How do you define terrorism?

[Moneyguy1]

I agree with unfixed. Rancor very seldom fixes any problem; just makes the situation worse. Full scale involvement of civilians did not occur until World War two. Most of World War one was fought in trenches in France, with a few minlr exceptions that perhaps in themselves made the drastic switch in tactics 25 years later "acceptable". War is a terrible thing, and should be avoided at any reasonable cost. But, in WWII, how many chances did the Europeans give Herr Hitler, making it possible for him to build up forces that nearly took over the entire continent "I have in my hand, a document signed by Herr Hitler which guarantees peace in our time". Chamberlain......

Perhaps the West should have not become involved in the Middle Eastern situation. Leadership over there is feudal in nature and by their religious tenets not at all tolerant of any other belief system (convert, submit, or die...read the Quoran). Perhaps that would have been the best place for the rest of the world to have built an "Iron Curtain". But, there are those in the "rest of the world" who do not think that people should be gassed, beheaded, or murdered in any number of ways by the tens of thousands, and who think that life is precious. And, among these are individuals ready to place themselves in harms way to give that ideal a chance. No pate is 100% true; no situation is purely black or white. However, as millions of ghosts in Stalingtsd, Krakow, Auschwitz and a thousand other places will attest, give a demented individual enough power, and the world will sooner or later have to deal with him. And by that time the price is even higher.

[joeclarke]

I disagree with unfixed. It much easier to "go with the flow" and to accept the corporate/government line than to consider the difficult possibility that their actions might be well, plain wrong. Particularily in topics like the Iraq invasion where the consequences are so dire to both them (lives) and us (lives and money) and the basic elements seem so intangible and seem to change from time-to-time.

I see some valid observations and well stated opinions from the lone contrarian voice in this thread. I see only mud tossing and name calling from the other side of the fence. You guys are caught up in emotion - wrapping yourselves in the flag a little too tightly.

Besides, we need contrarians if only to revalidate our closely held views. But history generally proves contrarians to be right most of the time - so tread lightly folk. You don't want to look like an idiot to your grandchildren do you?

As to comparisons of the Saddam circumstance to the Adolph circumstance - get a grip Moneyguy1. That is plainly absurd, without insulting anyones intelligence by discussing military capability relative to their place in history.

Before you point the mud pies in my direction - I'm a card carrying rightwinger - so don't start throwing your liberal epithets at me.

I'm new to this board and re-thinking participation in this section. But the other forums seem great.

[WOODPIE]

Joeclarke

Welcome to Off-Topic. Stick around, it's fun here.

Purry

Anymore, I'd have to define terrorism as an over-used politically manipulative description of events or threats, real or imagined. I think it would be better if everyone simply talked in terms of attacks and counter-attacks. You personally might think that a debate in which you try to connect the US enemy's TERROR with the US's own brand of TERROR is an interesting way to point out the error of our ways, but you are only engaging in hair-splitting. And aside from that, you win no one over from the pro-war side, and you supply only weak bile to arm the no-war faction, of which I am one.

As far as stirring up emotions, well, I hope emotions can be held in check long enough for any urge to sue any person or company passes. For you, joeclarke, that is an inside joke. I'm joking. But on the square.


Ed

[vash]

i actually never even mentioned which side of the war i am standing on. i read that same article prior to seeing it here, and i never considered posting a copy here to rile anyone up. for me, this off topic forum is just for fun. i poke my head in here, in between sessions at the tech forum looking for help. joeclark, you are new here, welcome to the board. you mention some history. in time you will see that historically, purrybonker and a few others only seem to post in order to get under our skin.

[tabs]

Moneyguy...I was thinking of William T "war is he!!" Sherman and his march to the sea in 1864 where he burned a swath to the sea.

[Purrybonker]

Well said Woodpie, excellent observations.

[damouth]

So to you guys (wood and purry) intent counts for nothing?

Terrorists that attacked this country and others deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

The American troops are not deliberately harming civilians.

It's the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Granted if you are the person who gets killed, there isn't really any difference... But in the realm of world politics, it does.

You mentioned earlier the infrastructure problems that Iraq currently has, suggesting (in response to my question) that perhaps the Iraqi's were better off without US intervention. If you actually do some research, you'll see that many of these problems already existed.

Additionally you noted that the attacks on the US lead to the conclusion that the population largely doesn't want American influence there. These attacks are not being conducted by a large percentage of the Iraqi people, too the contrary it's a small percentage... AND... many of the new infrastructure problems were created by those self-same internal terrorists. So they aren't just attacking American troops, they are attacking their own people.

Carrying on Saddam's reign...

[Moneyguy1]

Tabs..Good point. General Sherman opened up a whole new chapter in "terrorism" for his time. I was thinking more of European battles, up 'till the Germans found that bombing London from Zepplins was a great way to inflict "terror on the masses". Ahh, civilization....

