Vader said:Again, the fact that you go a long way to call America a terrorist state, especially calling the actions of the coalition forces in Iraq "terrorism" even though those forces entered during a time of WAR, which means that THEY [coalition forces], BY DEFINITION, ARE NOT PRACTICING TERRORISM, BUT ARE OCCUPYING A COUNTY DURING THE PROCCESS OF AN ARMED CONFLICT, is absoulute foolishness. The fact that you think this is a terrorist action tells me you're a terrorist or at best a terrorist supporter.
I realize you and your islamic buddies are mad at the coaltion, because the presence of coalition forces in Iraq keeps Iran's terrorist asses from invading and implementing their criminal facist islamic nazism.
As to my mentality, I must confess that I am passionate about this subject so naturally, like any other patriot, I get upset when the supporters of islamic theocracy and terrorism have the sheer, unmittigated gaul to call my homeland a "terrorist" country.
I am sorry to have to tell you this, Mustafa, but it's perfectly clear that you are a supporter of islamic fundemantilism; or as it's better known "TERRORISM."
Vader said:Dave,
1.) What happened in 1944 is IRRELEVENT. Had we known what the weapon was capable of it would not have been used. Also, Japan started that war and then got their ass handed to them. If you don't like it TOUGH ****.
2. The coalition forces DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN FALUJAH. The fact that you believe this utter nonsense is proof that you're brainwashed. He's a clue: STOP WATCHING AL JAZEERA!
3. The U.S. does not support dictatorships. During the course of world events, the U.S. has put people into power WHO BECAME DICTATORS.
4. The U.S. DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ. If you believe this, you're an imbecile.
Vader said:Again, the fact that you go a long way to call America a terrorist state, especially calling the actions of the coalition forces in Iraq "terrorism" even though those forces entered during a time of WAR, which means that THEY [coalition forces], BY DEFINITION, ARE NOT PRACTICING TERRORISM, BUT ARE OCCUPYING A COUNTY DURING THE PROCCESS OF AN ARMED CONFLICT, is absoulute foolishness. The fact that you think this is a terrorist action tells me you're a terrorist or at best a terrorist supporter.
I realize you and your islamic buddies are mad at the coaltion, because the presence of coalition forces in Iraq keeps Iran's terrorist asses from invading and implementing their criminal facist islamic nazism.
As to my mentality, I must confess that I am passionate about this subject so naturally, like any other patriot, I get upset when the supporters of islamic theocracy and terrorism have the sheer, unmittigated gaul to call my homeland a "terrorist" country.
I am sorry to have to tell you this, Mustafa, but it's perfectly clear that you are a supporter of islamic fundemantilism; or as it's better known "TERRORISM."
As regards 1944 america knew full well the effect the bomb
oldreliable67 said:Yes, we did. And the bombs were used anyway. And they were used not serendipitously, but after careful consideration of the tradeoff between Japanese lives lost from the bombs versus American lives lost if we had to invade the Japanese homeland (which it was felt that we would have to do to end the war). After the first bomb was dropped, an ultimatum was given to the Japanese, warning that a second bomb would be dropped if they did not surrender. They did not. So the second bomb was dropped. They got the message and surrendered. The second bomb would have never been used had the Japanese not been as fanatical as they were at that point in time.
The point is: A lot of comments about this, that and the other from years ago are being thrown around here, most with at best only cursory examination of the history and facts surrounding the various events. From this wonderful vantage point called hindsight, especially with our tendency to revise history so that it fits our particular perceptions, which go right along with our selective memories.
kelzie said:Strangely enough, if anyone remembers back to my definition of terrorism, the dropping of the bombs is a perfect example of a terrorist act. Civilians should never be targeted. Never.
oldreliable67 said:Totally agree. But it has happened in the past and it will no doubt happen again in the future.
