Resistance Fighters or Terrorists? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-15-2004, 06:03 AM   #16
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Celticfc
One man's terrorist is another man's freedon fighter.

IMO they are not terrorists but are fighting against a foreign invader.

If the US was invaded and you took up arms, would you be a terrorist.
Countries fighting against each other have regular soldiers in the regular armed forces who unfortunately have to fight and kill other soldiers in wartime, taking extra special care NOT to harm the civillian population.

Terrorists, on the other hand, TARGET civillians and, unlike regular armies, they are scattered in different areas and strike without warning and without differentiating between a soldier in uniform and a 3 month old baby in a carriage on a bus.

Exactly what freedom are these "Freedom fighters" fighting for? The freedom to keep terrorizing people? The freedom to hinder any effort to bring stability to their own country? The freedom to keep siphoning money and resources to fund their campaigns of violence?

No sir.....these are TERRORISTS in every sense of the word.
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 09:27 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
Countries fighting against each other have regular soldiers in the regular armed forces who unfortunately have to fight and kill other soldiers in wartime, taking extra special care NOT to harm the civillian population.
Not always. There are numerous examples of armies deliberately targeting civilians. Take WWII for example: would you say that the armies who bombed cities with the intention of causing civilian casualties weren't really armies but were terrorists? How about Vietnam - are the US army terrorists because of the occassions when they attacked civilians?
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 09:46 AM   #18
Acrobat
 
Celticfc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Califuckinfornia
Posts: 417
Local Time: 07:39 AM
and 1000lb bomb dont kill babies.

and uranium tipped shells dont cause birth defects.

My opinion is that they are fighting a foreign invader and you wont change that.

You would do the same.
__________________
Celticfc is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 10:39 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:39 AM
DEPLEATED URANIUM!! for crying out loud, it a very dense and easy to use in armaments metal which is relatively inexpensive (unlike tungsten) that is capable of punching holes into the sides of tanks and armoured vehicles, these weapons are not used by soldiers against civilians but fired from aircraft when engaging amour, they work well and enable the USA to dominate the battlefield of the ground from the air.

Now here is what the IAEA says about DU
Quote:
depleted uranium (DU) from munitions used in the 1991 Gulf War does not pose a radiological hazard
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/index.shtml

There is minimal credible scientific evidence that the dispersal of fine DU particles has created the cancers and birth defects we see in Southern Iraq, you must remember that Saddam polluted Iraq with loads of chemicals and the southern marshlands were decimated by him, not to mention the additional dispersal of chemical weapons that no doubt occured during the Iraq/Iran War which could account for the observed anomolies.

Bombs kill people, sure thats what they are designed to do but it's where you target them that makes the difference. Unlike Arab armies (I cite the shelling of W-Jerusalem and Iraqi fighter planes strafing Kibbutz's during the 6 day war as an example of this, an act which gave Israel the right to retalliate against civilian centres in Damascus and Cairo but one it did not take) we do not purposely target civilians, people are killed when bombing occurs and mistakes are made but this is the cost of liberation, warfare kills civilians it is an unavoidable concequince of it and that is why it should never be taken upon lightly. Those 10,000 innoncent people died in the war so that others can live in peace and prosperity in the long run. Do you shed those same crocodile tears for the 200,000 innocent people exhumed from mass graves in the southern sands or those who suffered true torture at the hands of this regime, I repeat the story that the leader of a regime victims society told a reporter in Baghdad about how a man who refused to submit had his pregnant wife taken in front of him then raped by the Mukhbarat thugs until she would miscarry, when that failed they resorted to using a knife and it gets a little brutal therin, it ends with an Iraqi Intelligence Brute killing a baby outside its mothers womb, is that the same thing as having a child die in a strike against a nearby armament dump placed there by the Baathists to ensure maximum civilian casualites at the hands (so to speak) of coalition forces? That story is unexptional in Iraq, they are a people paralysed by fear after a quarter of a century of true terrorism. Grow up and learn about the world before dragging an unfounded view of US War = Bad but Arab Brutality against own people = Indifference into the world.

These people are terrorists who seek to brutalize and maim their "own people", they are not freedom fighters or minutemen, they are murderers, thugs and criminals and should be condemed by all civilized peoples of the world.

Crimes comitted by forces acting on behalf of a state actor are categorized as War Crimes, some US Soldiers did commit war crimes in Vietnam, There have been many questionable actions including WW2 where the Western allies firebombed German cities (of course after the Blitz Bomber Command was simply returning the Favour) the USSR was an obvious abuser who conquered in a manner fitting Ghengis Khan, they raped and pillaged Germany and took all industrial equipment in the name of reparations. These would all fall under war crimes not terrorism. Blowing up buildings intending to murder civilians to acheive status for ones cause, Beheadding captured hostages, Shelling innocent civilians and the methods of the insurgency in Iraq is not performed by a state actor or those openly declared to be representing one, hence they are terrorists. I take solice that even though many in the west see them as brave and heroic freedom fighters the Iraqi people are sick of seeing violence, they do not want their blood spilled again in the name of a holy war, every life that the terrorists take it turns another family against them, the tide is turning and it will be the Iraqi Government, elected by the people to serve the people that will be victorious and in another decade when the country is peaceful and prosperous and their duly elected government is heading into another election history will be the judge of who was on the side of good and who was not.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 09:22 PM   #20
Acrobat
 
Celticfc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Califuckinfornia
Posts: 417
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Sounds like a WMD to me.

