How are things in Iraq ?

Hinerakatauri · Sep 17, 2003, 12:17 PM

Are the amerikans ignorant about who's attacking them? I mean when they get attacked its always iraqi forces loyal to Saddam, what about fathers that lost their suns,daughters or wifes.

And what is the definition they use for terrorists?

I mean when we had the Resistance in WW2 we didn't (don't) call them terrorists. Because their (our) land was occupied. but now if the occupieer is (friendly) the people that just want their land back are terrorists. The same with palestinians. What happend to freedom fighters?

Al_Vampyre · Sep 17, 2003, 12:23 PM

One mans terrorist is invariably another man's freedom fighter

JavaFox · Sep 17, 2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hinerakatauri
I mean when we had the Resistance in WW2 we didn't (don't) call them terrorists. Because their (our) land was occupied. but now if the occupieer is (friendly) the people that just want their land back are terrorists. The same with palestinians. What happend to freedom fighters?

The French Resistence, for example, was not a group of terrorists because they did not enter Germany and bomb Germany women and children. Hamas, however, does exactly this. This is the difference.

Al_Vampyre · Sep 17, 2003, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The French Resistence, for example, was not a group of terrorists because they did not enter Germany and bomb Germany women and children. Hamas, however, does exactly this. This is the difference.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
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.

The French Resistance would fit the above definition if you were a part of the occupying force, to the allies they were freedom fighters, to the axis they were terrorists. You cannot expect the world to embrace your choice of who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter, your choice is merely your opinion and nothing more, and because of that has no more validity than anyone else's opinion. We are not dealing with facts here, just opinions.

Only when we accept that killing someone because their opinion differs from ours is wrong can the world progress

JavaFox · Sep 17, 2003, 01:08 PM

It is so tiring and frustrating to me that people cannot differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters. It is because some people do not have a moral compass.

I personally do not care what the cause is. That doesn't matter to me. Nothing justifies deliberate violence against innocents. You may disagree with it, but that is a morally repugnant view.

Hinerakatauri · Sep 17, 2003, 01:18 PM

Ok Java, who would you label innocent? (without flaming you're comment).

1. Israil army.
2. Israil people.
3. "terrorist forces" of Palestinians.
4. palestinian people.

JavaFox · Sep 17, 2003, 01:50 PM

The Israeli people and the Palestinian people are, by and large, innocents. I condem early Zionist terrorism (Irgun, Stern Gang, et al) as strongly as I condemn today's Hamas. They are all bastards, and I really could not care less as to what their goal is.

We cannot compromise when it comes to labelling evil.

Al_Vampyre · Sep 17, 2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
It is so tiring and frustrating to me that people cannot differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters.

My point is that the differentiation is dependant on which side of the fence you happen to be on at the time

Quote:

Nothing justifies deliberate violence against innocents.

I couldn't agree with you more, having grown up in Ireland I have had 1st hand experience of terrorism for the whole of my formative years. But when you have two factions, both of whom believe in the absolute right of what they are doing, then there can be no progress. The people involved do not see their targets as innocents but as members or supporters of something they hate. Perpetuating the violence merely perpetuates the hatred...

JavaFox · Sep 17, 2003, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Al_Vampyre
My point is that the differentiation is dependant on which side of the fence you happen to be on at the time

Yes, but my point is that whether or not you agree with the justification is irrelevant. Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism -- regardless of the cause, the perpetrator, the country, or the weather. The Geneva Convention recognizes guerillas and militias, believe it or not. Plainly put, if you follow the rules and norms of war, you aren't a terrorist --even if you don't have or can't afford uniforms-- and should be afforded POW status in a war. But if you don't do these things --if you effect illegal war* as an illegal solider against illegal targets-- you are a terrorist.

It is the means --the act-- that defines them, not the cause.

--

* Use of banned weapons, taking civilians hostage, failure to provide for POWs, disrespecting neutral ground and countries, targeting civilians, etc.

Hinerakatauri · Sep 17, 2003, 05:02 PM

But what about democratie. By democratie the Israil people are quilty as well for the occupation.
I am not 100% with that idea. But that's democratie for ya.

Al_Vampyre · Sep 17, 2003, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Yes, but my point is that whether or not you agree with the justification is irrelevant. Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism -- regardless of the cause, the perpetrator, the country, or the weather. The Geneva Convention recognizes guerillas and militias, believe it or not. Plainly put, if you follow the rules and norms of war, you aren't a terrorist --even if you don't have or can't afford uniforms-- and should be afforded POW status in a war. But if you don't do these things --if you effect illegal war* as an illegal solider against illegal targets-- you are a terrorist.

It is the means --the act-- that defines them, not the cause.

--

* Use of banned weapons, taking civilians hostage, failure to provide for POWs, disrespecting neutral ground and countries, targeting civilians, etc.

Then by your own definition the French Resistance would be classed as terrorists, because the Vichy government that was placed in charge by the invading forces were, by and large, civilians and were considered 'legitimate' targets. By the same token, the allied forces currently in Iraq will be seen as an invasion force, in the same way that Germany invaded half of Europe, our forces have invaded Iraq. Ironically the last time we went to war with Iraq was because they invaded another country. So it was wrong for them to do so but somehow right for us to do so?

We don't live in a black and white world my friend, I wish we did, there are no absolutes and no-one of us individually or at nation state level has the right to set ourselves up as the arbiters of right and wrong.

JavaFox · Sep 17, 2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Al_Vampyre
Then by your own definition the French Resistance would be classed as terrorists, because the Vichy government that was placed in charge by the invading forces were, by and large, civilians and were considered 'legitimate' targets.

Really? Show me where the French Resistance bombed buses or gased German civilians. You will have difficulty, I think, in finding any sort of systemmatic, intentional, and prolonged campaign against civilian targets. Similarly, show me where in India, there was a systemmatic capaign against British civilians under Gandhi. You won't find them. That is what differentiates between terrorists and freedom fighters. When you are an illegal soldier attacking illegal targets to effect political change you are a terrorist. The French Resistence does not meet these criteria.

Quote:

By the same token, the allied forces currently in Iraq will be seen as an invasion force, in the same way that Germany invaded half of Europe, our forces have invaded Iraq. Ironically the last time we went to war with Iraq was because they invaded another country. So it was wrong for them to do so but somehow right for us to do so?

Again, you have no moral compass. The US invading Iraq is the same as Iraq invading Kuwait? Give me a break. Did Saddam Hussein's Iraq try to liberate the Kuwaitis? No, that wasn't even part of his rhetoric. Did Saddam spend billions rebuilding Kuwait? Did Saddam adhere to international norms and rules of war? Again, give me a break. The US is ostensibly in Iraq to help it, to fight against a dictator, to restore order, to disarm, and then to leave. Show me where Saddam said he would do these things with Kuwait.

The only way terrorism can be defeated as an ideology is if we can view it as a thing that is always wrong. Nothing justifies terror, just like nothing justified the Holocaust.

Al_Vampyre · Sep 17, 2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Really? Show me where the French Resistance bombed buses or gased German civilians. You will have difficulty, I think, in finding any sort of systemmatic, intentional, and prolonged campaign against civilian targets. Similarly, show me where in India, there was a systemmatic capaign against British civilians under Gandhi. You won't find them. That is what differentiates between terrorists and freedom fighters. When you are an illegal soldier attacking illegal targets to effect political change you are a terrorist. The French Resistence does not meet these criteria.

The French Resistance still attacked civilian targets, they may have been put in place by the invading forces but they were still civilian targets. The Gandhi situation is irrelevant here because the whole concept of 'passive resistance' completely abhors violence.

