News Terrorism: Weak vs Strong, Causes & Nuclear Weapons

[Microburst]

Is terrorism only terrible when weak practices it? (Irish against British / Palestinians against Israelis)

Would nuking Nagasaki’s civilian population be considered terrorism? considering Japanese military action was directed towards US military.?

What makes people become terrorist?

can you ask someone to give up nuclear weapons while creating new ones yourself? specially while having the stigma of only one ever using it?

 

[KaneOris]

Terrorism is causing terror , when people say 'stop terrorising the dog' they are calling you a terrorist.
Well that's the true definition.
Now unless your under the name of your country and you are using any military force you are known as a terrorist.

 

[fourier jr]

Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)


so by that definition, that makes the United States a terrorist state; and what the US does to other countries is terrorism, while what other countries do to the US isn't. (except 9/11/01 of course)

 

[tumor]

Terror in the USA means evil Arabs.What we do to them is called liberation.
Simillar situation exist between Palestinians and Israelis.
Palestinians are always terrorists, Israelis are always fighting for peace.

 

[russ_watters]

Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as: "..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)


so by that definition, that makes the United States a terrorist state; and what the US does to other countries is terrorism, while what other countries do to the US isn't. (except 9/11/01 of course)

You'll need to be a little more specific about what terrorism the US has "done."

I will say, however, that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in WWII can be considered terrorism by that definition - with the caveat that the rules of war were different then so it wasn't considered terrorism at the time, just like chemical weapons weren't illegal in WWI. Calling it "legal terrorism" is kinda an oxymoron, but that's basically what it was.

Regarding the morality of nuclear bombs themselves, again, a little objectivity and some history are in order. At the time, nuclear bombs were viewed simply as really big bombs. And that's a pretty accurate characterization. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan actually killed less people than similar bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and London. The difference is simply that it only took one bomb for each city.

But like I said above, the rules of war have changed. Intentionally targeting civilians with anything is no longer acceptable. Also, with smart weapons, its possible to hit precisely the target you want - you don't have to bomb a whole city block to hit one building anymore. At the same time, nukes are more powerful - up to a thousand times more powerful. Handling that kind of power takes a lot of responsibility. It is precisely because the US is responsible that we haven't used a nuke since WWII.

Enter terrorists and rogue states. Iraq (Hussein) has demonstrated on the field of battle and in their own towns that they are more than willing to use these now unacceptable weapons. In addition, rogue states having WMD increases the chances that terrorists can get ahold of them.

 

[russ_watters]

Terror in the USA means evil Arabs.What we do to them is called liberation.
Simillar situation exist between Palestinians and Israelis.
Palestinians are always terrorists, Israelis are always fighting for peace.

Terrorism has an objective definition and that definition only fits the actions of one side of that conflict.

If you disagree with the first part (that "terrorism" has an objective definition), please explain why you don't want to apply the word consistently. I you disagree with the second part, please tell me your objective definition of "terrorism" and explain how Israel's actions fit it and/or the Arabs' actons don't.

 

[pocebokli]

hehe tumor don't forget about the evil evil arxis of evil.

the terrorist "countries" or groups are simply people who do not have a billion dollar budget for stealth technology, precision bombing and tactical nukes.

they are trying to defend their lifestyles and their culture as best as they can, since 1000 people with light armament can't stand up to even a small contingent of well equipped modern army they help themselves as they know.

one of the weapons that requires low budget is fear. i don't think that they would go around killing children in schools if they would have been just...left alone?

oh yeah but then economical and political interests come into play, and areas of influence, and oil. I'm sorry i wasn't paying attention. yeah that's completely righteouss. we have superior morals, superior culture and superior idiotism, thus that should have been our oil in the first place, dammit! american president has earned his right for iraq just with the dramatical acting he was and still is performing.

but when a modern army such as US invades a country such as iraq, trust me, that population is as scared as you were back on 11/9.

true terror is unscrupolous abuse of third world countries, and pictures of skinny children slowly dying, covered in flies, their parents watching helplessly, not being able to help... that is terror, my friends, but i doubt you have sufficient imagination and empathy to truly understand suffering and fear, so don't you go stick "terror" on every bad thing that happens to you. it wouldn't hurt us all if we experience some true terror, i think it would help us become more considerate and humane.

the west is the best they say. it is like a spoiled child running around with a handgun, stealing toys from unarmed children. it has certainly earned it's right to carry a handgun, but it is still spoiled and unconsiderate and that will pay back in time as such things always do.

the so called terror is simply the price we pay to expand our culture and influence, what, you want to pass free on such things? haha. i, too, would die for my country, if we were on opposite sides.

 

[pocebokli]

my point is stop with crying and hypocrisis like the spoiled kid mentioned. accept responsibilities for our actions and be aware that what is happening to us is well earned.

