solution ? Or maybe you DON'T see
a real need for one ? Maybe you don't think it's worth to
bother ? How many bodies would it take for you ?

I'm playing into Bin Laden's hands ? Because he wants a war ?
Possibly. But then again he and many like him had already
started one and they enjoy the wide support of a huge amount
of people. It is one thing to avoid a fight it is another
to run when you're attacked and inoccent civilians are
murdered. Not to mention the fact that you do not know
the mentality of the people on the other side. In the
middle east and north africa they have a totally different
mentality - if someone strikes you and you do not respond
it is not nobility or rightousness for them, rather a sign
of weakness and a signal to continue the attack. If you
do not bargain and drive a hard bragain you'll be cheated
and taken advantage of with no regret and with great pleasure.
I'm pretty certain that had the US not attacked Afghanistan
after 9/11 there would be other major attacks in the US and
the world in general. Instead, and not just because of the
war - 'cause its not that difficult to carry out such attacks
regardless of it, the terrorists gained more respect for the
US as their opponent, apparently still capable, despite the
opposition and the risks, to go to war after being dealt such
a blow.

Live long and prosper.

FZ+

Sep18-03, 07:37 PM

What is all this NEVER FIGHT and
NEVER WAGE WAR and Turn The Other chick crap ?!
The "crap" is that terrorism is not something you can fight with bullets and tanks. It is a method, and a tool of ideology.

Seriously, what is YOUR solution ? Or maybe you DON'T see
a real need for one ? Maybe you don't think it's worth to
bother ? How many bodies would it take for you ?
The second "crap" is that terrorism has nothing to do with the body count. Terrorism is about fear, about garnering support, about disruption and destruction of democratic ideals. Blowing up an empty bank is terrorism just as crashing into the twin towers.

I do see the need for the solution. In fact, there are many solutions. They involve talking to people. Encouraging international relations. Alienating the extremist and encouraging progressives. Not using a policy of fear and provide an excuse for totalitarian regimes worldwide to crack down on the opposition. Not going to war without reliable evidence on nations which turn out to have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. Thinking out a solution, a plan instead of diving naively in. Working out the reprocussions of each act. Not ignoring advice from your own intelligent services that an invasion would increase the threat of terrorism. Not developing a culture of lies and unthinking nationalism. Not playing into the terrorist strategy of divide and conquer by seeing the world in black and white.

The real fanatics care nothing of respect, or deterence - they don't care, and if 9/11 says anything, it says they are not afraid to die. And yet by attacking, and worse doing so in a way that alienates much of the world pushes multitudes of peoples into this same sort of, us vs them thinking.

schwarzchildradius

Sep19-03, 06:05 AM

Bin Laden and Saddam are not winning, but what they are doing is not losing, not being stopped. It's not totally the president's fault, except of course the miserably poorly planned Iraq war. And he slashed funding for fire-fighters and police.

Zero

Sep19-03, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
The "crap" is that terrorism is not something you can fight with bullets and tanks. It is a method, and a tool of ideology.

The second "crap" is that terrorism has nothing to do with the body count. Terrorism is about fear, about garnering support, about disruption and destruction of democratic ideals. Blowing up an empty bank is terrorism just as crashing into the twin towers.

I do see the need for the solution. In fact, there are many solutions. They involve talking to people. Encouraging international relations. Alienating the extremist and encouraging progressives. Not using a policy of fear and provide an excuse for totalitarian regimes worldwide to crack down on the opposition. Not going to war without reliable evidence on nations which turn out to have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. Thinking out a solution, a plan instead of diving naively in. Working out the reprocussions of each act. Not ignoring advice from your own intelligent services that an invasion would increase the threat of terrorism. Not developing a culture of lies and unthinking nationalism. Not playing into the terrorist strategy of divide and conquer by seeing the world in black and white.

The real fanatics care nothing of respect, or deterence - they don't care, and if 9/11 says anything, it says they are not afraid to die. And yet by attacking, and worse doing so in a way that alienates much of the world pushes multitudes of peoples into this same sort of, us vs them thinking. The problem is, America has the biggest military toys, and they have to justify using them, or their budgets will be slashed. If all you know how to do is fight a traditional war, and you attempt to use those toools and techniques against terrorists, you are doomed to long-term failure.