Again, you have no moral compass. The US invading Iraq is the same as Iraq invading Kuwait? Give me a break. Did Saddam Hussein's Iraq try to liberate the Kuwaitis? No, that wasn't even part of his rhetoric. Did Saddam spend billions rebuilding Kuwait? Did Saddam adhere to international norms and rules of war? Again, give me a break. The US is ostensibly in Iraq to help it, to fight against a dictator, to restore order, to disarm, and then to leave. Show me where Saddam said he would do these things with Kuwait.

Ahhh, so if you feel that you can justify the invasion then thats OK? I have news for you JF, the majority of the world felt that the US/UK were unjustified in their actions. Your justification is based on your world view, I'm not saying your view is wrong, I'm just saying that it is only your view...

The only way terrorism can be defeated as an ideology is if we can view it as a thing that is always wrong. Nothing justifies terror, just like nothing justified the Holocaust.

Once again I couldn't agree more - all terrorism is unacceptable - but then I happen to believe that invading countries on the suspicion of what they may or may not be going to do and without the sanction of the UN is also unacceptable.

~~bluelight~~ · Sep 23, 2003, 09:03 PM

Anyone here prepared to state that Israel has not taken action against civilians ?

The count of dead Israelis is about 700 and Palestinians...2400.......Since the second intifada started.

Anyone willing to claim the 2400...were all soldiers?

Personally i dont claim the 700 Israelis were soldiers but.....the idea that Israel is figting a clean war is ridiculous.

Oh and by the way.....Usa has just accepted that Israel will surround one of its biggest illegal settlements named Ariel oc the westbank with " a movable wall".

They (Usa) opposed to the building especially at this place since it was situated on occupied land and the peace plan laid out by Usa stipulates that Israel leave these settlements.

So....Sharon told "His good friend"...(as they call each other) Bush that he would only build a "movable" Berlin wall.....................on occupied land....

That....was accepted by Usa and the wall will now be built....and the settlement on.....

OCCUPIED LAND.....will be permanated.

That ...is being consequently in favor (as Usa has always been) of Israel.

Luckly Bush is losing support every day and is now down at 50 percent and...goind steadly down each day.

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Sep 23, 2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Really? Show me where the French Resistance bombed buses or gased German civilians. You will have difficulty, I think, in finding any sort of systemmatic, intentional, and prolonged campaign against civilian targets. Similarly, show me where in India, there was a systemmatic capaign against British civilians under Gandhi. You won't find them. That is what differentiates between terrorists and freedom fighters. When you are an illegal soldier attacking illegal targets to effect political change you are a terrorist. The French Resistence does not meet these criteria.

Again, you have no moral compass. The US invading Iraq is the same as Iraq invading Kuwait? Give me a break. Did Saddam Hussein's Iraq try to liberate the Kuwaitis? No, that wasn't even part of his rhetoric. Did Saddam spend billions rebuilding Kuwait? Did Saddam adhere to international norms and rules of war? Again, give me a break. The US is ostensibly in Iraq to help it, to fight against a dictator, to restore order, to disarm, and then to leave. Show me where Saddam said he would do these things with Kuwait.

The only way terrorism can be defeated as an ideology is if we can view it as a thing that is always wrong. Nothing justifies terror, just like nothing justified the Holocaust.

Spending billions........Is something Bushie boy now is asking the international community to do.

He went out on a mission.....that he could not...complete cause he didnt bring a map.

Now he is in the very same UN upon which he once spit and is asking for ...Money and peole.

Why?

Because he will not be in office next time unless he manages to fix this cause thje amerivcan peole are reluctant to pay themselves for his adventures.

Bluelight

Esaz666 · Sep 24, 2003, 01:06 AM

The whole thing is wrong. War can never be justified be it terrorism
or whatever kind of war you want to call it. Killing is wrong full stop
who ever does it, what ever BS story you want to give.

I support the troops because they are just doing thier jobs but I dont
support the aggresive actions of governments or anyone.