 

[pocebokli]

now, russ, is my explanation enough for you or are you going to pop out another part of your legal system that is, oh what a coincidence, adapted to defend OUR culture?

 

[tumor]

Whole damn war on terror thing is simply an excuse for elite and industralist to get rich and controll the world!
I never believed in Arab terror and whole 9/11 propaganda,except maybe for really tiny group of them now after USA attacked Iraq and israel occupies Palestine blow them selfs up but those are just incredibly desperate people.
REICHSTAG fire back in pre war Germany is in my view PARAMOUNT example on how to invent enemy/terrorist, 9/11 is just that.
There is only one definition for terrorist in my dictionary -USA/W.WORLD

 

[pocebokli]

exactley, and a crow won't eat out another crow's eyes. so they're hiding behind their bible thumping minions and perverted morals that are extremely adaptable for current capitalistic system hahahahaha keep your money and your rising GDP, i'll keep my courage and honesty instead, even if i go to hell, i'll be able to look straight into the devil's eyes with no regret, knowing that i haven't been lying to myself.

 

[tumor]

I'm telling you man, living here in N.America is like living in bizzaro world,
People are actually so naive and misinformed it boggles my mind,whatever TV says that's the truth,NY stock market is their God,and they work their asses off with almost no vacations to buy some stinking Hummer or new big screen TV ,on credit of course so they become prisoners to the Banks forever!Sheeps that's what I mean.

 

[russ_watters]

now, russ, is my explanation enough for you

Well, you didn't really answer the questions I posed, so I'll have to infer from your post that you choose to define "terrorism" differently according to what country you'd like to be able to apply it to. I don't accept that definitions are arbitrary things meant to be changed on a whim to suit your argument.

...or are you going to pop out another part of your legal system that is, oh what a coincidence, adapted to defend OUR culture?

Our culture? Is that what WWII was about? Chemical weapons treaties? The UN? Or are you trying to say that the West is somehow always wrong even though it is the West that is making these positive changes in legislated morality?

Whole damn war on terror thing is simply an excuse for elite and industralist to get rich and controll the world!
I never believed in Arab terror and whole 9/11 propaganda,except maybe for really tiny group of them now after USA attacked Iraq and israel occupies Palestine blow them selfs up but those are just incredibly desperate people.
REICHSTAG fire back in pre war Germany is in my view PARAMOUNT example on how to invent enemy/terrorist, 9/11 is just that.
There is only one definition for terrorist in my dictionary -USA/W.WORLD

That's over-the-top paranoid conspiracy theory and factually inaccurate ranting. If you want to have a rational discussion, by all means, start making rational arguments. Otherwise, this whole thing is whatever everyone feels like saying and not based in reality - and I'm out. My interest is in rational discussion(and judging from the wording of the first post, Microburst's as well).

The question in the first post boils down to: do people have a rational, objective definition of terrorism that they apply evenly? Answer: apparently not.

 

[studentx]

You guys don't mind if i convert to Islam and slaughter you like pigs do you? I mean, you just said you deserved it. Youre both American arent you? Actually doesn't matter whether your American, anyone is ok just as long as I am muslim right? I am just standing up for my brothers... :zzz:
Ok enough, there's obviously no getting thru to you guys. All i can say is the ppl who blow up our civilians do not represent the culture you think your standing up for. That culture hates the likes of you both.

 

[False Prophet]

Regarding definitions, I looked up "terrorism" in two dictionaries, and basically it means to scare people through force/violence for coersion, ideology, etc. So it's not the action that should be judged to see if it fits the definition, rather the intentions. Truman authorized the two bombs (and likely would have authorized the remaining ones had Japan not surrendered) for the purpose of ending WWII. The Iraqi rebels are using roadside bombs to fight back against coalition occupiers (no different than firing AK47's at them.) None of these are done to scare people, so none of them are "terrorism" by definition.

The 9/11 hijackers attacked with the specific intentions of sending a messege to the Western World and scaring the pants off of us, so it was terrorism. The kidnapper/decapitators are doing it for the same purpose, thus it's terrorism.

Bottom line: To know if the definition applies to an action you must know the MOTIVE.

 

[omin]

Terrorism is when an assault is made upon a group of people who are do not support a government who is within specific place and time area doing anything in a specific place and time area that is entropic to the human race.

Doctrine Bush is Terrorism. It pure Retard/Criminal Theory.

 

[False Prophet]

omin, can you clarify/rephrase that?

 

[russ_watters]

omin, can you clarify/rephrase that?

Well, it appears to me that omin is saying that the definition of terrorism is precisely the opposite of the definition of terrorism.

Regarding definitions, I looked up "terrorism" in two dictionaries, and basically it means to scare people through force/violence for coersion, ideology, etc. So it's not the action that should be judged to see if it fits the definition, rather the intentions.

