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.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.
terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes
(colins 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.
(Merriam Webster's dictionary)Terrorism : 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion'
(dictionary.com)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.
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.Originally posted by FZ+
Then I fail to see the phantom text limiting it to civilian attacks.
It must be, but try as you might, you won't get this one changed to be "anyone FZ+ doesn't like"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.
The definition says people or property. Russ said people and did not exclude property. His point still stands.
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?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
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.
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"?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!
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.
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?
I wouldn't take any 'celebration' seriously.
You were both equally dillusional?Oh, and my name isn't 'Christ', but the comparison is accurate.
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?
Its not so easy for the US to stage a celebration when the celebrations are so disorganized and spontaneous and the US clearly does not have a tight grip on the populous.Originally posted by 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.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Its not so easy for the US to stage a celebration when the celebrations are so disorganized and spontaneous and the US clearly does not have a tight grip on the populous.
So ice water is bribery? Intersting. Do you think they would actually be GRATEFUL for that hypothtical glass of ice water? Cajolery is not coersion. Even if you could prove (you can't) that they were cajoled into celebrating, that's not even in the same league with *KILLING* people who don't participate in a celebration.Originally posted by Zero
Two words: ice water.
Originally posted by Alias
What the 'common Iraqi' wants is not nearly important as what the common Iraqi needs. What they need is a government. And tough toenails, we're not leaving until we get their new government well underway.
Or, maybe we should give them what they want and just leave them to their own devices. That's not very smart or humane.
Yes. That's part of the plan. There are certain types of people that only respond to fear. Moamar Kadhafi is a perfect example. The US stopped his terrorist activities by killing some of his close family members, thus scaring the crap out of him. Haven't heard a peep from him since.Originally posted by Zero
Oh, so you are saying that Bush's plan is to fight terrorism with terror? Good call.
I might believe you if you could back that statement up with some facts.Afghanistan is pretty much worse off than it was 4 years ago...different warlords, same problems, with a severely disrupted infrastructure.
It's a vast improvement. Al Qaeda has been rendered nutless and scattered to the four corners of the Earth.That's an improvement, simply because it has the Shrub seal of approval?
I think you're the expert in that regard.Do you not think about the spin you are fed, and just swallow it whole?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Reviving-Taliban.htmlTaliban Reviving Structure in Afghanistan
...There is little to stop them. The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away. At a time when the United States is promising a reconstructed democratic postwar Iraq, many Afghans are remembering hearing similar promises not long ago. Instead, what they see is thieving warlords, murder on the roads, and a resurgence of Taliban vigilantism.
`It's like I am seeing the same movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem,'' said Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan's president and his representative in southern Kandahar. ``What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing. Everyone is back in business.''
``There have been no significant changes for people,'' he said. ``People are tired of seeing small, small projects. I don't know what to say to people anymore.''
When the Taliban ruled they forcibly conscripted young men. ``Today I can say 'we don't take your sons away by force to fight at the front line,''' Karzai remarked. ``But that's about all I can say.''
Today most Afghans say their National Army seems a distant dream while the U.S.-led coalition continues to feed and finance warlords for their help in hunting for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/international/asia/12REFU.htmlStill Paying for Past Support of Taliban, Pashtuns Flee South Toward Safety
Families fleeing harassment, beatings and extortion in northern Afghanistan arrive almost weekly at an impromptu refugee camp here, seeking shelter in patched tents on a dusty lot beside the city's animal market.
...
Despite a series of efforts by government commissions, and promises from the leaders of the north to stop the violence, the harassment continues, deepening the ethnic divisions in the region and adding to the quarter of a million displaced people already in southern Afghanistan.
...
Wali Jan's plight illuminates the enormous problem Afghanistan still has with half a million internally displaced people, the bulk of them - more than 300,000 - living in the south. About 25,000 of those have fled political repression, according to Peter Deck, the officer in charge of displaced people for the United Nations assistance mission in Kandahar.