"its where you target them that makes the difference"

Like wedding celebrations.

America and the Brits turned a blind eye to the crimes of Saddam, why the change of mind now.

America has used WMD and chemical weapons(agent orange)
Does that make it ok for someone to invade the US?

America is holding prisoners in Cuba without charge or trial, somehow I think other countries would not get away with that.
Well except Britain who done it in Ireland in the 70s

Just to let you know I live in the US, I am married to an American and I love the country and the people.

Grow up and learn about the world before dragging an unfounded view of US War

War my feckin arse and yet again no need to for the grow up shite. I have my opinions if you dont like them thats to bad.
I am not going to change my mind because you reply with a big feckin essay.






Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
DEPLEATED URANIUM!! for crying out loud, it a very dense and easy to use in armaments metal which is relatively inexpensive (unlike tungsten) that is capable of punching holes into the sides of tanks and armoured vehicles, these weapons are not used by soldiers against civilians but fired from aircraft when engaging amour, they work well and enable the USA to dominate the battlefield of the ground from the air.

Now here is what the IAEA says about DU

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/index.shtml

There is minimal credible scientific evidence that the dispersal of fine DU particles has created the cancers and birth defects we see in Southern Iraq, you must remember that Saddam polluted Iraq with loads of chemicals and the southern marshlands were decimated by him, not to mention the additional dispersal of chemical weapons that no doubt occured during the Iraq/Iran War which could account for the observed anomolies.

Bombs kill people, sure thats what they are designed to do but it's where you target them that makes the difference. Unlike Arab armies (I cite the shelling of W-Jerusalem and Iraqi fighter planes strafing Kibbutz's during the 6 day war as an example of this, an act which gave Israel the right to retalliate against civilian centres in Damascus and Cairo but one it did not take) we do not purposely target civilians, people are killed when bombing occurs and mistakes are made but this is the cost of liberation, warfare kills civilians it is an unavoidable concequince of it and that is why it should never be taken upon lightly. Those 10,000 innoncent people died in the war so that others can live in peace and prosperity in the long run. Do you shed those same crocodile tears for the 200,000 innocent people exhumed from mass graves in the southern sands or those who suffered true torture at the hands of this regime, I repeat the story that the leader of a regime victims society told a reporter in Baghdad about how a man who refused to submit had his pregnant wife taken in front of him then raped by the Mukhbarat thugs until she would miscarry, when that failed they resorted to using a knife and it gets a little brutal therin, it ends with an Iraqi Intelligence Brute killing a baby outside its mothers womb, is that the same thing as having a child die in a strike against a nearby armament dump placed there by the Baathists to ensure maximum civilian casualites at the hands (so to speak) of coalition forces? That story is unexptional in Iraq, they are a people paralysed by fear after a quarter of a century of true terrorism. Grow up and learn about the world before dragging an unfounded view of US War = Bad but Arab Brutality against own people = Indifference into the world.

These people are terrorists who seek to brutalize and maim their "own people", they are not freedom fighters or minutemen, they are murderers, thugs and criminals and should be condemed by all civilized peoples of the world.

Crimes comitted by forces acting on behalf of a state actor are categorized as War Crimes, some US Soldiers did commit war crimes in Vietnam, There have been many questionable actions including WW2 where the Western allies firebombed German cities (of course after the Blitz Bomber Command was simply returning the Favour) the USSR was an obvious abuser who conquered in a manner fitting Ghengis Khan, they raped and pillaged Germany and took all industrial equipment in the name of reparations. These would all fall under war crimes not terrorism. Blowing up buildings intending to murder civilians to acheive status for ones cause, Beheadding captured hostages, Shelling innocent civilians and the methods of the insurgency in Iraq is not performed by a state actor or those openly declared to be representing one, hence they are terrorists. I take solice that even though many in the west see them as brave and heroic freedom fighters the Iraqi people are sick of seeing violence, they do not want their blood spilled again in the name of a holy war, every life that the terrorists take it turns another family against them, the tide is turning and it will be the Iraqi Government, elected by the people to serve the people that will be victorious and in another decade when the country is peaceful and prosperous and their duly elected government is heading into another election history will be the judge of who was on the side of good and who was not.
__________________
Celticfc is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 12:30 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Yeah those wedding celebrations in Iraq at 2:00 in the morning where there are only men inside a house filled with weapons, explosives, drugs, fake passports and money. Those are the usual Iraqi wedding's.

A WMD is a Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapon. DU fits none of those categories so how is it a WMD?