You're right (mostly - I'd say its a little of both and I'll explain...), but that level of subtlety and reason is far beyond this thread. Good luck getting anyone (besides me) to respond to it.

Truman authorized the two bombs (and likely would have authorized the remaining ones had Japan not surrendered) for the purpose of ending WWII. The Iraqi rebels are using roadside bombs to fight back against coalition occupiers (no different than firing AK47's at them.) None of these are done to scare people, so none of them are "terrorism" by definition.

You oversimplified both, but that's ok because that's your perception of them. I see the two actions slighly differently. The reality is that while the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped for military reasons, the target was part military, part civilian, and part economic. So the characterization of the bombings is a mixture of terrorism and legitimate military operation.

With the bombings in Iraq, you can look at them individually, and the ones against US troops are legitimate military actions, but the vast majority of them (or, at least, the vast majority killed by them) are targeted at Iraqi civilians. Those are terrorism.

 

[Learning Curve]

Terrorism and the U.S. have a clear line between them. I'll explain...
Terrorism is like a blind target. They attack without notice and they don't take responsibility for their actions. They aren't very concrete in existence; they seem to hide from the fight (cowards...).

Now the U.S. is different. They do take responsibility for their actions. They don't attack something because it's stronger than them or it "doesn't believe in our morals" (Islams). They are very concrete. If you want to deal with us, here we are. We don't go hide in some cave because we can't take responsibility.


And I really think Terrorism is tied to the muslim religion because of their belief in Jihad. If they die in holy war (that can be complete BS) then they go directly to heaven and receive 21 virgins. My butt! Please excuse the rather abrupt feeling I have.
Anyone else have any thoughts on Jihad?

 

[Prometheus]

Terrorism and the U.S. have a clear line between them. I'll explain...
Terrorism is like a blind target. They attack without notice and they don't take responsibility for their actions. They aren't very concrete in existence; they seem to hide from the fight (cowards...).

Now the U.S. is different. They do take responsibility for their actions.

Please explain the responsibility that the U.S. takes that "terrorists" don't take. The U.S. refuses to yield to international pressure, so what exactly is the responsibility that they take?

They don't attack something because it's stronger than them or it "doesn't believe in our morals" (Islams).

Sure.

If you want to deal with us, here we are. We don't go hide in some cave because we can't take responsibility.

Are you joking with us? You can't be serious, can you? "If you want to deal with us, here we are. Don't be afraid to face us just because we have an incredible and overwhelming superiority in firepower and weaponry." "We marched across the world to invade your country with overwhelming weaponry, and you have the choice of standing up and fighting, so that we can kill you easily, or hiding in a cave, in which case we can claim that you are terrorists, whereas we, the initiators of the violence, are not." Sure.

 

[Prometheus]

I see the two actions slighly differently.

With the bombings in Iraq, you can look at them individually, and the ones against US troops are legitimate military actions, but the vast majority of them (or, at least, the vast majority killed by them) are targeted at Iraqi civilians. Those are terrorism.

I see the actions slightly differently. We invaded Iraq. Some Iraqis do not want us there. They have little hope of confronting us directly. The little hope that they do have is in a different kind of war. You then label it as terrorism. You think that they should take a stand and let us kill them, or else they are terrorists. Perhaps they consider that killing Iraqi civilians is an unfortunate necessity in order to achieve a military objective. Such thinking would be identical to your assessment of the atomic bombs in Japan, would it not?

In Japan, extremely large numbers of civilians were killed for a greater military objective. We had the option of only targeting military objectives, but we did not, because we thought that killing large numbers of civilians would lower the death toll, particularly ours, in the long run. Iraqis are targeting individual and small numbers of civilians. They do not have a choice, as we had in Japan. Why do you characterize it as terrorism, as though that is the whole story?

Can you envision a way for Iraqis who do not want American occupation forces to fight against us in a manner that has a prayer of winning and which you would not characterize as terrorism, but rather as freedom fighter or some other less negative terms?

 

[studentx]

I see the actions slightly differently. We invaded Iraq. Some Iraqis do not want us there. They have little hope of confronting us directly.

The US also has little hope of confronting carbombers, suicidebombers or any terrorists directly doesn't it? How should they fight it? If they fight it by decapitating civilians and blowing up schoolbuses, wouldn't you characterize them somewhat negative?

 

[Prometheus]

If they fight it by decapitating civilians and blowing up schoolbuses, wouldn't you characterize them somewhat negative?

They do, and I would. However, I think that using meaningless words such as terrorist only for purposes of their negative connotationa is intellectually dishonest. We invaded Iraq, and some people are fighting against us. They are not all terrorists. They are killing some civilians on purpose. We are killing far more civilians, and the fact that we pretend that it is not on purpose does not make it any more civilized. The characterization of them as terrorists and us and liberators is intellectually completely dishonest, in my opinion.