It is also important to truly understand the motives of terrorists. To spout nonsense like "they hate us because of our freedoms' makes us feel good for being free, righteous for fighting back, and does nothing to address the real problem. Ultimately, I don't think terrorists are even fighting against us. They are fighting for the hearts and minds of their fellows. They call us infidels and murderers, and attack us. We respond by killing some of them, plus a bunch of civilians, and move into their countries, proving that we are the infidels and murderers that the terrorists claim.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Sep19-03, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Zero
The problem is, America has the biggest military toys, and they have to justify using them, or their budgets will be slashed. If all you know how to do is fight a traditional war, and you attempt to use those toools and techniques against terrorists, you are doomed to long-term failure.

It is also important to truly understand the motives of terrorists. To spout nonsense like "they hate us because of our freedoms' makes us feel good for being free, righteous for fighting back, and does nothing to address the real problem. Ultimately, I don't think terrorists are even fighting against us. They are fighting for the hearts and minds of their fellows. They call us infidels and murderers, and attack us. We respond by killing some of them, plus a bunch of civilians, and move into their countries, proving that we are the infidels and murderers that the terrorists claim.
Amen to that one!....but it isn't just America in a way, as other Western style Nations seem to think that the only real way to have a "Democracy" is their way, which doesn't always suit the Cultural differences that do exist, and are important to them.

russ_watters

Sep19-03, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Amen to that one!....but it isn't just America in a way, as other Western style Nations seem to think that the only real way to have a "Democracy" is their way, which doesn't always suit the Cultural differences that do exist, and are important to them. There are significant differences between the various westernized nations - as much as is possible while still being able to call them "democracies." Whether you consider it a big constraint or a small one, what is required to be a democracy is that the power to govern is derived from a mandate from the governed. If a government doesn't include that, its not a democracy - and under modern political philosophy is also not a legitimate government.

Zero

Sep19-03, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Amen to that one!....but it isn't just America in a way, as other Western style Nations seem to think that the only real way to have a "Democracy" is their way, which doesn't always suit the Cultural differences that do exist, and are important to them. Well, here's another good point...Iraq is not a country in the same way that America is. It was kind of 'invented', and lots of cultures have been thrown together as a nation that have no true links between them. And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.

russ_watters

Sep20-03, 01:22 AM

Dissident Dan

Sep20-03, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ironic comparison seeing as how America is by far the most culturally diverse nation on earth.

Not when it was formed. Of the non-Native Americans, they were something like 90+% Protestants (the lowest number for any of the thirteen colonies was 84% for Maryland) and %British ranged from 55% to 89%. Most others were Dutch, French, or German.

Zero

Sep20-03, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ironic comparison seeing as how America is by far the most culturally diverse nation on earth. Imagine, though, what would happen if, say, a few hundred thousand people from each European country were suddenly tossed into Iraq, and told that they were now a nation, and had to make it work...and watch chaos ensue.

Zero

Sep20-03, 01:44 AM

And, we have gone rather far afield...

Mr. Robin Parsons

Sep20-03, 10:17 AM

Well, Bin Laden seems to be (still) winning simply because his image can be used to rally factions to a cause, regaurdless of whether, or not, he is even still alive. It succeeds simply because We are scared of death.

FZ+

Sep20-03, 06:21 PM

Ironic comparison seeing as how America is by far the most culturally diverse nation on earth.
And of course, it took centuries of civil war, civil rights campaigners and so on to work that out. And there are still loony fundamentalists, hyper-nationalists and racists roaming about.

We don't quite intend that of Iraq, do we?

kat

Sep20-03, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, here's another good point...Iraq is not a country in the same way that America is. It was kind of 'invented', and lots of cultures have been thrown together as a nation that have no true links between them. And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.

