U.S. Terrorism Policy Spawns Steady Staff Exodus - 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 04-21-2004, 02:08 PM   #16
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


"Terrorism" is the new "Red Scare." So, rather than blaming all the evils of the world on "communists," now it is time to blame all the evils of the world on "terrorists." It is so easy to oversimplify conflicts and dehumanize your opponents this way.

Melon

EXACTLY
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 06:46 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TylerDurden


__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 07:02 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


"Terrorism" is the new "Red Scare." So, rather than blaming all the evils of the world on "communists," now it is time to blame all the evils of the world on "terrorists." It is so easy to oversimplify conflicts and dehumanize your opponents this way.

Melon

Oh, I'm sorry that I called the "freedom fighters" of fulluja terrorist. After all its not terrorism to murder civilians helping to transport food and then cut their bodies up and hang them on a bridge, right? Its not terrorism to attack Iraqi civilians and the coalition soldiers that are helping them build a new country after Saddam, is it? Its not terrorism to blow up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, right? Its not terrorism to massacre people during a religious event, right? Its not terrorism to murder a Shia religious leader because of political differences, right? Its not terrorism to attack and murder dozens of Iraqi's waiting in line to start training as policeman, right?

These are all examples of legitimate resistence of "freedom fighters", right?

Anyone who would call the above actions terrorism has a very simplistic view of things indeed, right?

There must be some way to explain the above actions as the actions of freedom fighters and not terrorist, right?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 07:10 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TylerDurden


You would call the uprising problems in Iraq at the moment a terrorist problem?!?
Yes, and I think most people would as well unless you have a different way of describing people who murder people transporting food and cut their bodies up and hang them on a bridge, or murder Iraqi citizens waiting in line to become Police, or murder humanitarian workers rebuilding communities ravaged by years of Saddam's rule, or attack and murder of coalition troops in the country engaged in trying to produce a standard of living that Iraq has never seen.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 07:16 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Oh, I'm sorry that I called the "freedom fighters" of fulluja terrorist. After all its not terrorism to murder civilians helping to transport food and then cut their bodies up and hang them on a bridge, right? Its not terrorism to attack Iraqi civilians and the coalition soldiers that are helping them build a new country after Saddam, is it? Its not terrorism to blow up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, right? Its not terrorism to massacre people during a religious event, right? Its not terrorism to murder a Shia religious leader because of political differences, right? Its not terrorism to attack and murder dozens of Iraqi's waiting in line to start training as policeman, right?

These are all examples of legitimate resistence of "freedom fighters", right?

Anyone who would call the above actions terrorism has a very simplistic view of things indeed, right?

There must be some way to explain the above actions as the actions of freedom fighters and not terrorist, right?
See what I mean? The neocon world is completely black-and-white. "Terrorists" or "freedom fighters." Just because Dubya declared the war over doesn't mean it is over. What Iraq has degenerated into is guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. The U.S. is a foreign occupier, and whether guerrilla warfare is justified or not is not the question I am asking or answering. But that is what it is--not terrorism.

Needless to say, this kind of degeneration is precisely what the left predicted. Dubya and his crew of ideologues just thought that this would be a simple conflict, where soldiers would just roll over and play dead. But that is not how a war operates, and we had best stop abusing the word "terrorist" to the point of idiocy the same way previous generations abused the word "communist." That's how we got into this mess to begin with.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 07:30 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:19 PM
We've got a mix of things here and all sides are over simplifying the labels. Terrorist attacks in the south (police station bombings), radical muslim uprisings in Fulluja, Syrian (and others) mercenaries (?).

There is no coordinated represented army taking on the US. This is a collection of various factions, each with their own ideas, trying to exert or take power over areas with fear.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 07:54 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


See what I mean? The neocon world is completely black-and-white. "Terrorists" or "freedom fighters." Just because Dubya declared the war over doesn't mean it is over. What Iraq has degenerated into is guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. The U.S. is a foreign occupier, and whether guerrilla warfare is justified or not is not the question I am asking or answering. But that is what it is--not terrorism.