As for the comparison of Saddam and Hitler...I am not trying to "insult anyone's intelligence", but a true student of History (of which I admit I am not) could point out that, when Herr Adolph started out, Germany was a no-threat nation, having recently been virtually disarmed by the treaty ending WWI. Over time, through intimidation and, yes, the will of the Fuhrer, this small nation developed for its time "weapons of mass destruction" the likes of which the world had never seen. Once developed, leadership declared war on neighbors. In Saddam's case, Kuwait and even Iran, although admittedly with a bit less success than Herr Adolph, probably due in part to lessons learned 60+ years ago by the rest of the world. With the "invention" of Nuclear weaponry, even a small country can become a world wide threat. Agreed? Heck, even a fanatic sect can if they get their hands on the right ingredients. Further comparison between Saddam and Adolph: Mass executions. What else would you like to compare the two with? Total disreguard for human life? The need for absolute power? Rule through intimidation? Preoccupation with amassing weaponry? Although one was far more adept at using these tools than the other. So, Joeclarke, please read my post again. I am not calling anyone names, and I expect the same treatment when I post my views. Like you, I am more of a right winger than anything else, although not so ingrained that I will believe everything and anything that the "powers that be" tell me. And, although I still believe that diplomacy is the first line to be taken, I also believe there is a time to take off the gloves and fight for what I consider to be the right thing to do. So, did I sling mud at anyone? Afraid not. I do not mind a contrarian perspective. It is when a contrarian does it over and over again simply to bait that I object. Remember, there are three sides to each story: Yours, Mine, and ultimately the truth.

So far, a reasonably "civilized" exchange of ideas....It would be nice if it stayed that way....

[tabs]

Money guy...a better analogy for Saddam would be Stalin. Stalin murdered 20 million Russians etc.

Irak turns out to ba a bigger version albeit more wealthy of Haiti under Baby Doc. Infrastructure became nonexistant under their rule...it ultimately was rule by gangsters. I think that was where the USA missed the boat, they didn't comprehend that there was no administration in the country. I think the Bushy administration tried desperately to find something they could latch themselves onto to support in Irak before the invasion..other than the Kurds. There just was no opostion left in the country, the place was in chaos. Anyway you have to give the benfit of doubt to Bush? Also remember the old saying, the plans of mice and men often go wrong. Once the bullets start flying the best laid plans become obsolete. All in all from what we found in Irak, things are going along OK. I had argued earlier that the American people have been so conditioned by one hour episodic TV, that they want everything to nicely tied up and resolved by the time the 11 PM News brodcast is over. Life unfortunatly is more messy than that and doesn't conform to the one hour format.

[widebody911]

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Using violence (or the threat thereof) for the sake of achieving a goal - be it religious, political, or economic - is all terrorism.

Whether it was Allah, Bechtel, or Halliburton that told you to do it is irrelevant.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by damouth
The American troops are not deliberately harming civilians.

Yup, because you can post-humously label them 'insurgents'.

[joeclarke]

oops, sorry about that Moneyguy1.

The bit about flinging mudpies was a new thought addressed to the flingers, not a continuation of the assault on your Saddam/Adolph juxtaposition. You ain't a flinger, I appologize that my statement was received that way. Damn internet, you gotta check twice about how statements are likely to be interpreted.

But I do take exception to the comparison of these two characters because it's just too convenient of a path to the damnation of Saddam. We could find parallels to draw between the founding fathers and Hitler if we really wanted to. It's the evil-by-association thing that must be avoided in a rational view of this issue.

If Hitler = ultimate evil (completely beyond debate) and Saddam pretty much = Hitler (based on these obvious similarities), therefore we are fully justified in doing whatever we want to Saddam et al (and justification for such action is implicitly completely beyond debate).

No, I can't get behind that kinda thinking. And the counter-argument that "those who wont learn from history are..." is just more of the same papshmear AFAIC.

[Moneyguy1]

The comparison re: Saddam vs. Stalin is a valid and very interesting point. There is a series on History International Channel actually put together by the Russians, called "Blood Upon the Snow". Stalin was more into "purges", eliminating anybody he even "thought" was again' him. It was his purge of the military that made Germany think it would be a cakewalk to take over the Soviet Union. Hitler, on the other hand, used the good old tried and true "divide and conquer" philosophy, pitting his minions against each other. However, both of them did eliminate a whole passel of people whose only crime was "being different". In that respect, Saddam, Uncle Joe, and Herr Hitler were a lot alike, although I think that Hitler was a bit less paranoid than the other two, and more cunning. Perhaps we will never know if Iraq's leadership was involved, or was planning things against the continental United States. However, if I were a betting individual, I would not rule out at least the liklihood that there could have been aid given to those who were (and are). No war is a good war; innocents die, and those include the cannon fodder that the leadership send to the battlefront. There are times, though, when resistance to a growing perceived threat is required.