Im not some moral crusader, But people have got to learn.
This Iraq war is a total mess, We in Britain have been lied to and I knew it was
rubbish what the government was spinning out.

Isreal seems to get away with whatever they want to do because of thier
strategic alliance with the US. We are all wrong, how are we going to get
ourselves out of this?

Anti-western feelings are running wild around the East, something has really got to change
because theres alot of trouble brewing in the world.

We have only our selves to blame for this. I went on some of the anti-war demo's and stuff
but really there is nothing you can really do.

May you all rest in peace, Both the IRAQI soldiers and our own who have died / yet to die and
good luck to our boys who are stuck over there.

megatron · Sep 24, 2003, 01:45 AM

Also when defining who is a Terrorist you have to take into account whether their is a "war" going on. Wether the Govenments have declared war on each other. If so then no-ones action is terrorism but if they do something really uncalled for then they are war criminals; Ala Bosnia. Also I find it bemusing to see the omission of the IRA in this discussion. Generally British would call them terrorists and most probably alot of Irish, but what they are fighting over is the land which was taken from them over 400 years ago by the English and was partly (26 counties) given back to them in 1927 IIRC. What were the British thinking then? It would definately been worth giving back the whole country to save all the acts of violence which followed. Thankfully I have not heard any recent violence as far back as September 11th 2002.

I agree that Iraq should be made to not behave in a threating way 100%.

I believe it was the British again which divided out the borders in the foreign countries which are having trouble still.

megatron · Sep 24, 2003, 01:57 AM

A University professor of Iraq came on British TV and said that they Iraqi people will welcome the help but eventually they will want the Americans out. He also believed that whilst Americans would not be a good choice for policing Iraq that the Iraqi police should be payed by the Americans!

So they take what we give but then turn and bite the hand that feeds it. Have you seen any pictures of iraqis on TV? Especially grieving ones, look quite mad. Repeatedly hitting themselves to express their feelings.

They also stone people to death for crimes and the whole village takes part, not surprising a few soldiers have met this fate.

Sep 17, 2003, 12:23 PM	#32
Al_Vampyre HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,532 Rep Power: 72 System Specs	One mans terrorist is invariably another man's freedom fighter __________________ "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad" - Brian O'Driscoll - Ireland Rugby Team 2009 Grand Slam winning Captain.

Sep 24, 2003, 01:45 AM	#47
megatron DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 93 Rep Power: 0	Also when defining who is a Terrorist you have to take into account whether their is a "war" going on. Wether the Govenments have declared war on each other. If so then no-ones action is terrorism but if they do something really uncalled for then they are war criminals; Ala Bosnia. Also I find it bemusing to see the omission of the IRA in this discussion. Generally British would call them terrorists and most probably alot of Irish, but what they are fighting over is the land which was taken from them over 400 years ago by the English and was partly (26 counties) given back to them in 1927 IIRC. What were the British thinking then? It would definately been worth giving back the whole country to save all the acts of violence which followed. Thankfully I have not heard any recent violence as far back as September 11th 2002. I agree that Iraq should be made to not behave in a threating way 100%. I believe it was the British again which divided out the borders in the foreign countries which are having trouble still. __________________ My system specs and 3dmark2001se score Rad8500 bioses, UT2k3, GTA3 pages & more. Also watercooling endeavours.

Sep 24, 2003, 01:57 AM	#48
megatron DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 93 Rep Power: 0	A University professor of Iraq came on British TV and said that they Iraqi people will welcome the help but eventually they will want the Americans out. He also believed that whilst Americans would not be a good choice for policing Iraq that the Iraqi police should be payed by the Americans! So they take what we give but then turn and bite the hand that feeds it. Have you seen any pictures of iraqis on TV? Especially grieving ones, look quite mad. Repeatedly hitting themselves to express their feelings. They also stone people to death for crimes and the whole village takes part, not surprising a few soldiers have met this fate. __________________ My system specs and 3dmark2001se score Rad8500 bioses, UT2k3, GTA3 pages & more. Also watercooling endeavours.