Needless to say, this kind of degeneration is precisely what the left predicted. Dubya and his crew of ideologues just thought that this would be a simple conflict, where soldiers would just roll over and play dead. But that is not how a war operates, and we had best stop abusing the word "terrorist" to the point of idiocy the same way previous generations abused the word "communist." That's how we got into this mess to begin with.

Melon
George Bush NEVER declared that any war was over. Thats just more horse dung from the left.

The United States along with 36 other countries are helping rebuild Iraq with the Approval of 3 United Nations Security Council resolutions!

By your definition should we call the actions of Humas and Hezbollah "guerrilla warfare". Is the bombing of Israely teens listening to U2 in a club, "guerrilla warfare"?

Do you honestly consider the murder of aid workers transporting food and the subsequent mutilation of their bodies to be "Guerilla warfare" but not terrorism?



The left predicted that a million people would die in the invasion of Iraq and that millions more would be refugees. They were flat out wrong.

There is no mass uprising in Iraq but there are terrorist and Saddam loyalist that the Bush administration has always aknowledged.

The fact based on latest polls done is that unlike the "Left" most Iraqi's support what the Coalition did in invading Iraq last year. Most Iraqi's feel life is better for them now than before the war.

Those are just a few facts that the "Left" should stop and think about.

Before the "Left" attempts to re-write history again, lets remember that the United States and other countries with the approval of the UN have had a serious policy to contain and disarm Saddam for the past 12 years. This is not something that just came up after 9/11. In light of the failures of prior actions in attempting to disarm Saddam as required by UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceace Fire, the Coalition took the necessary action to achieve the objectives of the United Nations in regards to Saddam and Iraq.

The Liberal Left had it wrong in the Cold War just as they do today. Pretending the threat does not exist will not make it go away. Flower power does not work with terrorist and dictators. The use of military force is sometimes necessary and it is a must that the military remain strong and capable of insuring national and international security.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 08:57 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
George Bush NEVER declared that any war was over. Thats just more horse dung from the left.


That's right. His announcement last year was just more agitprop...declaring the war is over implicitly using inexplicit language.

Quote:
The United States along with 36 other countries are helping rebuild Iraq with the Approval of 3 United Nations Security Council resolutions!
Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Quote:
By your definition should we call the actions of Humas and Hezbollah "guerrilla warfare". Is the bombing of Israely teens listening to U2 in a club, "guerrilla warfare"?
More neocon polarization. Iraq is not Israel. Not all Arabs are Hamas and Hezbollah. And neither of these groups are in Iraq, nor has the U.S. invaded either Israel or Palestine.

Quote:
Do you honestly consider the murder of aid workers transporting food and the subsequent mutilation of their bodies to be "Guerilla warfare" but not terrorism?
They are in a war zone. Only horse dung said that the war was over, remember?

Quote:
The left predicted that a million people would die in the invasion of Iraq and that millions more would be refugees. They were flat out wrong.
And Bush thought the U.S. could walk into Iraq, make a short little war, and all the ayatollahs in the Iraq would just roll over and thank him.

Quote:
There is no mass uprising in Iraq but there are terrorist and Saddam loyalist that the Bush administration has always aknowledged.
Nope...guerrilla warfare from a war.

Quote:
The fact based on latest polls done is that unlike the "Left" most Iraqi's support what the Coalition did in invading Iraq last year. Most Iraqi's feel life is better for them now than before the war.
Polls smollz. We aren't talking about popular conceptions, nor are we talking about this subject whatsoever. I'm sure the vast majority of Vietnamese weren't soldiers either, but that didn't mean that all of the Viet Cong were "terrorists"--although I'm sure that if Bush were president then, he would have tried.

Quote:
Before the "Left" attempts to re-write history again, lets remember that the United States and other countries with the approval of the UN have had a serious policy to contain and disarm Saddam for the past 12 years. This is not something that just came up after 9/11. In light of the failures of prior actions in attempting to disarm Saddam as required by UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceace Fire, the Coalition took the necessary action to achieve the objectives of the United Nations in regards to Saddam and Iraq.
"The Coalition"...you mean, the U.S.?

