|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-19 22:21:47
They are terrorizing the world with their threats and actions. They are using landmines and clusterbombs.
They are invading a country without legal grounds using corrupt evidence.
They are defying Geneva conventions by holding Afghanistan prisoners; purported to be using illegal interrogation methods and are not allowing these prisoner to have family or legal contact.
In Vietnam they used agent orange
in both invasions of Iraq they have been accused of using napalm bombs which are banned.
The USA funds and backs Israel that has an extremely bad human rights record and constantly defies UN resolutions.
Your definition may be different than mine but if their actions terrify many nations without just cause; to me they are terrorists.
My high school French; 40 years ago very rusty and not too trustworthy. In BC little chance to use and retain it.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-21 10:19:27
I agree with you, many nations are terrified without just cause.
I think its just short of nuts to call the US terrorists.
But, as they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist!
I guess it shows that the word terrorism has a wax nose (to steal a line from Luther!)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 12:31:16
Ok, well i'll transalate my definition of a terrorist (i know a lot of people will disagree with me...):
Definition:
Someone or an entity which is NOT resisting invasion and which attacks civilian targets to inspire terror.
So in this category we have:
- Hamas / Islamic Jihad when it attacks Israel (it is not terrorism if Hamas resists military invasion in palestinian territory).
- The Basks(spelling?) separatists (ETA) when they attack anyone - even police (The Bask province is part of Spain since a very long time ago - so its not resistance).
- Al-Qaeda attacking anyone - even soldiers since they're not resiting any invasion, they only wish to kill people.
...
So in this category we don't have:
- The Iraqis who blew themselves up in Iraq, they were resisting invasion.
- Hezbollah (when they were resisting the invasion of Lebanon - how they are rated today is another story)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 19:24:47
..."- The Iraqis who blew themselves up in Iraq, they were resisting invasion."...
I think there is one point here you may not have noticed.
Saddam couldn't get many Iraqi's to become Suicide bombers so he imported them from Islamic Jihad and Syria. Take a moment and look up Iraqi suicide bombers and you will see this trend. There was an article in the Washington post about this but I don't have a link available.
I think one of the most telling quotes came from an Iraqi citizen who said," Where were all these suicide bombers when we struggled against Saddam?"
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 06:53:12
Yes, they may be a terrorist organisation, but i don't consider their actions on Iraqi soil terrorist actions, they were clearly trying to 'help' the government defending their territory...
Regarding the validity of that government, thats another story...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-24 22:51:31
Not that it really matters but they came on their own; Saddam didn't import them. Seemingly the type of religion of most Iraqis does not condone suicide, for any cause.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-22 15:40:16
I would add the IRA who seem delighted to blow up children on their way to school.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-23 02:55:18
My list was incomplete, and i agree with you... I think the IRA and the ETA are on the same level...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-23 22:19:50
The USA is not resisting invasion; what do you think shock and awe was.
Custer bombs were dropped in a civillian site.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-24 10:13:18
By accident I'm sure. Cluster bombs should be illegal, but that does not make you a terrorist... Unless you specifically target civilians with cluster bombs. I do not believe the US would do that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-24 23:45:19
No, it was deliberate; they were targetting one of Saddams group's house and decided it was acceptable collateral damage. At least that was what was printed; can't remember the source at the moment so it is possible it is misinformation but????
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-25 10:06:35
Did they want to kill civilians? - The answer is no. There may be civilians which will die, but that is war...
When a member of Hamas goes into Israel and blows himself up, he deliberately targets civilians...
I don't think you can even compare the two...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-26 00:35:34
But they knew they would; to me that's just as bad as they were only targetting one man; this particular attack was not important enough to justify the risk. It didn't lessen any dangers or shorten the war. Especially when they used cluster bombs which can leave explosive devices undetected for years to kill innocent children, civilians or animals. They could have used safer weapons. So it is still reckless endangermentat best. Cluster bombs besides leaving residual bombettes spread further and are inaccurate. For me, it is worse; because I expect our friends and neighbours from a well civillized and democratic country to use more compassion and control
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-26 16:39:53
"...this particular attack was not important enough to justify the risk..."