 

[False Prophet]

So the characterization of the bombings is a mixture of terrorism and legitimate military operation.

Nagasaki was selected as a target last minute, the crew flying a long time before they knew who they were going to kill, so the target would be most favorable based on weather conditions. Economic damage and military damage were the other primary considerations. I don't think Truman sat around thinking we need to destroy as many factories, tanks, and children as we can. It's not oversimplified, it's just simple. It's not terrorism based on Truman's intentions. I know he's a president before my time, but I don't want to think of him as a terrorist (honestly I'm not so sure!*) so it reconciles with my literal definition (based on his motive). You are right though, others may not see it in that light, and would view it as terrorism due to the civilian casualty element.

*I know Hiroshima was a little more "planned out" than Nagasaki, and I don't know if this is true or not, I only began to really like history about a year ago, please advise:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/target.htm
The Target Committee also recommended on May 31, 1945, "that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible."
In Iraq, insurgent suicide bombers blowing up Iraqi police stations and security forces at checkpoints, etc. are simply fighting against occupation (these forces are coaltion trained to install new democracy). These are regular military actions, just like Japanese Kamikaze pilots in WWII Pacific. I'll bet Bush would call these actions "terrorism" and he would be wrong. What about car-bombing a recruiting center? Targeting potential enlistees before they sign on the line I would consider terrorism, they would like to scare people out of enlisting. But I can see the rebel's point of view; it's a way to fight back as a function of Jihad. Sabatouging oil pipelines is simply economic warfare, which is a part of other wars in history as well.

 

[Microburst]

Terrorism is causing terror , when people say 'stop terrorising the dog' they are calling you a terrorist.
Well that's the true definition.
Now unless your under the name of your country and you are using any military force you are known as a terrorist.

War causes terror? & kills civilians, women and children (non combatants)?

 

[Microburst]

I find spin doctors in US media absolutely amazing, how they take one thing and “morph” it into something completely different. For example the original issue with Osama (as I understand it best) was, he wants US military out of Muslim Holy lands (AKA: the gas stations) and Israelis out of Palestinian areas. But somehow, now it’s matter of “they” hating our freedom, and liberty and what not… I find act of 9-11-01 absolutely repulsive, inhumane and by any definition terroristic...

On the other hand, I find USA doing the same in a different format, instead of resolving the real issues.
Even in presidential debits, Mr. Bush & Kerry both discussed going after terrorist, but no one wants to discuss why do these Arabs / Muslims do this stuff? Thus my 2nd question ? Why do people become terrorist, in my humble opinion, this transformation happens due to lack of option and extreme injustice.

I think real solutions will require real compromise, and why should one compromise while one has the upper hand militarily / financially and geopolitical. I think the real changes will come when the world runs out of fossil fuels.

 

[russ_watters]

I see the actions slightly differently. We invaded Iraq. Some Iraqis do not want us there. They have little hope of confronting us directly. The little hope that they do have is in a different kind of war. You then label it as terrorism.

Where that logic falls apart is that the majority of the terrorists in Iraq aren't Iraqis fighting an invasion, they are foreign terrorists fighting the US and trying to undermine the development of a stable government in Iraq. But hey, if there actually was a legitimate "resistance" in Iraq, I'd agree with you.

You think that they should take a stand and let us kill them, or else they are terrorists.

Well actually, I think they should just stop standing in the way of civilization happening in Iraq.

Perhaps they consider that killing Iraqi civilians is an unfortunate necessity in order to achieve a military objective.

No, killing Iraqi civilians is one of the main objectives.

Such thinking would be identical to your assessment of the atomic bombs in Japan, would it not?

Its close, but unfortunately, it isn't factually accurate.

In Japan, extremely large numbers of civilians were killed for a greater military objective.

Yes, and how is Japan doing today? Did we have anything to do with that? Oh, and btw, who started that war?

We had the option of only targeting military objectives, but we did not, because we thought that killing large numbers of civilians would lower the death toll, particularly ours, in the long run.

Only half true, but I'll let it go...

Iraqis are targeting individual and small numbers of civilians.

Ok, I guess 50-100 is your idea of "small." To me that doesn't make it ok.

They do not have a choice, as we had in Japan.

There are always other choices. They could choose not to stand in the way of civilization happening. They could choose to not stand in the way of peace.

Why do you characterize it as terrorism, as though that is the whole story?

Because that is the whole story. Don't pretend there is some righteous goal here because there isn't. The goal is death, destruction, and disruption.

Can you envision a way for Iraqis who do not want American occupation forces to fight against us in a manner that has a prayer of winning and which you would not characterize as terrorism, but rather as freedom fighter or some other less negative terms?

Yeah - it would start with not attacking other civilians. Or better yet, it would start with a vote.

But here's a question for you: if you are fighting for a cause that has no prayer of succeeding regardless of what you do, how will you choose to fight for it? Would the fact that most people don't want what you want affect your actions at all? In the US, we've had one civil war based on people refusing to accept the opinions of others. Beyond that, every transfer of power has occurred peacefully. And in the US, people don't kill each other over political beliefs. Isn't that a better way?

And by the way, since you want to do the Japan parallels, would you consider it a good thing if in 40 years, Iraq was the world's 3rd leading economic power and a peaceful, prosperous democracy? Or do you think a dictatorship where order is kept via dropping people into plastic shredders (which, on the plus side, saves them the pain of starving to death) is a reasonable form of government?

 

[tumor]

Sorry if I veer little bit off topic but remember guys that history is written by the victors,and I hope in the near future we will know who are the real terrorists are.
From what I see, USA and the west ALWAYS stood directly or indirectly behind every terrorist attack around the world.

PS how come there are no pygmies terrorists or new guinea/papua aborigines terrorists?.because their world and their close knit society is relativly intact and untouched by greedy western hands and not tainted by materialistic religions( unfortunatelly not for long).simple like that.

 

[Amir]

Russ what you don’t see are the proxy controls.
tumor: good point

 

[fourier jr]

Someone asked what the US has done that is terrorism. I say most of what the US does is terrorism. Many other countries are guilty also of course (including Canada), but none terrorize to the extent that the US does.

 

[Amir]

Where that logic falls apart is that the majority of the terrorists in Iraq aren't Iraqis fighting an invasion, they are foreign terrorists fighting the US and trying to undermine the development of a stable government in Iraq. But hey, if there actually was a legitimate "resistance" in Iraq, I'd agree with you.

That might be the case in some instances, but most of it is “spin” , in actuality it’s the X military gone underground. I can’t believe people actually buy into that ****! the shameful things is 1st operation US conducted, was to secure the oil wells... and instead of accruing local population for reconstruction US did the worst possible thing, got people from outside to do the job. so now you have a mixture of extreme unemployment, among civilian population & military personnel along with horrors of war. now picture this, you are an Iraqi, who has no opportunity for making a living, on top of that you see people being killed (women children all alike) by someone who says there here to bring freedom form termini of the old dictator.

Don’t judge for whose shoes you are not in.

and I still don’t get the rational behind the WAR, no WMD, no connection with 911? you don’t end terrorism by killing alone, you end it by killing the cause that make people turn terrorist in 1st place.

 

[Amir]

No, killing Iraqi civilians is one of the main objectives.

revenge is a ***** keeps coming back!

 

[studentx]

Picture this. You are an Iraqi and you have seen your friends and family been killed for decades under Saddam. And now there are foreign islamic nuts blowing you up on holy days and beheading civilians.
Guess that explains why there are 10 times more iraqis fighting side to side with the Americans than fighting against the Americans. Theyre not as obsessed about oil as you are.

 

[Microburst]

Amir it’s not about the “OIL” it’s about, freedom and liberty and whatever CNN and Fox News says it is.
That’s why the 1st gulf war happen, liberation was and is, in order. President chavez on the other hand is a closet Muslim and a terrorist LOL! You guys watch to much TV!

 

[Microburst]

Picture this. You are an Iraqi and you have seen your friends and family been killed for decades under Saddam. And now there are foreign islamic nuts blowing you up on holy days and beheading civilians.

My friend there are lots of lands where such things occur, and even worse. I would hardly consider Gulf war part II to be a humanitarian venture by any stretch of the imagination. Hey there are lots of bad things happening in Africa can someone help? You know, like real help, with troops and stuff?

 

[studentx]

My friend there are lots of lands where such things occur, and even worse. I would hardly consider Gulf war part II to be a humanitarian venture by any stretch of the imagination. Hey there are lots of bad things happening in Africa can someone help? You know, like real help, with troops and stuff?

Personally I am all for sending troops to Sudan.
Why should the US help Sudan according to you? As soon as they send troops there, won't you be saying there are lots of other places where bad things occur, and they should help there instead? The Sudanese government doesn't want US troops in the country, they are Islamic and they have oil. Can you imagine what the world will say when the US enters Sudan?

 

[studentx]

Amir it’s not about the “OIL” it’s about, freedom and liberty and whatever CNN and Fox News says it is.
That’s why the 1st gulf war happen, liberation was and is, in order. President chavez on the other hand is a closet Muslim and a terrorist LOL! You guys watch to much TV!

Actually, the TV is saying that its about the oil, that Bush is dumb and that he doesn't care about Iraqis. And you thought you had your own opinion huh?