Even as a military tactic, the results of bombing largely civilian areas often backfires. In the past, in the conflicts between nation-states, it was all too common for the belligerents to attack areas with high civilian populations. In some cases in modern history, like the Nazi fire bombings of London (merely stiffened resolve and gave Brits the chance to rebuild factories), the allies bombing of Dresden (questionable), the nukes used against Japan (did induce Japanese surrender), Nazi bombardment of Russian cities (merely stiffened resolve), US 'Christmas bombings' in North Vietnam (N. Vietnamese returned to peace conference and quickly agreed to terms), there was an effort to convince the populace of the futility of their cause in hopes that there would pressure from the populace to end the war. Such efforts often fail and result in increased resolve from those being subjected to such.
kelzie said:modern war ethics
Red_Dave said:As regards 1944 america knew full well the effect the bomb would have as they tested smaller bombs a number of times. Did you read the link i provided about the chemical weapons? It wasnt from Al Jazzera [sadly I dont yet speak any arabic so i dont watch it] do you mean to say the writer made up the story about the chemical weapons? If so i imagine he would have a small army of republican lawyers on his tail.
As regards Carlos Castillo Armas
and General Pinochet the US knew full well that these people would set up a militarty junta. These people did not "become dictators" they where dictators as soon as they came to power through illegitimate means. If there where no chemical weapons used in iraq why is it all over the press [see link provided in previous post] are all these people lying?
Herophant said:Could you be so kind do give your defenition of terrorism?
oldreliable67 said:Totally agree. But it has happened in the past and it will no doubt happen again in the future.
Even as a military tactic, the results of bombing largely civilian areas often backfires. In the past, in the conflicts between nation-states, it was all too common for the belligerents to attack areas with high civilian populations. In some cases in modern history, like the Nazi fire bombings of London (merely stiffened resolve and gave Brits the chance to rebuild factories), the allies bombing of Dresden (questionable), the nukes used against Japan (did induce Japanese surrender), Nazi bombardment of Russian cities (merely stiffened resolve), US 'Christmas bombings' in North Vietnam (N. Vietnamese returned to peace conference and quickly agreed to terms), there was an effort to convince the populace of the futility of their cause in hopes that there would pressure from the populace to end the war. Such efforts often fail and result in increased resolve from those being subjected to such.
Vader said:Kelsie, you are wrong, dropping bombs on another nation during a time of war, IS NOT TERRORISM. It is an act of warfare.
There is a difference between terrorism and war and you need to understand that difference.
war
ter·ror·ism n.
- A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states,
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.Warfare is an AUTHORIZED ACTION, which ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES IT FROM BEING TERRORISM.
The principle purpose of terrorism is not the actual destruction produced but its dramatic and psychological effects on populations and governments. Brian Jenkins has said that "terrorism is theatre." The objectives of terrorism are to frighten target audiences through the use of dramatic and shocking acts, which include bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and taking of hostages and hijacking. Although guerrilla groups sometimes employ such tactics, terrorism is not the same is guerrilla warfare. Terrorist acts are not typically directed toward enemy combatants; their targets are civilians, government workers, or noncombatant military personnel. Terrorism involves the systematic use of violence for political ends, an ongoing series of acts intended to produce fear that will change attitudes and behavior toward governments and their policies.
Vader said:Dave,
1.) America IS NOT a terrorist state. You've obviously never served your country and therefore your opinion is skewed.
2.) When was the last time you saw an American strap a bomb to a 10 year-old child and send them into a crowded place to kill a mass of people?
I think you need to wake up. While we've maid our mistakes, we are not a terrorist nation. We do not live in some bull***** theocracy run by psychotic islamic fundementalist idiots who aren't even following true Islam.
It is a grave insult to call my country a "terrorist country" and I would appriciate it greatly if you would think before you type.
Vader said:ter·ror·ism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
war
n.
By the definitions above, the actions of the coaltion ARE NOT TERRORISM.
- A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations or states.
As such, people like Mustafa, a known terrorist, are WRONG.
