Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

The Three Pillars

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

Canada, for peace, against harmful inequality

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

Show in topic

Canada, for peace, against harmful inequality

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

Canada, for peace, against harmful inequality

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

Canada, for peace, against harmful inequality

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 R�gime 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

Canada, for peace, against harmful inequality

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

Canada, for peace, against harmful inequality

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

Canada, for peace, against harmful inequality

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

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic