News Baghdad Falls

FZ+

1,550
2
And now it is promising that we won't have to fear Iraqi terrorists in the future.
Oh yes we do.
How many Iraqi suicide bombers did we have in the past then?

The difference between me and you is in our prospective solutions or lack there of. If you don't agree that the goal is to correct the fundamental causes of terrorism, you aren't a very good troubleshooter and should maybe spend more of your time practicing in the less exact sciences of astrology and numerology where being wrong doesn't really matter.
Hmm... I don't see the war in Iraq as being very successful at correcting the fundamental causes of terrorism. We do have solutions. Shame they don't involve people getting killed.

I'd say he certainly isn't. This was a clear demonstration of what the US can do. No nation will allow him to operate openly ever again. If the US stays in Iraq, and breaks all of its pre-war promises, that will make him happy.
Did Saddam allow Bin Laden to operate openly? Did the war on Iraq at all hinder his terrorist operations based across Europe? No, that justification was never really validated for the war. All it shows is that Bush Jr is very happy to bark up the wrong tree. He needn't worry at all. Breaking the pre-war promises will make him happier, but are not very neccessary.
 
A

Alias

Originally posted by FZ+
Oh yes we do.
How many Iraqi suicide bombers did we have in the past then?

None. But look at all of the non-Iraqi suicide bombers in Iraq. More terrorists fighting for a lost cause. Not to worry. The coalition military will deal with them.
Hmm... I don't see the war in Iraq as being very successful at correcting the fundamental causes of terrorism. We do have solutions.
Well, let's hear them.
 
B

BoulderHead

I guess I've just never understood whether or not it's ok for the end to justify the means. I thought that generally this isn't acceptable thinking but then other times it becomes very acceptable.
That's it, I'm starting a topic over in general.

[edit]
Crumb, I don't know how to make a poll.:frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
K

kyleb

Originally posted by Alias
The difference between me and you is in our prospective solutions or lack there of. If you don't agree that the goal is to correct the fundamental causes of terrorism, you aren't a very good troubleshooter and should maybe spend more of your time practicing in the less exact sciences of astrology and numerology where being wrong doesn't really matter.
from where i sit it looks like you are the one who has troubleshooting issues if you cannot see that taking Saddam out of power had nothing to do with the goals of the terrorists either way. might as well take up astrology and numerology seeing as how the neo-conservative/neo-christian freaks you idolize are into that crap.
 
A

Alias

kyleb, when are you going to get it?

Saddam Hussein IS a terrorist.

What part of that fact do you not understand?

Are you unclear what the definition of 'is' is. I know of another guy with that problem.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, by the same definition that Bush is a terrorist. He uses violence and intimidation for political gain, like all successful politicians.
 
A

Alias

According to you, all succesful politicians are terrorists?

Would you care to define terrorist in any other way?
 
B

BoulderHead

Haha,
Love that avatar Alias. Between that and the sig. quote you've got a hell of 'thang' going on.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,405
4,653
Originally posted by FZ+
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, by the same definition that Bush is a terrorist. He uses violence and intimidation for political gain, like all successful politicians.
FZ, you are missing a few key components of terrorism: The main one is that terrorism is aimed at civilians. Only one side of this conflict targeted civilians. The US was certainly NOT trying to intimidate the Iraqi people. Quite the contrary, we caused massive celebrations.

Your definition is so loose as to be able to include whoever you wish(which is no doubt why you choose to use it). You use a flawed definition. Get a better one. Better yet, get a REAL one.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Look in the dictionary people...

terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

(oxford english dictionary)

terrorism [trrzm]
n.
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal.
2. the act of terrorizing.
3. the state of being terrorized.
(colins english dictionary)

Terrorism : 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion'
(Merriam Webster's dictionary)

Terrorism: n.
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.
(dictionary.com)

Much as it would be nice to change the definition of a word to benefit yourself, or to get a "better" definition whenever you feel like it, that is not a valid method.
 
A

Alias

Merriam-Webster said it best, and that definition is the one Russ used. His point still stands.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Then I fail to see the phantom text limiting it to civilian attacks.
 
A

Alias

The definition says people or property. Russ said people and did not exclude property. His point still stands.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,405
4,653
Originally posted by FZ+
Then I fail to see the phantom text limiting it to civilian attacks.
FZ+, it doesn't appear there because it is kinda understood that when you attack troops you aren't trying to scare them you are trying to KILL them. Yes, it is possible to use terrorism against troops, but it is pretty rare and generally categorized in the more accurate term "psychological warfare." The US did not try to INTIMIDATE Saddam during the war, we tried (and I believe succeeded) to KILL him.