Which may also be the root of much of the anger/hatred..what have you...to what extent does the blame lie in support for nationalism, including in some instances Arab nationalism seen by Muslim fundamentalists as a Western/European import, introduced for the purpose of destroying the Islamic Caliphate? In this respect, do those who are minorities, many of which are ancient races with a long history in the region such as Copts, Assyrians and Kurds, do these people have a right to self determination? and to what extent, if in fact it exists, would our belief in that right aggravate hatred towards us?

russ_watters

Sep20-03, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Imagine, though, what would happen if, say, a few hundred thousand people from each European country were suddenly tossed into Iraq, and told that they were now a nation, and had to make it work...and watch chaos ensue. Why? Europe is coalescing as we speak. The EU is about as strong already as the first iteration of the US and it continues to consolidate its power.

And again, the US has hundreds of thousands of people from each of doznes of places. It works fine here. It can work anywhere where people WANT it to work. Unfortunately in many places people prefer killing each other to peace and prosperity. And of course, it took centuries of civil war, civil rights campaigners and so on to work that out. And there are still loony fundamentalists, hyper-nationalists and racists roaming about.

We don't quite intend that of Iraq, do we? We would hope they could learn from our mistakes like so many other countries have. What took us two centuries took Japan roughly two decades.

Zero

Sep20-03, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Why? Europe is coalescing as we speak. The EU is about as strong already as the first iteration of the US and it continues to consolidate its power.

And again, the US has hundreds of thousands of people from each of doznes of places. It works fine here. It can work anywhere where people WANT it to work. Unfortunately in many places people prefer killing each other to peace and prosperity. We would hope they could learn from our mistakes like so many other countries have. What took us two centuries took Japan roughly two decades. Yeah, but it is all happening organically, over time, not by declaration that goes into effect next Tuesday. And, of course, no one prefers killing each other...or maybe, everyone prefers it, and some of us are just better at it?

russ_watters

Sep21-03, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, but it is all happening organically, over time, not by declaration that goes into effect next Tuesday. And, of course, no one prefers killing each other...or maybe, everyone prefers it, and some of us are just better at it? We did it with Germany and Japan almost exactly the way we are trying to do it in Iraq. Do you think there is there something fundamentally better about the Germans and the Japanese than the Iraqis? I don't.

Further, "everyone" is a lot of people. I don't prefer killing people to living in peace. Do you?

Zero

Sep21-03, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
We did it with Germany and Japan almost exactly the way we are trying to do it in Iraq. Do you think there is there something fundamentally better about the Germans and the Japanese than the Iraqis? I don't.

Further, "everyone" is a lot of people. I don't prefer killing people to living in peace. Do you?

Germany and Japan are "real" countries, not a conglomeration ofr multiple ethnic and religious groups slammed togeth by imperialists at the begining of the last century.

I'm starting to think every country is willing to be the dictator, and kill if necessary to get it. Pecking orders and what-not.

russ_watters

Sep21-03, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Germany and Japan are "real" countries, not a conglomeration ofr multiple ethnic and religious groups slammed togeth by imperialists at the begining of the last century.

I'm starting to think every country is willing to be the dictator, and kill if necessary to get it. Pecking orders and what-not. So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? Gee, so much for tolerance for people not like ourselves. And why should that even matter? Is it just that after a while people lose the desire to kill each other over their differences? Or once prosperity sets in people are fat, happy, and too lazy to kill each other anymore? Why can't the Iraqis learn from our mistakes and do it? What is fundamentally different about them? Why should a Shiite and a Suni hate each other so much that they can't form a government together? They aren't even that different from each other and together they are less different from us than the Japanese were - the Japanese may as well have been aliens and yet they embraced democracy and capitalism.

Zero, you're making it sound like you think Arabs are just fundamentally uncivilized. That some places just can't make democracy work. I can't accept that. I think democracy CAN work there or anywhere.

Zero

Sep21-03, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? Gee, so much for tolerance for people not like ourselves. And why should that even matter? Is it just that after a while people lose the desire to kill each other over their differences? Or once prosperity sets in people are fat, happy, and too lazy to kill each other anymore? Why can't the Iraqis learn from our mistakes and do it? What is fundamentally different about them? Why should a Shiite and a Suni hate each other so much that they can't form a government together? They aren't even that different from each other and together they are less different from us than the Japanese were - the Japanese may as well have been aliens and yet they embraced democracy and capitalism.