 

[russ_watters]

Personally I am all for sending troops to Sudan.

As am I. So the real question is, Microburst - are you? If no, why bring it up except as a distraction? If yes, are you angry at the UN for actively working to undermine US efforts there?

 

[Prometheus]

Why do people become terrorist, in my humble opinion, this transformation happens due to lack of option and extreme injustice.

I do not want to disagree with your assessment. However, I would also like to opine that history and religion play a part. Islam has a long history of terrorism as an option, and has used it far more than other peoples of other religions over the centuries.

 

[Prometheus]

Where that logic falls apart is that the majority of the terrorists in Iraq aren't Iraqis fighting an invasion, they are foreign terrorists fighting the US and trying to undermine the development of a stable government in Iraq. But hey, if there actually was a legitimate "resistance" in Iraq, I'd agree with you.

You may well be right. However, how do you know that you are right. ALL of the news that I hear suggests that only a small fraction of the combatants are non Iraqi. I just read that 5% of US prisoners are non Iraqi. What is your wonderful source of information that I, reading as I do on this topic, have failed to find it?

Well actually, I think they should just stop standing in the way of civilization happening in Iraq.

Please tell me if I understand you correctly. If certain Iraqis do not want us there, they should not resist in whatever way they feel is justified, but instead acquiese to the form of government that russ_watters feels constitutes "civilization"?

No, killing Iraqi civilians is one of the main objectives.

I wonder how you know that killing civilians is one of their main objectives, and that there is no thought to the use of this killing as a means to a greater goal? How are you privy to this knowledge, when I have never heard it or read it before?

Its close, but unfortunately, it isn't factually accurate.

Are you going to make a provocative statement, just to leave me wondering what you might possibly mean?

Yes, and how is Japan doing today?

I see. then your answer is yes.

Did we have anything to do with that?

So you are suggesting that a success in another time means that we must be right now. Futhermore, because we were right then, mass killings of civilians is justified on our side, but not on theirs because they don't have a history where it is been shown to us to have been effective for the advancement of "civilization".

Oh, and btw, who started that war?

And who started the war in Iraq?

Only half true, but I'll let it go...

Again you say this. Which half is not true?

There are always other choices. They could choose not to stand in the way of civilization happening. They could choose to not stand in the way of peace.

They could listen to your rhetoric and become so swayed that they choose to stand up and let US soldiers shoot them or kill themselves. I consider that your range of choices is highly one-sided, yours, with no consideration that they might deserve the right to their own opinion. What is the purpose of installing "freedom" if you are going to kill those who want the freedom to reject what we are selling?

Because that is the whole story. Don't pretend there is some righteous goal here because there isn't.

You tell me not to pretend, because you, who understands what these people are really about and what they really want and what their goals really are and what they really should have, know far better even than our own government what their purpose is. Are you clairvoyant, or are you ignoring these people in your estimation of these people? We invaded their country. Some people who were in power are no longer in power. There is a major power shift, and there are many losers. Surprise, surprise, some of these losers don't want to give up their power in a US style "freedom". You simply write them off as terrorists with no merit who are stopping civilization as the righteous you envision that it must be. Sorry, but I think that there might be more to it, from the point of view of some of these people.

But here's a question for you: if you are fighting for a cause that has no prayer of succeeding regardless of what you do, how will you choose to fight for it?

You are asking the wrong question, and your question is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are asking it leads me to believe that you are way off base. What does it matter what I think? I am on your side. What matters is what very different people, with very real effects and very real lives and very real emotions, think.

Would the fact that most people don't want what you want affect your actions at all?

I wonder how it is that you know what most people want. Are you doing math on the number of Sunnis and the number of Shiites and suggesting that all Shiites side with you, therefore "most", as you say? But wait, some of the Shiites are fighting us too. So, I ask again. How do you, personally, know what most Iraqis want?

In the US, we've had one civil war based on people refusing to accept the opinions of others.

Huh? You are using "opinions" as quite a euphemism. What they didn't want is others to make decisions that would change their lives in a manner that they were willing to die to prevent.

Beyond that, every transfer of power has occurred peacefully. And in the US, people don't kill each other over political beliefs. Isn't that a better way?

Again, you are spinning your wheels. You are asking a person with a very similar political upbringing as your own whether I like our political upbringing so much that I agree that we should force people to adopt it for their own good whether or not they are smart enough to realize how benevolent we are being.

And by the way, since you want to do the Japan parallels, would you consider it a good thing if in 40 years, Iraq was the world's 3rd leading economic power and a peaceful, prosperous democracy? Or do you think a dictatorship where order is kept via dropping people into plastic shredders (which, on the plus side, saves them the pain of starving to death) is a reasonable form of government?