I don't know, what particular attack are we talking aboout anyways? What was the target? In all cases, it maybe immoral and criminal to use cluster bombs (in my view, a bit like using land mines), but its not a terrorist act!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-26 21:34:41
It was a home of one of Saddams ministers, I believe. Call it what you like; yes, It has been suggested that it fits into the war crime field. It does fit your definition of terrorism as far as I can discern. If the questionable attacks on 3 separate journalist housings within a short period was deliberate; would you then define it as terrorism or would that be allowed because they are journalists?
If there is any difference between the two attacks it is a fine line with the same results of killing and maiming innocent children women, and civilians
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-27 02:45:13
I looked up terrorism and terrorists on MSN Learning and Research. By their definition: America is not a terrorist but they do practice terrorism?
Terrorist: the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change; non governmental group.
Terrorism: word used in France to describe new system of government adapted during the French Revolution; The Regime de la Terreur. The reign og terror was intended to promote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its enemies and therebu purifying it. However, the oppression and violent excesses of the government made terorism the negative word it is today.
The present American Administration to me closely follows the path of the "Reign of Terror" with the same aims.
They only escape the terrorist label as they are a government.
I do want to reassert that my disapproval is not with the American public but with the aggressiveness and failure to consider international opinion of the present USA administration. I think it is a wake up call to Canada and the world to strengthen the UN; that USA as the only super power could have devastating effects. There is always a possibility of another more aggressive and dangerous administration of the USA that could
further aggravate International relations and peaceful solutions
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-27 16:59:37
I did not know terrorism comes from Le Regime de la Terreur! Thanks for the information, well for me, by telling me that you've convinced me of the opposite... Le Régime de la terreur was after the French Revolution - and if i recall my history correctly, if you did not think *exactly* like the the "patriots", you'd simple have your head cut off!!! So i stand by what i said, the US is not terrorist, they do restort to illegal acts, but i don`t consider that terrorism...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-27 03:30:33
It may fit into a war crime if it was illegal, but its not - i do consider it criminal, but since there is no law against it, i can't say anything. We're talking about cluster bombs here, right? Not journalists...
If the target is military, but there are also civilian deaths, its not a crime! Its called war! If the targets are civilian and there is no military objective its a war crime and can also be called a terrorist act. but even there, its not certain.
I guess then when the allied bombed German cities to demolarize the population, it was also a war crime? The goal was to avoid a long war so that the government would surrender. And using the atomic bomb in Japan was also a war crime? Avoided a lengthy war also. I'm not saying they are not war crimes, but i'm not saying they are either... It depends on the context, and you really to think hard before saying this is a terrorist act, and a war crime,etc...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-27 16:33:15
This was not a "war"; no war was declared. It is an illegal invasion; but only Blair can be tried for war crime under the UN as Britain did sign on to the ICC. The USA may escape any possible charges as neither the USA or Iraq signed on to the ICC.
World War II did not have any UN; it was formed after to avoid a repetition. Previously, only the losers have ever faced any prosecution.
I don't believe Germany or Japan is relevant as they were the aggressors and started the attacks; completely different story. I had hoped, we had learned from the devastation in Japan not to employ such measures; but I did read that American Military was prepared to use nuclear bombs in raq if Saddam used Chemical weapons. I am also disturbed to read that American ammunition contains plutonium that may be the cause of the illness in American military from the previous war on Iraq.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-30 08:31:09
..."World War II did not have any UN;"...
Hi there, I would ask that you look into the Leage of Nations.
http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/836.html
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 12:31:55
Ok, well i'll transalate my definition of a terrorist (i know a lot of people will disagree with me...):
Definition:
Someone or an entity which is NOT resisting invasion and which attacks civilian targets to inspire terror.
So in this category we have:
- Hamas / Islamic Jihad when it attacks Israel (it is not terrorism if Hamas resists military invasion in palestinian territory).
- The Basks(spelling?) separatists (ETA) when they attack anyone - even police (The Bask province is part of Spain since a very long time ago - so its not resistance).
- Al-Qaeda attacking anyone - even soldiers since they're not resiting any invasion, they only wish to kill people.
...
So in this category we don't have:
- The Iraqis who blew themselves up in Iraq, they were resisting invasion.
- Hezbollah (when they were resisting the invasion of Lebanon - how they are rated today is another story)
The US is NOT in the terrorist category according to my definition.
Reply to this message
|
|