Quote:
The Liberal Left had it wrong in the Cold War just as they do today. Pretending the threat does not exist will not make it go away. Flower power does not work with terrorist and dictators. The use of military force is sometimes necessary and it is a must that the military remain strong and capable of insuring national and international security.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. You've diverted from the subject yet again. Questioning Generalissimo Bush on *anything* seems to hit a nerve with you. I wasn't making a value judgment on the war; only with the language describing it. And since you have trouble reading what I have been trying to say, allow me to point it out for you:

Calling the insurgents in Iraq "terrorists" is a blatant abuse of the word.

So focus on that, and stop the rest of the neocon propaganda. We can tackle that crap on a later date.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-21-2004, 11:23 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Didn't Bush play pilot and stand in front of a huge banner that said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 04-22-2004, 12:21 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:19 AM
melon,

"That's right. His announcement last year was just more agitprop...declaring the war is over implicitly using inexplicit language."

Bush announced on the Aircraft Carrier last May that major military operations in regards to the removal of Saddam's regime were over.

But the left will twist that to fit whatever angle they want to try in attacking Bush.

"Yadda, yadda, yadda..."

A nice response to factual information.

"More neocon polarization. Iraq is not Israel. Not all Arabs are Hamas and Hezbollah. And neither of these groups are in Iraq, nor has the U.S. invaded either Israel or Palestine."

#1 I did not say Iraq was Israel.

#2 I did not say all Arabs are Hamas and Hezbollah.

#3 There are elements in Iraq that may have dealings with Hamas and Hezbollah or are in fact members. 20% of the insurgents in Falluja are from outside of Iraq.

The Question was:

By your definition should we call the actions of Humas and Hezbollah "guerrilla warfare". Is the bombing of Israely teens listening to U2 in a club, "guerrilla warfare"?



"They are in a war zone. Only horse dung said that the war was over, remember?"

the question was:

Do you honestly consider the murder of aid workers transporting food and the subsequent mutilation of their bodies to be "Guerilla warfare" but not terrorism?


"And Bush thought the U.S. could walk into Iraq, make a short little war, and all the ayatollahs in the Iraq would just roll over and thank him."

The Bush administration has accomplished multiple US and international objectives toward Iraq that the prior administration failed to do. George Bush never said "short little war" or that the development of Iraq would be easy. He never said the troops would be home by Christmas or anything like that.



"Polls smollz. We aren't talking about popular conceptions, nor are we talking about this subject whatsoever. I'm sure the vast majority of Vietnamese weren't soldiers either, but that didn't mean that all of the Viet Cong were "terrorists"--although I'm sure that if Bush were president then, he would have tried."


The polls are accurate information and a good indicator of conditions and progress in Iraq. I guess its not surprising the "Left" would dismiss such facts as they certainly do not bolster the image of total failure that they try to paint on everything Bush does.

The majority of Vietnamese were not soldiers or Vietcong. Having read and heard what the Vietcong typically did to South Vietnamese citizens in towns they took, I would indeed consider them terrorist.


" "The Coalition"...you mean, the U.S.?"

Ok, you don't consider it a coalition, please tell me what a "coalition" would be then. Be specific and provide an historical example.

"Yadda, yadda, yadda. You've diverted from the subject yet again. Questioning Generalissimo Bush on *anything* seems to hit a nerve with you. I wasn't making a value judgment on the war; only with the language describing it. And since you have trouble reading what I have been trying to say, allow me to point it out for you:"

I was responding to the Cold War stuff you brought up into this as well as making a general point.

I've already provided several examples as to why the use of the word terrorist, describing the enemy in Iraq, is not at all a blatant abuse of the word.

You didn't answer my specific questions in regards to what terrorism is?

Do you consider Hamas to be terrorist?

Do you consider the IRA to be terrorist?

Do you consider the Taliban to be terrorist?

Do you consider ETA to be terrorist?

Do you consider all the members of Al Quada to be terrorist?

What is your definition of terrorism and why is it that people who murder people transporting food and mutilate their bodies are not terrorist?

Do you think the 18 childern that were killed on their school bus in Basra yesterday died as a result of an act other than terrorism?
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 11:19 PM.


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