In fact, our actions toward even the Iraqi soldiers were pretty much the OPPOSITE of terrorism. We practically CAJOLED them into surrendering. The leaflets we dropped didn't threaten to kill them they promised to FEED them.

Much as it would be nice to change the definition of a word to benefit yourself, or to get a "better" definition whenever you feel like it, that is not a valid method.
It must be, but try as you might, you won't get this one changed to be "anyone FZ+ doesn't like"
 
Last edited:

FZ+

1,550
2
Nope, mine says everyone uses terrorism to some degree.

The definition says people or property. Russ said people and did not exclude property. His point still stands.
But he limited it to "attacks on civilians". By the definition you support (actually dictionary.com due to stupid labelling on my part), attacks on people and property, regardless of whether military or civilian is terrorism. Hence Russ's declaration that "The main one is that terrorism is aimed at civilians" is not supported by ANY definition I can find. If he can find a good dictionary with that in it, then I congratulate him. But to me that point seems pulled out of thin air.

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 US threatened the use of force against Saddam Hussien did it not? Is Saddam a person? Was not the goal of the initial ultimatum to coerce him to leave Iraq. Yes. Then the US used terrorism against Saddam Hussein. Whether this act is right or not is not relevant as far as the definition is concerned. And whether you consider the target deserving or not is similarly irrelevant. Who said anything about during the war?
Understand?
 
A

Alias

So everyone that has ever or will ever fight in a war is a terrorist?

Gimme a break!

On your knees and worship the Evil One George Bush!!!!
 
Z

Zero

Hmmmm...they celebrated Saddam Hussein, remember? When he had men with guns on the streets, they cheered whatever they were told to...they are conditioned to do that. There are different soldiers with guns now, so I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...they celebrated Saddam Hussein, remember? When he had men with guns on the streets, they cheered whatever they were told to...they are conditioned to do that. There are different soldiers with guns now, so I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.
like a mass of mindless pavlovian rats? I would take their celebration seriously, I would also take their pain quite seriously. It's quite simply not your place, or your right to minimize either. I can't even fathom the type of mentality that allows for this type of argument. Christ.
 
Last edited:

FZ+

1,550
2
Originally posted by Alias
So everyone that has ever or will ever fight in a war is a terrorist?

Gimme a break!

On your knees and worship the Evil One George Bush!!!!
By the definition YOU chose. Do you wish to change for a "better" one? Or maybe create one that means "anyone Alias doesn't like"?
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by kat
like a mass of mindless pavlovian rats? I would take their celebration seriously, I would also take their pain quite seriously. It's quite simply not your place, or your right to minimize either. I can't even fathom the type of mentality that allows for this type of argument. Christ.
Why are you surprised that I don't believe a media or a govenment which prefers comfortable lies to the truth? What is your question, how do I dare question the 'celebrations'? How do you dare to not question it? These are supposedly people who have lived in fear of men with guns and power, now their country is occupied by more men with guns and power, and we aren't supposed to question how they feel about it?


Oh, and my name isn't 'Christ', but the comparison is accurate.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Zero
Why are you surprised that I don't believe a media or a govenment which prefers comfortable lies to the truth? What is your question, how do I dare question the 'celebrations'? How do you dare to not question it? These are supposedly people who have lived in fear of men with guns and power, now their country is occupied by more men with guns and power, and we aren't supposed to question how they feel about it?

You seem to be confused. I'm responding to this statement:


I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.
It's quite obviously not followed by a question mark.

Oh, and my name isn't 'Christ', but the comparison is accurate.
You were both equally dillusional?
 
Z

Zero

I'll say this: any 'celebration' could easily be staged for propaganda purposes, and I wouldn't put it past the media or the government to bribe some locals into putting on a show.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Hmm... It's possible, but I wouldn't say it is probable at this point in time... Maybe that would be too paranoid?
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... It's possible, but I wouldn't say it is probable at this point in time... Maybe that would be too paranoid?
I admit to being cynical, but I know that there are many reasons for the Iraqis to put on a show, that have nothing to do with being happy having Americans occupying their country.
 
I'm sure that there are Iraqis are happy that US and British troops have gotten rid of sadam's oppressive government. I'm sure that there are Iraqis who are not, like the deputy director of that museum that was ransacked, people without water or electricity, and people who have to deal with the chaos in the cities.

About the toppling of the sadam statue in Baghdad, I have come across this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
(I don't know anything about the credibility of informationclearinghouse.info, but I know that they have an anti-war slant.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396043 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top