russ_watters said:
Slightly OT, but this cliche' is a real big pet peve of mine. Words have definitions. Some are more subjective than others. "Freedom fighter" has a subjective definition which depends on which side of a conflict you are on. "Terrorist" has a specific definition. So whether or not someone is a freedom fighter may depend on which side of a conflict you are on, but whether or not they are a terrorist does not. So its possible to be both at the same time. Either way, someone who fits the definition of "terrorist" is a terrorist.
The phrase "one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'" is thrown around primarily as an attempt to justify terrorism.
The definition of terror: "Intense, overpowering fear."
The definition of terrorize: " To fill or overpower with terror; terrify"
The definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
The definiton of terrorist: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism"
With that now said, the people (^organized group) who genuinely fought to "free" the new America from England's power (^government) for ideological/political reasons, should be considered "terrorists". That's why I used the quotes in my previous post. But these revolutionary men were NOT terrorists, but "freedom fighters". And at the time, I'm sure that they were considered "terrorists" in the eyes of England, and "freedom fighters" in the eyes of would-be new Americans.
Now think about the people in Iraq. Consider us to be England (not literally, but just for fun) and them the new America. They want "freedom" from US rule. That's what these "terrorists" are fighting for. Not for the freedom that we think of as stated in the constitution, but "freedom" from our governmental rule. Think about it...
Maybe it is time we took back the key to the city of Detroit from Saddam. Do you think he still has it? And by the way, everything we are doing now could have been done in the FIRST damn war we subjected these people too. They don't need to endure this torture again!
russ_watters said:
-First, you are assumng the numbers we have heard are correct. Considering the source of the numbers, that's a big assumption. I'm not just talking about bias, but its difficult to get an accurate count by taking polls at hospitals in a war zone.
Well, unless you actually go to Iraq and count them up - no you won't have accurate numbers. But these are the best we have to go by. You are correct though and I totally agree with you...
russ_watters said:
-Second, that doesn't take into account the fact that many (a rather large percentage) of the civilian deaths recorded on the US's tally were actually Saddam's and the Taliban's fault. And I don't mean "friendly fire" - surrounding your equipment with human shelds is a war crime.
The fact that US "blatently" disregards the civilians is evident in time of war. Take the fact that the human rights activists have repeatedly pushed for the US NOT to use cluster bombs near heavily populated civilian areas due to the fact that most of them do not detonate until children try to pick them up. The percentage of clusters not detonated is relatively high, something like 35%, and is maintained and not improved due to the simple fact that it is more economical to produce bad clusters that don't detonate instantly. The US has not changed this policy even with the constant pressure from these groups...
russ_watters said:
-Third, it doesn't take into account the lives saved by the two conflicts. Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people over the last 10 years. That means in one year of occupation, even if we killed 10,000 we've still saved many times more than we killed. One of the toughest things for most people to accept is that everyone has a bias.
Who have we saved? If you think for one minute that the USA actually cares about the Iraqi people and nothing else, you are dead wrong. There are numerous other countries that we could easily be "saving" right now that really need our help, why Iraq? Once we get what we want out of that country, we will set up a new dictator to keep the people in line and move on to exploit the next resource. It's history repeating itself. Take a look back in those books of yours...