Vader said:Stop living in the past, Dave. WWII is NOT an accurate gauge with which to judge terrorism. You are digging up excuses to provid cover for people like Russia that have no problem selling missiles to terrorists.
As to the alleged "PRESS" stating the use of chemical weapons in Iraq; I can tell that you are an avid Al Jezerra viewer. Al Jazerra is a STATE OWNED ARAB PROPAGANDA SPREADING MACHINE AND NOTHING MORE. I suggest you realize that and come to terms with the fact that Al Jazeera is terrorist TV.
Throughout the history of this country we have never sold arms capable of carrying a nuclear payload to a terrorist country. Russia has done exactly that.
You really need to stop supporting terrorism and stop using WWII as an example of the only country to ever have used a nuke. This is a misnomer anyway because the bombs used in WWII are not nearly as powerful as those being constructed by Iran.
Shame on you.
Kelzie said:That's fine. My pedantics trumps your pedantics. :mrgreen: I dislike dictionary definitions for something as complex as terrorism. Here's what my International Affairs textbook says:
A coup is not intended to produce fear. A coup is done with a specific purpose, which is to overthrow the government. Citizens are rarely targeted, because the goal is not to produce fear, it is to change who is in power. If civilians are indeed killed, it is not because they want to frighten the rest and create a specific attitude in the population. I stand by my belief that a coup is not terrorism.
Red_Dave said:I disagree with the definition a little as its defing what terroists are by what many of them do, it seams to be useing the republican new-speak definition rather than the traditional one, though maybe the traditional definition is different on your side of the atlantic. Even if one follows that definition the coups could be counted as terroism because civilisations died as the junta's where being established and junta are obviously not legitimate governments.Plus the artocities commited over the juntas took power could be called "state terroism" which is ironically a word thrown around alot by neo-cons
There may very well be a "republican new-speak" definition of terrorism, and it may more specific, but the definition of terrorism as an act inspiring terror is definitely not the "republican new-speak" definition, its an obviously acceptable definition (hence "terror"-ism, people from both sides of the Atlantic should learn the properties of -ism words, eh?).I disagree with the definition a little as its defing what terroists are by what many of them do, it seams to be useing the republican new-speak definition rather than the traditional one, though maybe the traditional definition is different on your side of the atlantic. Even if one follows that definition the coups could be counted as terroism because civilisations died as the junta's where being established and junta are obviously not legitimate governments.Plus the artocities commited over the juntas took power could be called "state terroism" which is ironically a word thrown around alot by neo-cons
scottyz said:I recall that an American used a truck full of explosive material to blow up a federal building... That an American detonated a explosive at the Olympics in Atlanta. If you think being American means you're above acting like a psycho or terrorist, you've got some growing up to do.
Kelzie said:My defintion is much better. Dictionaries are good for some words. Not ones as broad as terrorism. Here you go:
Much better definition, don't you think? No weird loop holes like "unlawful".
Targeting a civilian population with the sole purpose of frightening them into forcing the government to change a position is terrorism. No matter what way you twist it. I think the question we should be asking is if terrorism is sometimes justified.
Vader said:Kelsie,
Let us not forget that Japan started that war. I'll grant you that war is a terrible thing and that civilians should never be targeted; however, in the case of Japan you should read about the atrocities they commited in Manchuria. I think your sympathy for them would dwendle.
Also, after spending some of my formative years in Hawaii being discriminated against by japanese people who hate America, because we kicked their butts in WWII; I will never have an ounce of sympathy for them.
I am sorry for those who died and I hope that there is never a loss of life of that magnatude again; however, I do not believe that Japan deserves any sympathy. Japan started that war and Japan is responsible for the conflicts and battles of WWII.
Japan is a sore loser and that is the truth.
:2razz:
Vader said:So?
That's two Americans compared to the 20,000 arabs who have blown themselves up because some religious zealot told them too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?