Awful news in Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date
  • #51
221
0
The Smoking Man said:
Really? And can you divorce yourself from the emotion of the moment well enough to own up to the American illegalities in the war against Iraq?
The war in Iraq is an entirely different matter...I have reasons for feeling the way I do about it that are anything but mainstream.

Justice is not something viewed with perfect 20-20 hindsight but is achieved best whle the crime is still being committed so that it can be halted.
I agree

There has been a reluctance on the part of America to acknowledge the Downing Street Memo for what it is for example because of a perception of 'well, what is done is don and we can't fix it now'.
I guess I will have to do some reading about that...

You have already dismissed another's links as 'BS' even though they wre proved later to be from the source you denied they were from.
I didn't dismiss it...the content of the link was such that I had a good reason to question where it came from. When I saw that I was wrong about my assumptions I said so. You can accept that?

You will also find it very hard to become an expat, I fear.
No...it would be all too easy. I have been around the world twice already you know.

You seem to be having a hard time showing anyone an opinion about current events much less history that would make you welcome in another culture or make another culture appealing to you. (LOL. Unless Canada is your object of desire but then that would smack of 'draft dodging' wouldn't it? :biggrin:)
It wouldn't smack of draft dodging at all....I cannot be drafted so I cannot dodge the draft...

Canada does have an appeal but I had my eyes set on some place else, if the need were to ever come.

Regards,
 
  • #52
Townsend said:
I never referenced any books...
Come now. You state in your own profile that you are a student of history, among other things and unless you picked up your knowledge through osmosis, oral tradition or the A&E network, your perceptions came from books written in America.

Townsend said:
They never invaded is what I meant...of course they attacked English armies.
Iraqi terrorists invaded their own country? Interesting concept.


Townsend said:
The word I would use to describe the Green Mountain Boys would be guerillas, not terrorist. In this case the definition actually fits.
LOL ... Now you are getting it. "The word I would use"... Exactly!!! And the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan know when they have found an Al Qieda training camp when they come across photocopies of the CIA training manuals in Guerilla tactics.


Townsend said:
Perception I can see...twisting the way a word is defined and used I cannot.
Then stop twisting them. It is merely your 'opinion' again that is keeping you from applying the word correctly. In your 'opinion' the 'revolutionaries' were correct so the nice terms of 'guerilla warrior' and 'freedom fighters' spring to mind because you automatically assume the actions of terrorists to be something that 'evil people' do.

I'd be interested in your opinion of 'The Patriot' by our Aussie friend, Mel Gibson. What do you think of the opinion the character held of his own actions at the beginning of the movie? When did he become a 'patriot' in your eyes after watching the superior forces kill both his sons?

When was he a traitor, when was he a patriot and to which country?


Townsend said:
The archetypal form for a terrorist is not what the colonist were. Some were paramilitary and used guerilla tatics but they are not the same as terrorist. Nice try though. It make for interesting discourse to say the least...

Right...and you, the one who keeps putting words into my mouth, are going to show me the light.....
The archetypal definition is one who invokes terror in others through his actions.

Are you telling me that firing on camped soldiers and their entourage day and night from the trees under the cover of darkness and while wearing no uniforms, in clothing of a colour meant to camouflage is the act of a regular soldier of the day?

Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.
 
  • #53
Hurkyl said:
I've reread your post, and yes, I say you are defending this act of terror, or at least tolerating it.

When I read your posts, I see legitimizing. I see rationale. I see blame shifting. When I pressed you for your actual stance, I saw evasion.

And now, I see deflection.

I see everything but "Yes, this was a terrible act."
You'd be wrong then.

It was a terrible act.

Happy?

What you see is the result of stripping away the emotion and applying the same thought to the actions on both sides and equating the two together.

I think the actions of the terrorists is terrible and the acts of the Americans in the same light.

I do remember the young boy who lost both his arms and his own family too who was featured on the news ... but I guess you wouldn't equate the two.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
221
0
The archetypal definition is one who invokes terror in others through his actions.

Are you telling me that firing on camped soldiers and their entourage day and night from the trees under the cover of darkness and while wearing no uniforms, in clothing of a colour meant to camouflage is the act of a regular soldier of the day?

Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.
You convinced me to give it a second look...I will get back to you, fair enough?

p.s.-don't wait for me...I need to read some Harry Potter...but I will get back to you in good time... :tongue2:
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Townsend said:
The war in Iraq is an entirely different matter...I have reasons for feeling the way I do about it that are anything but mainstream.
Care to share?

Townsend said:
I guess I will have to do some reading about that...
I am surprised you have not already done so.

Townsend said:
I didn't dismiss it...the content of the link was such that I had a good reason to question where it came from. When I saw that I was wrong about my assumptions I said so. You can accept that?
I do accept that.

Townsend said:
No...it would be all too easy. I have been around the world twice already you know.
Living in countries as an independent citizen or on military bases?

I have not seen 'home' in 15 years ... not even on vacation.

Townsend said:
It wouldn't smack of draft dodging at all....I cannot be drafted so I cannot dodge the draft...

Canada does have an appeal but I had my eyes set on some place else, if the need were to ever come.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you would be a draft dodger just that for a military person, this would be a thought in the back of your mind ... People who previously fled what they thought was an unjust government ... etc.
 
  • #56
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
The Smoking Man said:
Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.
Now... i dont like jumping into conversations after i get 2 or 3 pages behind in it... but really, what in gods name are you thinking when you wrote this. Dumping tea is an act of terrorism? Ok ok... if thats TERRORISM... then i suppose my friend who helped out in a protest against walmart needs to be labeled a terrorist and sent to gitmo right?

And if your definition of "terrorist" is someone who doesnt attack exactly like the mainstream armies do... then i suppose the French and British and Japanese were allllllll terrorists because they used this insane concept of aerial warfare and rocket attacks.
 
  • #57
Pengwuino said:
Now... i dont like jumping into conversations after i get 2 or 3 pages behind in it... but really, what in gods name are you thinking when you wrote this. Dumping tea is an act of terrorism? Ok ok... if thats TERRORISM... then i suppose my friend who helped out in a protest against walmart needs to be labeled a terrorist and sent to gitmo right?

And if your definition of "terrorist" is someone who doesnt attack exactly like the mainstream armies do... then i suppose the French and British and Japanese were allllllll terrorists because they used this insane concept of aerial warfare and rocket attacks.
Now I am sure you have some sanitized version of the 'Boston Tea Party' that you refer to however there is an awful lot that seems to be missing from that retelling.

Can you give me reasons along with the schoolboy tale? Why disguises? Who was there? Do you imagine a loaded ship with a valuable cargo was sitting at dock without guard, watch officers and the obligatory representative of the King? This was a port and subject to taxation and smuggling. Who was there to enforce the law?

As far as your juvinile association of the French, British and Japanese, they all still recognize that actions of this type with no uniforms or identifying marks and the penchant for blending into the population ARE indeed acts of a terrorist.

You know as well as I do that a 'terrorist' resorts to these methods when they are unable to direct a frontal assault on a superior force. That IS after all why you feared Saddam had WMD is it not? That's what was said to the UN.

Do you believe that if Bin Laden could supply his men with the same armaments the US forces have, guns, body armour, cruise missiles, etc. you would be facing 'terrorists'?

Remember, when Bin Laden was fighting the USSR who held an opposing ideology than you, he was given Stinger Missiles training manuals and called a freedom fighter. Let's not lose sight of context here. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'

Both he and Saddam owe America a lot for securing their positions and dominance in their own cultures. The Iranians, in fact, are of the opinion that the USA should be sitting in the box beside Saddam for the satellite intel they supplied to Saddam that allowed him to release gas with such devastating effect. (Especially since the new government has appologized to Iran and stated they were the agressor in the war)
 
  • #58
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population. Civilians not working in military applications are not to be targeted and when they are, this constitutes acts of terrorism. The military is suppose to fear a bomb hitting their bases or an attack on a convey. Civilians are not suppose to fear a bomb at a local market or an attack on a school. The latter would constitute terrorism.