Sep 17, 2003, 12:17 PM	#31
Hinerakatauri DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 0	Are the amerikans ignorant about who's attacking them? I mean when they get attacked its always iraqi forces loyal to Saddam, what about fathers that lost their suns,daughters or wifes. And what is the definition they use for terrorists? I mean when we had the Resistance in WW2 we didn't (don't) call them terrorists. Because their (our) land was occupied. but now if the occupieer is (friendly) the people that just want their land back are terrorists. The same with palestinians. What happend to freedom fighters?

Sep 17, 2003, 01:08 PM	#35
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	It is so tiring and frustrating to me that people cannot differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters. It is because some people do not have a moral compass. I personally do not care what the cause is. That doesn't matter to me. Nothing justifies deliberate violence against innocents. You may disagree with it, but that is a morally repugnant view.

Sep 17, 2003, 01:18 PM	#36
Hinerakatauri DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 0	Ok Java, who would you label innocent? (without flaming you're comment). 1. Israil army. 2. Israil people. 3. "terrorist forces" of Palestinians. 4. palestinian people.

Sep 17, 2003, 01:50 PM	#37
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	The Israeli people and the Palestinian people are, by and large, innocents. I condem early Zionist terrorism (Irgun, Stern Gang, et al) as strongly as I condemn today's Hamas. They are all bastards, and I really could not care less as to what their goal is. We cannot compromise when it comes to labelling evil.

Sep 17, 2003, 05:02 PM	#40
Hinerakatauri DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 0	But what about democratie. By democratie the Israil people are quilty as well for the occupation. I am not 100% with that idea. But that's democratie for ya.

Sep 23, 2003, 09:03 PM	#44
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Anyone here prepared to state that Israel has not taken action against civilians ? The count of dead Israelis is about 700 and Palestinians...2400.......Since the second intifada started. Anyone willing to claim the 2400...were all soldiers? Personally i dont claim the 700 Israelis were soldiers but.....the idea that Israel is figting a clean war is ridiculous. Oh and by the way.....Usa has just accepted that Israel will surround one of its biggest illegal settlements named Ariel oc the westbank with " a movable wall". They (Usa) opposed to the building especially at this place since it was situated on occupied land and the peace plan laid out by Usa stipulates that Israel leave these settlements. So....Sharon told "His good friend"...(as they call each other) Bush that he would only build a "movable" Berlin wall.....................on occupied land.... That....was accepted by Usa and the wall will now be built....and the settlement on..... OCCUPIED LAND.....will be permanated. That ...is being consequently in favor (as Usa has always been) of Israel. Luckly Bush is losing support every day and is now down at 50 percent and...goind steadly down each day. Bluelight

Sep 24, 2003, 01:06 AM	#46
Esaz666 BeardHeaven Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Uk,Earth,Universe,3rd dimention Posts: 298 Rep Power: 59	The whole thing is wrong. War can never be justified be it terrorism or whatever kind of war you want to call it. Killing is wrong full stop who ever does it, what ever BS story you want to give. I support the troops because they are just doing thier jobs but I dont support the aggresive actions of governments or anyone. Im not some moral crusader, But people have got to learn. This Iraq war is a total mess, We in Britain have been lied to and I knew it was rubbish what the government was spinning out. Isreal seems to get away with whatever they want to do because of thier strategic alliance with the US. We are all wrong, how are we going to get ourselves out of this? Anti-western feelings are running wild around the East, something has really got to change because theres alot of trouble brewing in the world. We have only our selves to blame for this. I went on some of the anti-war demo's and stuff but really there is nothing you can really do. May you all rest in peace, Both the IRAQI soldiers and our own who have died / yet to die and good luck to our boys who are stuck over there.