Just my thoughts on a very difficult subject. There are no cut and dry answers. Every time we think we have the answers, we find ourselves simply uncovering other questions.

I agree concerning the conditioning of the American public re: simplistic solutions. People seem to be willing to swallow whatever the press, no matter what their stripe, spews out. Spin is in. An interesting (fictional)story:

Not too long ago, the Russians were bragging about a race horse they had trained, saying it was the best in the world. A U.S. horse trainer, challenged the Russians to a two horse race, and the U.S. horse won. How would the Russian press explain this to their reading public?

"The great Russian horse came in second, while the American horse came in next to last."

As printed, the facts were true, but not honest. Personally, I would love to find a news service that was truly "Fair and Balanced" in its reporting, but we are all human, with built in predujices, bias and opinions.

Cheers, fellas......

[speeder]

Since the right wing seems to survive on BS analogies, how about this one:

Saddam Hussein is exactly like Hitler, if only Hitler had possessed one of the weakest and most incompetent military forces in the developed world, and at the time of our engaging him he was not invading or bothering any other countries, but ten years earlier had invaded Belgium for their chocolate and had been beaten back by the U.S. military in less than 72 hours including mop-up detail. FDR's father had been the president at the time and lost his re-election bid due to general ineptness w/ the domestic economy and other issues, but young FDR, (a former coke-snorting draft-avoider who had never accomplished anything in his life despite having been born on 3rd base), , immediately began planning a military invasion of Germany after his contested election in which vote counting had been stopped by a politically friendly Supreme Court.

Hitler's Germany was at the time inhabited by U.N. inspectors who were doing a competent job of searching for evidence that he might pose a threat to the rest of the world, but so far the evidence was not forthcoming. Young FDR, utilising false intelligence and outright fabrication and lies/exagerations, sounded an alarm to invade Germany immediately, and began the task of recruiting allies. It did not go well, the others asked, "What's the rush? Let the inspectors do their job. He can't do **** while we are in his country with teams of spooks going through his laundry. Why are you so anxious to go straight to war? Many people will die even if it goes well. Take a deep breath, young cowboy who has never been in a war, listen to reason here."

Young FDR ignored their advice and abandoned the U.N. when they would not co-sign his pre-emptive war plan, (while still using the impromptuer of the U.N. in the form of violated resolutions to prosecute his own war), , young FDR squandered 100s of billions of $$ and soldier's lives+ god knows how many German civilians, bankrupted the U.S. economy and we are still there trying to install, (oops, I mean administer), a friendly government 65 years later.

Do you like it?

(Don't get too caught up in the facts/details, that just ruins a perfectly good analogy).

[joeclarke]

Golly gee speeder, that is outright hilarious, no matter what your political stripe!

bravo!

What is it about GWB that makes him so darn laughingly lampoonable? I can't remember a president possessing this quality (?) to such an extent. Well Carter almost...naw.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I do a pretty good Kruschev impression.

[Aurel]

Speeder, your are brilliant, and much more fun to read than the right wingers. I think that is because liberals are more relaxed.
I liked it.

Aurel

[damouth]

Originally posted by Aurel
I think that is because liberals are more relaxed. I liked it.
Aurel

Pshaw. Club a few baby seals for a coat and see how "relaxed" they are.

Originally posted by Widebody

Using violence (or the threat thereof) for the sake of achieving a goal - be it religious, political, or economic - is all terrorism.

Once again I go back to the analogy... Whaddya think of these scenario's widebody?

If someone is attacking your family, is violence to stop it okay? Is it terrorism?

What about if they are attacking your next door neighbor?

What about if the "head of the household" is killing his own children? and threatening to kill the neighbors? and supporting a person who killed one of your family? and has owned lots of rifles but claims to have "gotten rid of them" despite his violent past. Would shooting him to stop him from killing your neighbors or children be terrorism?

Perhaps "Pre-emptive self defense" is a LOT more accurate.

[Aurel]

Damouth,

To answer your analogy is very simple: if someone is attacking your familly after killing all the neighbors, it is perfectly ok to kill him, this is called self defense.

Now, if someone owns lots of guns, and has killed lots of people 10 years ago and scares the hell out of you...well, if you grab your shotgun and go kill him, you would most likely end up in jail. Now, how much you would get depends on your lawyer and you bank account

Aurel

[Aurel]

When I come to think about it, attacking Iraq because some other muslim terrorists from Afghanistan attacked the USA is very much like what the KKK used to do in the past: some black guy had raped a white woman, so all the boyz in town would wear their white robes, go grab another black guy and burn him on a cross to make an example. How about THIS analogy ?

Aurel