This is not a reasonable question to ask. Not at all. Why not ask if if 40 years I would prefer to see a world at peace or a world already destroyed by war. Your question is equally meaningless to me. Is it really your intent that by virtue of asking this question I should assume that this is a foregone conclusion? Are you really so sure that we will prevail with wonderful goodness, and that there is no possibility that the world will be less safe as a result of our invasion ... err.. liberation?

 

[Microburst]

As am I. So the real question is, Microburst - are you? If no, why bring it up except as a distraction? If yes, are you angry at the UN for actively working to undermine US efforts there?

yes, I think troops should be sent, and injustice must be stopped, yes I am all for it,... besides UN was not necessary for GULF-WAR part II why is it such an issue when it comes to Sudan?

Actually, the TV is saying that its about the oil, that Bush is dumb and that he doesn't care about Iraqis. And you thought you had your own opinion huh?

Just look at the facts and you’ll see it’s all about OIL! Mission uno was to takeover the oil ministry, occupy all the oil wells,…. as you all have witnessed there were no serious nuclear or chemical weapons. how can one disarm while having nothing of such sort, I think Iraq served 2 purposes,

1. Hitting things of valuable targets (Afghanistan had non) satisfactory revenge.
2. By Installing a favorable / (completely dependent) government stop the conversion to Euro.

May be I am completely wrong and may be I am influenced by the media, but there are things known as FACTS!

 

[Janitor]

You are free to label US actions as terrorism if you care to. But what is really neat, I think, is that you are perfectly free to hold a sign up on any major street in any US city, proclaiming Americans to be terrorists, or the US government to be a terrorist organization. Yes, you may be on the receiving end of some comments from passersby--that's free speech for you--but you will not be imprisoned by any government agency as long as you are not carrying weapons or blocking the entrance to a public building.

Can the same thing be said if you carry a sign proclaiming Yasser Arafat a terrorist, on some Palestinian-controlled street? Maybe the answer is that you can, I don't know.

 

[Prometheus]

You are free to label US actions as terrorism if you care to. But what is really neat, I think, is that you are perfectly free to hold a sign up on any major street in any US city, proclaiming Americans to be terrorists, or the US government to be a terrorist organization. Yes, you may be on the receiving end of some comments from passersby--that's free speech for you--but you will not be imprisoned by any government agency as long as you are not carrying weapons or blocking the entrance to a public building.

Can the same thing be said if you carry a sign proclaiming Yasser Arafat a terrorist, on some Palestinian-controlled street? Maybe the answer is that you can, I don't know.

I can't figure out what topic this post might be relevant to. If it is indeed relevant to anything going on in this thread, please specify what.

 

[Janitor]

Fair enough question, Prometheus. I was responding primarily to this fulmination from tumor:

"Whole damn war on terror thing is simply an excuse for elite and industralist to get rich and controll the world! I never believed in Arab terror and whole 9/11 propaganda,except maybe for really tiny group of them now after USA attacked Iraq and israel occupies Palestine blow them selfs up but those are just incredibly desperate people. REICHSTAG fire back in pre war Germany is in my view PARAMOUNT example on how to invent enemy/terrorist, 9/11 is just that.
There is only one definition for terrorist in my dictionary -USA/W.WORLD"

 

[Prometheus]

Fair enough question, Prometheus. I was responding primarily to this fulmination from tumor:

OK, I understand your point now.

 

[Microburst]

You are free to label US actions as terrorism if you care to. But what is really neat, I think, is that you are perfectly free to hold a sign up on any major street in any US city, proclaiming Americans to be terrorists, or the US government to be a terrorist organization. Yes, you may be on the receiving end of some comments from passersby--that's free speech for you--but you will not be imprisoned by any government agency as long as you are not carrying weapons or blocking the entrance to a public building.

See the thing is British-empire use to operate in a similar fashion. They always use to say that we are here to bring freedom, liberty and ….. But in the end common man was the real victim, … if the British rule was so good and wholesome why did they leave India? Because by core the system was xenophobic and ruthless.

Why did US dropped N bomb on Japan why not on Germany? Are you getting the picture??

Have you noticed that blacks of America don’t speak English like whites, yet in any other country even in UK the blacks have no major pronunciation differences.

No media here just personal observations ...

Can the same thing be said if you carry a sign proclaiming Yasser Arafat a terrorist, on some Palestinian-controlled street? Maybe the answer is that you can, I don't know.

Can you do this in Israel?, and what happen to the mid-east peace process?? (well you’ll say you see them arafatiezz keep blowing them selves up so we can not have any peace, on the other hand when they do stop the assassination/s start.)

 

[russ_watters]

Why did US dropped N bomb on Japan why not on Germany?

Because the war in Europe was already over: TIMELINE

 

[fourier jr]

Why did US dropped N bomb on Japan why not on Germany?