Oddly enough, I do wonder what you believe actually happened in Boston that day. What has your government told you? Were we throwing babies overboard as well? Did we burn people alive? And exactly what does it matter what the Iranians think? For a nation that retaliated with their own chemical weapons and kidnapped US citizens, i dont think their opinion should matter much.

Also, the UN TOLD US that Saddam had WMD's. We also did not fear him using WMD's against us as it would have been painfully obvious that our retaliation would have been with nuclear weapons. The fear was that Saddam would engage another nation in a rather unstable region. I mean, he does kind of have a history of invading other nations.
 
  • #59
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
Hurkyl said:
A suicide car bomber attacked after waiting for a crowd of children to gather around an American humvee.
Let's look onto it on the positive side: some of these kids would probably have become suicide bombers 10 years from now, so that was a pre-emptive elimination of terrorists :devil:
 
  • #60
Pengwuino said:
Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population.
'Insults'? LOL

The term "terrorism" comes from the French 18th century word terrorisme based on the Latin language verbs terrere (to tremble) and deterrere (to frighten from). It dates to 1795, and originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobins in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". The Jacobins are even said to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves, although that is not certain. Note that the method employed was in most cases simply the arrest, and sometimes execution, of opponents. Terrorism and terror therefore originally referred to methods employed by regimes to control their own populations through fear, a tactic seen again in many totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The terms did not refer to bomb attacks, but rather to what is now called a police state. The current use of the term state terrorism, and the use of the term "terrorist", have much broader meanings.

Many definitions include a proviso that the action must be "unlawful" or "illegitimate". This is by far the least objective of the criteria, in the absence of any objective interpreter of international law. For example, the laws of war generally exclude the deliberate targeting of civilians, yet in World War II it is unquestioned that acts such as the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden were carried out with the knowledge that civilian casualties would greatly exceed military ones. Whether the actions were legally justified, either in self-defense or on the grounds that they actually minimised civilian suffering by bringing the war to an earlier end, is not a question that can be objectively determined.

No definition of terrorism has been accepted as authoritative by the United Nations. However, the "academic consensus definition", written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, defines terrorism as follows:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought."
 
  • #61
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Well thank you for proving my point Smokingman. Ive never seen an argument where people attacked themselves.
 
  • #62
Pengwuino said:
Oddly enough, I do wonder what you believe actually happened in Boston that day. What has your government told you? Were we throwing babies overboard as well? Did we burn people alive? And exactly what does it matter what the Iranians think? For a nation that retaliated with their own chemical weapons and kidnapped US citizens, i dont think their opinion should matter much.
Interesting ... most of my education came from textbooks printed in the USA and then continued at Trinity College for my Masters.

What are you assuming is "your government"?

Your knowledge of Iran is also staggeringly lacking considering the USA and Britain overthrew the Democratically elected government of Iran for nationalizing the oil industry in the 1950's. By all means, if you are going to quote history at me go back to the start of events and don't join in part way through.

Pengwuino said:
Also, the UN TOLD US that Saddam had WMD's. We also did not fear him using WMD's against us as it would have been painfully obvious that our retaliation would have been with nuclear weapons. The fear was that Saddam would engage another nation in a rather unstable region. I mean, he does kind of have a history of invading other nations.
Well, if that were true, Hans Blix performing a search for weapons that we now know did not exist would have been redundant, wouldn't it?

I also remember seeing Colin Powell sitting in the Chamber of the UN waving a 5 gram vial in the air trying to impress upon the folks assembled that this was the stuff (Anthrax) that Saddam was making.

Meanwhile, the French were jumping up and down saying, "Non. Non!!! Our intel is faulty. Do not use it. We have not released it to the intelligence community."

When it all comes down to it, you went to war with a 'Coalition of the Willing' that included about 40 countries which included the likes of Sierra Leone and the Philippines ... hardly world powers ... and far short of a majority of the 191 countries that make up the countries that represent the UN.

Make no mistake, what you did falls entirely on your head and did not reflect the feeling of the UN as an organization.

Laugh all you want at the Iraqi Information Minister but one thing is for sure ... he did say that after the war was over, you WOULD find out they were telling the truth about the WMD.
 