Zero, you're making it sound like you think Arabs are just fundamentally uncivilized. That some places just can't make democracy work. I can't accept that. I think democracy CAN work there or anywhere. I don't claim to understand the minds of religions people...I also do think that prosperity plays a huge role in things, or at least allowing a certain amount of indulgence. I am only half kidding, for instance, when I talk about paving Jerusalem and putting a bunch of fast food places in its place, or dropping porn to fix the violence.

I think democracy can work if people want it to. I also think that American-style democracy is a particularly American thing, and each country will have to go its own way to get where it needs to be.

On the other hand, if you think of Islam as being basically the same as Christianity, and see it as a meme, you can look at where it is along a timeline that Christianity follwed, and think that there may be a natural progression towards peace that they haven't found yet. Think about how violent and ruthless Western countries were just a few hundred years ago...I hope that teh Middle East doesn't need as long to wise up.

Tsu

Sep21-03, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Zero
And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.
We see this in America today.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Sep21-03, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP) So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? (SNoP)
I suspect that that is the ingrediant that is the "time" factor that allowed those countries to recover faster then the Iraqi's seem to be presently able.
Germany and Japan both had some form of stability, stable Governement, prior to their wars, Iraq's governance was much more an "imposed stability" then the willing stability that those others had.

I would like to know how do we, "Western Society" aleviate the fear that is instilled, within people, by mention of the Name of "Osama Bin", how do we rectify the effect that the Mass media had/has in serving, un-intentionally*, Osama's fear mongering way?

*The are only doing the Jobs we want them to do

Mr. Robin Parsons

Sep21-03, 09:53 AM

It is quite possible that the Iraqi's themselves recognize that the impedance to their becoming a "Democracy" is the very fact of the lengthy cultural heritage of (psuedo) administration by "Church", or, simply the "Church" having to much influence within the processes.

How can that be "helped" (for lack of a better word) if at all, and if that is what the Iraqi people, themselves, really want?
(And how do we find that out??)

PsYcHo_FiSh

Sep26-03, 01:25 PM

Your forgetting Japan and the major long standing cultural differences between it and the U.S. after '45. With hard work and lots of perspiration (lol no pun intdended) Iraq can be transformed into a free nation.

Al-Quada knows that if the U.S. succeeds in Iraq then it will have been struck a heavy blow. That's why they are supporting every effort for a guerilla war to be waged in Iraq. The news media has to find a story every day to keep the ratings up but it paints an innacurate picture. The most violent parts are between the cities of Baghdad and Tikrit; two of Saddam's strong holds. The outlying country-side is more peaceful.

The implications of a free and peaceful Iraq in the middle-east are heavy indeed.

Zero

Sep26-03, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Your forgetting Japan and the major long standing cultural differences between it and the U.S. after '45. With hard work and lots of perspiration (lol no pun intdended) Iraq can be transformed into a free nation.

Al-Quada knows that if the U.S. succeeds in Iraq then it will have been struck a heavy blow. That's why they are supporting every effort for a guerilla war to be waged in Iraq. The news media has to find a story every day to keep the ratings up but it paints an innacurate picture. The most violent parts are between the cities of Baghdad and Tikrit; two of Saddam's strong holds. The outlying country-side is more peaceful.

The implications of a free and peaceful Iraq in the middle-east are heavy indeed. Uh huh...been watching Fox Lies Network much? Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

Iraq is barely a coherent nation to begin with, so buiding a national identity will have to come before building any sort of democracy. Attacking Iraq was unnecesary, and is a boost to world terrorism. Read the thread, man.

PsYcHo_FiSh

Sep26-03, 01:47 PM

You missed or dodged my point. A stable Iraq would be a stabilizing factor in the middle east. As you know, the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals *GAH!* After all, life is a web and one regional conflict affects other regions around it.

Iraq has less of a national identity problem than you might think. However, the next target we should go after is Iran. We know Iraq got rid of their **** (yes they did have them at some point). Anyways, thanks to the unreliable intelligence of our quote coalition unquote, we've wasted our energy. We should have gone after Iran or North Korea.