Not sure if the answer to that question is in here, but it's the truth about the A-bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki:
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/abomb.htm

"Although Japan was targeted, the weapons were aimed straight to the red heart of the USSR. For three-quarters of a century, the determining element of U.S. foreign policy, virtually its sine qua non, has been "the communist factor" World War II and a battlefield alliance with the Soviet Union did not bring about an ideological change in the anti-communists who owned and ran America. It merely provided a partial breather in a struggle that had begun with the U.S. invasion of the Soviet Union in 1918. It is hardly surprising then, that 25 years later, as the Soviets were sustaining the highest casualties of any nation in WW2, the U.S. systematically kept them in the dark about the A-bomb project -- while sharing information with the British."

 

[Burnsys]

Definition of Terrorism:

"the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives"

This is terrorism:

SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops: 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA
1890
Troops: Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE
1891
Troops: Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI
1891
Troops: Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.

IDAHO
1892
Troops: Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops: Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO
1894
Troops: Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed

NICARAGUA
1894
Troops: Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops: Marines land in Sino-Jap War.

KOREA
1894-96
Troops: Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval: Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA
1896
Troops: Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA
1898-1900
Troops, boxer. Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.

GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops: Seized from Spain, still used as base.

MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops: Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA
1898
Troops: Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops: Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA
1899
Troops: Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops: Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops: Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops: Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.

HONDURAS
1903
Troops: Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops: U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA
1904-05
Troops: Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA
1906-09
Troops: Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA
1907
Troops: "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS
1907
Troops: Marines land during war with Nicaragua.

PANAMA
1908
Troops: Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA
1910
Troops: Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS
1911
Troops: U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops: Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA
1912
Troops: U.S. interests protected in Havana.

PANAMA
19l2
Troops: Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS
19l2
Troops: Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing: 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.

MEXICO
19l3
Naval: Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval: Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO
1914
Troops: Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops: Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing: 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops: 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA
1917-33
Troops: Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops: Ships sunk, fought Germany

RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops: Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.

PANAMA
1918-20
Troops: "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops: Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS
1919
Troops: Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1920
Troops: 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing: Army intervenes against mineworkers.

TURKEY
1922
Troops: Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops: Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops: Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA
1925
Troops: Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA
1927-34
Troops: Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval: Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops: Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.



WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear: Fought Axis for 3 years; 1st nuclear war.

DETROIT
1943
Troops: Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat: Soviet Troops: told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval: Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat: Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE
1947-49
Command operation: U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

CHINA
1948-49
Troops: Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat: Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation: CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation: Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats: U.S.& South Korea fight China &
North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still
have bases.

IRAN
1953
Command operation: CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat: Bombs offered to French to use against siege.

GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat: CIA directs exile invasion after
new government nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops: Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines
evacuate foreigners

LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval: Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat: Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat: China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA
1958
Troops: Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats: Fought South Vietnam revolt & North
Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968
and 1969.

CUBA
1961
Command operation: CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat: Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat: Naval blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.

LAOS
1962
Command operation: Military buildup during guerrilla war.

PANAMA
1964
Troops: Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA
1965
Command operation: Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing: Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation: Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT
1967
Troops: Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES
1968
Troops: After civil rights activist King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in
cities.

CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval: Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing,
starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN
1970
Command operation: U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing: U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion;
"carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation: Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat: World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE
1973
Command operation: CIA-backed coup ousts elected Marxist president.

CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing: Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation: CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing: Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8
Troops: die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in
revolution.

LIBYA
1981
Naval jets: Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops: Advisors, over-flights aid anti-rebel war,
soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval: CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants
harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops: Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs
and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.

HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops: Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing: Invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN
1984
Jets: Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval: Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA
1986
Troops: Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing: US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA
1989
Naval jets: Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops: St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing: Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders
arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA
1990
Troops: Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets: Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 Troops: also
stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval, blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes:
200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish
north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops: Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops: Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing: U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war;
raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval: NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing: No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed
Serbs.

HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval blockade against military government. Troops restore President
Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA
1995
Bombing Krajina: Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops: Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution
begins.

LIBERIA
1997
Troops: Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA
1997
Troops: Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN
1998
Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas
plant.

AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist
groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, missiles: Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons
inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, missiles: Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw
from Kosovo.

YEMEN
2000
Naval: Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA
2001
Troops: NATO Troops: shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval: Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expands to
Iraq and possibly Sudan, Syria, Iran, N.Korea beyond. (The first bombing
began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack.
The story continues).

IRAQ (again)
2003 - ?
(Viet Nam style quagmire)

 

[russ_watters]

Where did you get that list? Its pretty bad - it doesn't differentiate between military actions and terrorism (among other things). If you want to claim that every military action is terrorism, present an argument.