  • #63
Pengwuino said:
Well thank you for proving my point Smokingman. Ive never seen an argument where people attacked themselves.
Perception young one ... perception.

Terrorists dressed as natives boarded a boat in Boston harbour and attacked a civilian target under government protection with the intention of sending a message (intimidation and propaganda).

Remember, the tea itself was not owned by the King. The boat was not owned by the King. The TAXES were what was in question. The tea and the boat were civillian owned and crewed.

It was an act committed by a clandestined group for the criminal act of non-payment of tax and to send a political message (to the King as an audience) while attacking a symbolic CIVILLIAN target.
 
  • #64
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
What you see is the result of stripping away the emotion and applying the same thought to the actions on both sides and equating the two together.
The problem is you stripped too much -- you stripped away anything resembling a condemnation of this particular act, and that is the problem.

Despite your implication, I do apply the same "thought" to both sides. Since I've been convinced police are legitimate targets, I do not condemn insurgents for the civilian casualties incurred during an attack on a police station, just as I do not condemn the coalition for civilian casualties incurred in strikes against the insurgents.

When I raised the possibility that insurgents attack in public areas, thus putting civilians in unnecessary harm, I also wondered if the same could apply to coalition forces.

In fact, I generally test any criticism I levy against the insurgency to see how I would apply my principles in the reverse direction, and the reverse is true for defense of the coalition.
 
  • #65
Hurkyl said:
The problem is you stripped too much -- you stripped away anything resembling a condemnation of this particular act, and that is the problem.

Despite your implication, I do apply the same "thought" to both sides. Since I've been convinced police are legitimate targets, I do not condemn insurgents for the civilian casualties incurred during an attack on a police station, just as I do not condemn the coalition for civilian casualties incurred in strikes against the insurgents.

When I raised the possibility that insurgents attack in public areas, thus putting civilians in unnecessary harm, I also wondered if the same could apply to coalition forces.

In fact, I generally test any criticism I levy against the insurgency to see how I would apply my principles in the reverse direction, and the reverse is true for defense of the coalition.
Then we are in agreement.

I still harken back to the convoy of trucks carrying sheep to Syria that was attacked by rockets launched from planes because they suspected Saddam might have been aboard.

What you feel for those kids, I feel for the truck drivers some of whom would have had family members with them. (If you know anything about the culture)
 
  • #66
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,282
The Smoking Man said:
You'd be wrong then.

It was a terrible act.

Happy?
No. That isn't good enough. What we want is an unequivocal statement that you accept that the act referenced in the opening post was terrorism, murder, and was wrong regardless of any wrong ever done to those who perpetrated it. I want you to acknowledge that killing civilians on purpose is murder and is not acceptable.

Just saying it was a terrible act still allows you to defend it - which you continue to do.
What you see is the result of stripping away the emotion and applying the same thought to the actions on both sides and equating the two together.

I think the actions of the terrorists is terrible and the acts of the Americans in the same light.
The second sentence contradicts the first: since the acts of terrorists and the things that the US has done are not the same, equating them just shines a bright light on your heavy bias. I really hope you see the irony of lecturing Americans for being narrow-minded about what goes on in other countries while simultaneously lecturing us on our own past. You're trying to have it both ways and it simply doesn't work that way: your perceptions of America are just as clouded as any American's is of foreign countries.
I do remember the young boy who lost both his arms and his own family too who was featured on the news ... but I guess you wouldn't equate the two.
Again - why should we equate the two? Was the boy the target of the attack?

What I really want to know is why is terrorism acceptable to you? Is it simply a matter of retribution? Do you think its "fair" to kill innocent civilians on purpose?

Here's a scenario for you: Lets say some citizens of country "S" take it upon themselves to kill 3,000 civilians from contry "A" for some wrong done by country "A". It seems that you think that makes it accepable for individuals in country "A" to fly over to country "S" and start indiscriminantly killing civilians.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
kyleb
Pengwuino said:
Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population.
Some more commonly accepted definitions can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

In those respects, the Boston Tea Party was most certianly an act of terroism.
 