Iranians would welcome the U.S. However, we don't have the manpower.

At the moment we are stuck with Iraq so we better stay the course.

Zero

Sep26-03, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
You missed or dodged my point. A stable Iraq would be a stabilizing factor in the middle east. As you know, the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals *GAH!* After all, life is a web and one regional conflict affects other regions around it.

Iraq has less of a national identity problem than you might think. However, the next target we should go after is Iran. We know Iraq got rid of their **** (yes they did have them at some point). Anyways, thanks to the unreliable intelligence of our quote coalition unquote, we've wasted our energy. We should have gone after Iran or North Korea.

Iranians would welcome the U.S. However, we don't have the manpower.

At the moment we are stuck with Iraq so we better stay the course. H9ow about we stop 'going after' countries without UN support.

drag

Sep26-03, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
Amazing ! [g)] I admire your wealth of knowledge...[:D]

Njorl

Sep26-03, 02:55 PM

Iraq's involvement in terrorism was small compared to the state sponsored efforts of Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Their biggest efforts were the rewarding of suicide bombers ($10k-$20k each) in Israel, and safe haven for some discredited terrorist leaders who were being hunted by their own people. They did have some training facilities, but nothing on the scale of the other countries mentioned. Iraq's attempts at Arab hegemony made them many enemies among terrorist organisations.

If support of terrorism were the criterion for invasion, we'd have invaded several other countries first, but it is also incorrect to state that Iraq did not support terrorism at all.

Njorl

Zero

Sep26-03, 08:41 PM

OK, I should have said 'Iraq has little to do with terrorism, and no known links to 9-11'...it was never a true threat to the U.S., and claiming that invading has had a positive effect on stopping terrorism is wrong. The opposite is probably true, though, and playing right into the terrorists hands, as is the attempt to force democracy on the region.

Zero

Sep27-03, 12:13 AM

Did you know that if an Iraqi kills an American soldier in Iraq, it is not terrorism? In fact, it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention...

russ_watters

Sep27-03, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Did you know that if an Iraqi kills an American soldier in Iraq, it is not terrorism? In fact, it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention... Actually, you are almost completely wrong. The Geneva conventions among other things are designed to protect civilians. Part of protecting civilians is mandating that soldiers be identifiable as soldiers. If soldiers and civilians are indistinguishable, then civilians are at risk. This is precisely the problem faced in Iraq (indeed, it is the primary MO of terrorists). Terrorsts (in Iraq and elsewhere) are virtually always dressed in civilian clothes and are therefore virtually always illegal combatants.

A good example of this is the problems we've had at checkpoints - a cab driver pulls up to a check point and detonates a bomb. He's an illegal combatant. The rules of engagement get changed to protect the soldiers at the checkpoint and a few days later a van full of civilians gets hosed. According to the Geneva Convention, those deaths are on the head of the terrorist from a few days before.H9ow about we stop 'going after' countries without UN support. No. Did you disagree with our action in Yugoslavia too? Clinton got lucky there, but nevertheless it was the right thing to do.

Zero

Sep27-03, 12:58 AM

So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?

(I'm looking it up to give you the context...in either case it is not terrorism.)

russ_watters

Sep28-03, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Zero
So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."? Its pretty simple: There is a difference between an army of conquest and an army of liberation. Even the UN, though they were against the war, considers it liberation, not conquest.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Sep28-03, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its pretty simple: There is a difference between an army of conquest and an army of liberation. Even the UN, though they were against the war, considers it liberation, not conquest.
Uhmmm, agreed sorta, as an army of liberation LEAVES once the liberation is done and the POLICE force replaces them, as that is the "ARMY" (the Police) of CIVIL ORDER, that replaces Warrior's once the War is declared OVER.
Otherwise you have an army claiming to be an "Army of Liberation" that is occupying it's (supposedly) "Liberated" frontier, and as Zero has pointed out, quite rightly, an army of occupation can be met with civilian resistance.........

kat

Sep28-03, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Zero
So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?

(I'm looking it up to give you the context...in either case it is not terrorism.)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I've never seen this quote in the Text of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm). Although this may be relevant: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.