What is a terrorist?

[The Green Bean]

I can't understand why people call insurgents fighting in IRAQ are called terrorists. first the USA occupies a country and then lablels who ever fights back terrorists? More like freedom fighters. IRAQ is not USA's so attacks there should not be should not be considered terrororist activity. Iraqis have every right to fight back to an oppressive occupier. Besides it is those US military men that are getting killed.

When Saddam put down the shiite mutiny, americans regarded it as illegal. Now when america tries to put down a mutiny in a land which it has no right to control, it calls it a right to defend themselves. Kill one or kill 1000s; it is still murder. And just because they dont use chemical wepons doesn't make them right.

I would guess that atleast 100, 000 civillians would have been killed since america's war on terror. What right does america have to kill 100, 000 innocent people just to avenge the death of 3000 odd americans? All this without real proof who made the condemnable attacks on September 11 2001. Sounds pretty unfair to me.

 

[viivo]

Those entering from neighboring countries are not coming to "protect Iraq," they are coming to "kill the evil Jewmericans." I don't believe Iraqis fighting back to be terrorism as it is their country, but average Joe Ali coming from Iran with a bomb on his chest ready to blow up a checkpoint is.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: viivo
Those entering from neighboring countries are not coming to "protect Iraq," they are coming to "kill the evil Jewmericans." I don't believe Iraqis fighting back to be terrorism as it is their country, but average Joe Ali coming from Iran with a bomb on his chest ready to blow up a checkpoint is.

What about when the insurgents cross that line into attacking, say, a hotel or an Iraqi police station? Does that then change their label?

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: conjur
What about when the insurgents cross that line into attacking, say, a hotel or an Iraqi police station? Does that then change their label?

Any fighter foreign in Iraq is, I believe.

Take "foreign" any way you please.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: viivo

Originally posted by: conjur
What about when the insurgents cross that line into attacking, say, a hotel or an Iraqi police station? Does that then change their label?

Any fighter foreign in Iraq is, I believe.

Take "foreign" any way you please.

I'm not talking about foreign fighters. I'm talking about the insurgents: Iraqi citizens fighting against the occupying forces. What are these Iraqi citizens when they start attacking civilian or other Iraqi sites of authority?

 

[alchemize]

Hatim doesn't like you calling nasty names those he admires.

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: conjur

I'm not talking about foreign fighters. I'm talking about the insurgents: Iraqi citizens fighting against the occupying forces. What are these Iraqi citizens when they start attacking civilian or other Iraqi sites of authority?

Then they are not interested in protecting Iraq, as my first post states. "Fighting back" doesn't include killing your own people to get some obscure point across.

 

[The Green Bean]

Its america's duty to protect iraq's borders. First the conquer and then blame the criminals? Every village has its criminal. Its the police's job to prevent this. And since americans include in their utmost pririty; peaace, they must blame themselves for not doing enough for the foreign fighters.

Nonetheless this does not give them any right to kill innocent civillians, women and children.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: viivo

Originally posted by: conjur

I'm not talking about foreign fighters. I'm talking about the insurgents: Iraqi citizens fighting against the occupying forces. What are these Iraqi citizens when they start attacking civilian or other Iraqi sites of authority?

Then they are not interested in protecting Iraq, as my first post states. "Fighting back" doesn't include killing your own people to get some obscure point across.

Then does that make them terrorists?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hatim
I can't understand why people call insurgents fighting in IRAQ are called terrorists. first the USA occupies a country and then lablels who ever fights back terrorists? More like freedom fighters. IRAQ is not USA's so attacks there should not be should not be considered terrororist activity. Iraqis have every right to fight back to an oppressive occupier. Besides it is those US military men that are getting killed.

When Saddam put down the shiite mutiny, americans regarded it as illegal. Now when america tries to put down a mutiny in a land which it has no right to control, it calls it a right to defend themselves. Kill one or kill 1000s; it is still murder. And just because they dont use chemical wepons doesn't make them right.

I would guess that atleast 100, 000 civillians would have been killed since america's war on terror. What right does america have to kill 100, 000 innocent people just to avenge the death of 3000 odd americans? All this without real proof who made the condemnable attacks on September 11 2001. Sounds pretty unfair to me.

I suppose I would evoke a larger issue. In a relative world where one value is as equally worthless as another a freedom fighter is a terrorist is a freedom fighter, but if there is a Truth somewhere then who is what depends on their alignment with that truth, no?

 

[alchemize]

Just a refresher on Hatims definition of a terrorist:

Hatim:
Q: Would you classify OBL as a terrorist?
A: "Depends. Not without proof. "

 

[The Green Bean]

I think America's plans in America have gone horribly wrong.

They can't provide security - they blame the terrorists.
They can't provide food/water - they blame the terrorists.
They cant provide money that they pledged for rebuiling Iraq - they blame the terrorists.
They cant protect oil pipelines - they blame the terrorists.
They can't protect politicians - they blame the terrorists.
They can't protect civilians - they blame the terrorists.
They kill Iraqis - they blame the terrorists.
They can't do anything right - they blame the terrorists.
They can't capture OBL - they blame the terrorists.

 

[0marTheZealot]

A terrorist is anyone the US says it is. Simply as that. You can thank mister black-white-I-don't-see-any-grays.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just a refresher on Hatims definition of a terrorist:

Hatim:
Q: Would you classify OBL as a terrorist?
A: "Depends. Not without proof. "

how can you accuse someeone of something he has not done?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just a refresher on Hatims definition of a terrorist:

Hatim:
Q: Would you classify OBL as a terrorist?
A: "Depends. Not without proof. "

and we have proof dont we?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just a refresher on Hatims definition of a terrorist:

Hatim:
Q: Would you classify OBL as a terrorist?
A: "Depends. Not without proof. "

how can you accuse someeone of something he has not done?

Wow, post of the day.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just a refresher on Hatims definition of a terrorist:

Hatim:
Q: Would you classify OBL as a terrorist?
A: "Depends. Not without proof. "

and we have proof dont we?

yes in the same way that the US had proof that Saddam had WMDs.

 

[burnedout]

Meanwhile, Daniel Pipes has compiled a list of terrorist euphemisms employed worldwide for the Beslan bastards:

[Hat tip: Tim Blair]

* Assailants - National Public Radio.
* Attackers ? the Economist.
* Bombers ? the Guardian.
* Captors ? the Associated Press.
* Commandos ? Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
* Criminals - the Times (London).
* Extremists ? United Press International.
* Fighters ? the Washington Post.
* Group ? the Australian.
* Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.
* Gunmen ? Reuters.
* Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.
* Insurgents ? in a New York Times headline.
* Kidnappers ? the Observer (London).
* Militants ? the Chicago Tribune.
* Perpetrators ? the New York Times.
* Radicals ? the BBC.
* Rebels ? in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
* Separatists ? the Christian Science Monitor.

And my favorite:

* Activists ? the Pakistan Times.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just a refresher on Hatims definition of a terrorist:

Hatim:
Q: Would you classify OBL as a terrorist?
A: "Depends. Not without proof. "

and we have proof dont we?

yes in the same way that the US had proof that Saddam had WMDs.

The SOB is on tape taking responsibility for the attacks. What do you want? A typed notarized confession in the presence of the entire UN?

 

[The Green Bean]

The tape could be a fake? Plus if bush can lie, why can't OBL?

 

[The Green Bean]

and to those wondering why he would do that? ...To be a hero. The US was going to hunt him down anyways. Plus it would raise anti US morale etc....

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: hatim
The tape could be a fake? Plus if bush can lie, why can't OBL?

I really don't think anyone seriously doubts that he is responsible.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: alchemize
Just a refresher on Hatims definition of a terrorist:

Hatim:
Q: Would you classify OBL as a terrorist?
A: "Depends. Not without proof. "

and we have proof dont we?

yes in the same way that the US had proof that Saddam had WMDs.

and the circle continues....

Saddam provided written documentation to the UN that he had a specific amount of WMD's. The documentation he provided as proof of the destruction of the WMD's didn't account for all that he claimed he had in the first place. Using simple math, according to the man that provided both figures, he still had WMD's. This was validated by the UN. (look up your own links, there have been many posted on P&N)

amount of WMD's claimed by Iraq to the UN - amount of WMD's proven to have been destroyed claimed by Iraq to the UN and the US = existing WMD's in Iraq.

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: conjur
Then does that make them terrorists?

I'm the last person to defend Hatim, but I don't believe he was talking about the Iraqis blowing up their own people and country, but the ones resisting the forces. I agree that those blowing up buildings and police stations is terrorism; some average Iraqi citizen protecting his home or block from what he perceives as murderous imperialists is not, in my opinion.

 

[The Green Bean]

physical proof > math. The greed of the US for oil couldnt make them wait 2 months longer for a UN resolution to come out stating that this infact was true and Saddam has WMDs. The USA illegally invaded Iraq. If they can kill illegally, why cant the terrorists.

My core of the argument is that what makes the US government better than terrorists. Answer All my Qs.

When Saddam put down the shiite mutiny, americans regarded it as illegal. Now when america tries to put down a mutiny in a land which it has no right to control, it calls it a right to defend themselves. Kill one or kill 1000s; it is still murder. And just because they dont use chemical wepons doesn't make them right.

I would guess that atleast 100, 000 civillians would have been killed since america's war on terror. What right does america have to kill 100, 000 innocent people just to avenge the death of 3000 odd americans? All this without real proof who made the condemnable attacks on September 11 2001. Sounds pretty unfair to me.

If they can kill illegally, why cant the terrorists.