  • #68
221
0
kyleb said:
Some more commonly accepted definitions can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

In those respects, the Boston Tea Party was most certianly an act of terroism.
I think you're right. But I don't think that it is at all the same as modern day terrorism.

I think we need a different word to more precisely describe the horrific acts commits by terrorist today. Using a word to describe their acts that can also be used to describe things like the Boston Tea Party shows me the the word terrorist is to broad.

Any ideas for a good word?

Regards,
 
Last edited:
  • #69
russ_watters said:
No. That isn't good enough. What we want is an unequivocal statement that you accept that the act referenced in the opening post was terrorism, murder, and was wrong regardless of any wrong ever done to those who perpetrated it. I want you to acknowledge that killing civilians on purpose is murder and is not acceptable.
Is that the 'royal' WE Russ?

Since when am I answerable to you?

What will you do, cancel my ID?

russ_watters said:
Just saying it was a terrible act still allows you to defend it - which you continue to do. The second sentence contradicts the first: since the acts of terrorists and the things that the US has done are not the same, equating them just shines a bright light on your heavy bias.
Because Russ, as per the definition I gave you of terrorism, the attack was random. The propaganda value was exposed when you then took this boy and paraded him in front of the media and showed how 'benevolent you were' while dragging him around the world getting him fitted for the series of appliances he will wear all his life.

The fact that you can not see what America has done was wrong indicates that it is YOU who has a heavy bias, not me.

I equate the two heinous forces in this 'war' with each other and place killing of innocents at the same level.

You, on the other hand, are fully prepared to forgive anything I post to the contrary as a "necessity" of achieving your ends in some vague hope of excusing your means.

You assume, because I equate the two, the 'terrorists' and the 'American forces' that I am raising the level of my view of the terrorists and forgiving them as YOU forgive your forces.

In reality, I am placing YOUR actions at the level of the terrorists and viewing both with equal distain.

Like most of the rest of the world, I place GW Bush in the exact same bag of human garbage as OBL.

You seem to want to take one kind of Child/shepherd/innocents murderer and elevate him to the level of Saint in a seeming act of goodness that violated World Law, American Law and the 'Higher' Laws of humanity itself.

So, who's biased here, Russ, me or you?
russ_watters said:
I really hope you see the irony of lecturing Americans for being narrow-minded about what goes on in other countries while simultaneously lecturing us on our own past. You're trying to have it both ways and it simply doesn't work that way: your perceptions of America are just as clouded as any American's is of foreign countries. Again - why should we equate the two? Was the boy the target of the attack?
Lecturing, Russ???

What educational institutions did you say yo were a part of?

When has expressing an opinion in an open forum thus inviting dialogue ever been considered 'lecturing'?

By this childish observation, are you trying to 'shame' or 'encourage' me into silence so you can do that yourself?

You see, it would appear to me that YOU can't remove the emotion from a situation and see it for what it is.

You can't see ANY force that attacks in a similar manner 'right or wrong' as being 'terrorism' AND 'freedom fighting' at the same time because, in the end, it is the 'Victor who writes the history' and thus bestows the title that sticks.

russ_watters said:
What I really want to know is why is terrorism acceptable to you? Is it simply a matter of retribution? Do you think its "fair" to kill innocent civilians on purpose?
Come on Russ ... That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife' scenario and justifies about as much in the way of response as the original.

Do you believe 'colateral damage' is 'fair'?

russ_watters said:
Here's a scenario for you: Lets say some citizens of country "S" take it upon themselves to kill 3,000 civilians from contry "A" for some wrong done by country "A". It seems that you think that makes it accepable for individuals in country "A" to fly over to country "S" and start indiscriminantly killing civilians.
Sorry Russ ... Did you mean to describe 9/11 and the resultant action of the USA.
 
  • #70
Townsend said:
I think you're right. But I don't think that it is at all the same as modern day terrorism.

I think we need a different word to more precisely describe the horrific acts commits by terrorist today. Using a word to describe their acts that can also be used to describe things like the Boston Tea Party shows me the the word terrorist is to broad.

Any ideas for a good word?