America tollerated Saddam in the 1980's because he was just like any other Arab dicator, after he invaded Kuwait they had had enough but having driven him out the world wasn't ready to remove him, that is when Sanctions took effect and that is where the long and arduous process of disarment by UNSCOM began. Saddam didn't properly disarm he obfuscated and eventually kicked the inspectors out in 1998, Bill Clinton was ready to invade Iraq after operation Desert Fox but he was prevented by the UN, in the subsequent 5 years it was the stated policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq, it was late by about a decade but it happened and it is a good thing.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 09:52 AM   #22
Acrobat
 
Celticfc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Califuckinfornia
Posts: 417
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Fox news tell you this story or maybe abc or nbc.

Saddam was led to believe by the US that they wouldnt do anything if he invaded Iraq.
Also when reports came in on the news about the build up of Iraq troops the satelite pics did not show anything of the sort.

America and the Brits have been bombing Iraq on a daily basis since the end of the gulf war.

I still think DU are WMD's.

Stated policy of the neo cons. Try reading A project for a new american century, this is the only thing we agree on.

They state in that report that America would need another pearl harbour for their policies to be carried out.






Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Yeah those wedding celebrations in Iraq at 2:00 in the morning where there are only men inside a house filled with weapons, explosives, drugs, fake passports and money. Those are the usual Iraqi wedding's.

A WMD is a Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapon. DU fits none of those categories so how is it a WMD?

America tollerated Saddam in the 1980's because he was just like any other Arab dicator, after he invaded Kuwait they had had enough but having driven him out the world wasn't ready to remove him, that is when Sanctions took effect and that is where the long and arduous process of disarment by UNSCOM began. Saddam didn't properly disarm he obfuscated and eventually kicked the inspectors out in 1998, Bill Clinton was ready to invade Iraq after operation Desert Fox but he was prevented by the UN, in the subsequent 5 years it was the stated policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq, it was late by about a decade but it happened and it is a good thing.
__________________
Celticfc is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 10:16 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:39 AM
April Glaspie sent mixed messages just prior to the invasion of Kuwait, that was a failure of diplomacy but hardly a nod to invade. There was a definite buildup of forces prior to the invasion of Kuwait however the original Bush administration still thought that Saddam was telling the truth to Hosni Mubbarak when he said it was a ruse and it was designed to stop Kuwaiti oil flooding the country.

The no-fly zones within Iraq were maintained to prevent Saddam from being able to massacre his own people again, this was part of the containment but the whole operation failed to remove the regime, it was better to remove him outright in a war thus ending the ongoing need to have US troops in Saudi Arabia (the original aim of Al Qaeda was removal of troops from Saudi Arabia now that has been done - and yet Al Qaeda still exists).

PNAC does lay out some good arguments about the use of American Power in a unipower world, now this last piece where you allude to another Pearl Harbour, are you trying to say that the neoconservatives were behind 9/11 in some way.

Can you tell me why DU is a WMD when it is clearly a conventional armament.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 08:45 PM   #24
Acrobat
 
Celticfc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Califuckinfornia
Posts: 417
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Im saying nothing about who I think was behind 9/11.

Here is one article about DU

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...106672,00.html

Now that I know that you are in agreement with the neocons as I thought all along this thread is dead.


Slan





Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
April Glaspie sent mixed messages just prior to the invasion of Kuwait, that was a failure of diplomacy but hardly a nod to invade. There was a definite buildup of forces prior to the invasion of Kuwait however the original Bush administration still thought that Saddam was telling the truth to Hosni Mubbarak when he said it was a ruse and it was designed to stop Kuwaiti oil flooding the country.

The no-fly zones within Iraq were maintained to prevent Saddam from being able to massacre his own people again, this was part of the containment but the whole operation failed to remove the regime, it was better to remove him outright in a war thus ending the ongoing need to have US troops in Saudi Arabia (the original aim of Al Qaeda was removal of troops from Saudi Arabia now that has been done - and yet Al Qaeda still exists).

PNAC does lay out some good arguments about the use of American Power in a unipower world, now this last piece where you allude to another Pearl Harbour, are you trying to say that the neoconservatives were behind 9/11 in some way.

Can you tell me why DU is a WMD when it is clearly a conventional armament.
__________________
Celticfc is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 03:39 AM   #25
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 343
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Celticfc


My main arguement is the moral highground the US & the Brits take.
I know Sadaam is a complete nut but he was an alright nutjob until he went against the US.
I dont know anythin about the Russians using chemical weapons.
America has used chemical weapons and WMD also.
Wasnt Khomeni put in power by the US after the got rid of the Shah.
I know we are not going to agree anyways so is there any point going on with this.

All Ill say about 9/11 is I dont think a wee guy in a cave could mastermind that plot. Saying nothin else on the matter, big brother might be watchin.

watch out orange alert. be scared, be controlled.
Keep an eye out for those black helicopters, they're coming after you!
__________________
MSU2mike is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 07:04 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Celticfc
War my feckin arse and yet again no need to for the grow up shite. I have my opinions if you dont like them thats to bad.
I am not going to change my mind because you reply with a big feckin essay.
I respect the essay....its posts filled with inaccuracies that I cannot stand.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 10:44 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:39 PM
These people aren't just going to go away, either. They'll be around carrying their guns for God knows how long. Depressing.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com