Regards,
So, why not just take all the definitions you have by placing the words. "except if performed by Americans" since it seems you are looking for a definition that 'forgives you your transgressions'?
:surprised
 
  • #71
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
I do remember the young boy who lost both his arms and his own family too who was featured on the news ... but I guess you wouldn't equate the two.
I don't see how I could, since I don't know anything about it.

But let's say you told me that the boy and his family were specifically target so the coalition forces could parade him around and say how benevolent they are, I would consider it worse than the act in the original post.

However, if it is false that civilians were the target of the military action, then I consider the act neutral1, and the caring for the child to be positive. So, on the whole, the event shines a positive light on coalition forces.


You seem to suggest that you do equate the two. On what grounds do you think they're so closely analogous?



1: Of course, learning more details about the situation could tip the balance either way.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
Art
It seems to have been forgotten that the intended target of the suicide bomber was american armour occupied by US forces surrounded by children. In the attack by the US helicoptors I referenced earlier the intended target was unoccupied armour surrounded by children. Would one of the neocons here please explain how they can justify the US attack whilst condemning the Iraqi suicide attack. And in case somebody is of a mind to suggest I am not denouncing the suicide attack I will add for the record I find both actions utterly despicable with the US attack if anything slightly more so for two reasons.
First it was cowardly; the murderers who fired the missiles and cannon fire were never in any danger themselves while they committed their carnage whereas at least the suicide bomber sacrificed his own life and secondly because the US wasted innocent civilians for the sake of completing the destruction of an already wrecked vehicle whereas the suicide bomber was attacking an enemy occupied armoured vehicle.
 
  • #73
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
It seems to have been forgotten that the intended target of the suicide bomber was american armour occupied by US forces surrounded by children.
The reports I've read indicate that the bomber specifically waited until the children surrounded the vehicle.


I find both actions utterly despicable with the US attack if anything slightly more so for two reasons.
First it was cowardly; the murderers who fired the missiles and cannon fire were never in any danger themselves while they committed their carnage whereas at least the suicide bomber sacrificed his own life
You seem to suggest that you believe if two atrocities were committed under identical circumstances, except that one person risked his life to do it, and the other did not, that the person who risked his life is less condemnable than the person who did not.

I just don't see the relevance.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
Art
Hurkyl said:
The reports I've read indicate that the bomber specifically waited until the children surrounded the vehicle.
Do you have a credible source for that please? The report I heard said the bomber was driving at speed and approached suddenly from around a corner which is why the US troops did not have time to react. So will you now answer the question I asked?
 
  • #75
GENIERE
Townsend said:
...Any ideas for a good word?...
It is not necessary. The dictionary meaning(s) are necessarily broad to encompass all variations in usage. There is, believe it or not, an English word that is its own antonym.

The mental image evoked by a given word may vary greatly over a brief time period. The word “terrorist” in the UK of 10-15 years ago would have likely spawned an image of a member of the IRA planting a bomb in a car outside a crowded market.

Today’s use of the word “terrorist” universally evokes an image of a Muslim with a bomb strapped to his torso and is considered a despicable individual. In the Muslim world, no real sense of horror is felt but rather an image of a martyr doing the work of Allah. To get a feel for how the Muslim thinks, do search for, (I’m not kidding!) “Ask the Imam” or “Muslim advice” or similar. My favorite hit is:

Is it OK to have SEX with my SLAVES?




The liberal press knows well how to structure a sentence to evoke the desired mental image from their readers and now refer to the terrorist as an insurgent to avoid the automatic “Muslim-terrorist” connotation. The liberal press/individual does not favor one religion over another, deeming all religions to be an obstacle in the path of global socialism / Marxism. Right now Christianity is perceived to be the more dangerous of the two. The complete destruction of all traditional values is the goal of the liberal as the smallest deviation from socialist dogma is destructive to the system.

Continue to use “terrorist”, everyone in the western world knows to what it refers despite the efforts of the liberal (aka Marxist) to replace the image of the psychotic Muslim bomber with that of a coalition soldier doing his duty.


...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Awful news in Iraq

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
15K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
77
Views
6K
Top