Horrific Attack in Iraq - Al Qaeda Denies Involvement

[The Smoking Man]

It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.

Bravo.

Excellent example.

 

[Townsend]

It never ceases to amaze me that Yanks (with a straight face!) refer to Benedict Arnold as a filthy traitor when in fact he was one of the very few patriots to make it into the history books. The rest of them were the traitors.

Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas...

 

[Townsend]

Bravo.

Excellent example.

An example of what though?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Traitors I have heard them called before...terrorist never. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, because the word terrorist has a definition and the colonist don't meet that definition even by a ridiculous stretch of the imagination.

You people really do crack me up with your whacky ideas...

Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.

 

[The Smoking Man]

An example of what though?

Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.

 

[Townsend]

Describe honest, honourable warfare of the day.

Now describe how the Green Mountain Boys fought.

Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading

 

[Townsend]

Why a definition of words in context to the writer, in the context of time and in the cultural/national context.

In other words, he is being less USA centric than you can ever hope to be and displaying a knowledge of 'the big picture' that you have yet to achieve.

In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

Nice try...you do the typing...explain how the colonist meet the definition and if I agree I will say I was wrong. I have done it before and I will have no problem doing it in the future if I have to.

In the mean time I have the new Harry Potter book to be reading

They fought for a country that did not exist.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In other words you and him are trying to twist the definition of a word to make a connection with something that I hold dear. The problem with your strategy is that I have a brain and anyone with a brain can tell that you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same and the definition does not match. In fact I think it the idea is really stupid...the fact that you can't see that tells me that you must have a very narrow point of view.

Regards,

No we are trying to prove that the definition of record is that of the American context and that is what you hold dear and can not divorce yourself from.

You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.

 

[Townsend]

They fought for a country that did not exist.

They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.

They attacked the 'ruler of record'.

No, they did not actually attack...

They wore no Uniform or identifying badges.

you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.

They did not engage the enemy in the accepted method of the day but struck with deception often firing from the trees.

ok...

Benedict Arnold stood up for the ruler of the land.

This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was an act of terror done by people in disguise deliberately trying to deceive the observers into believing it was others (native Americans) who performed the act.

It was an act of protest against their own government...the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?

 

[Townsend]

You are therefore admitting that you can never be an impartial observer nor walk a mile in the shoes of another culture or race.

Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.

You're an American and in your own view of the world a blind partiot with no sense of decency or fair play who can forgive dozens of crimes by your state and use any single incident to condemn everyone who isn't American.

I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

They fought against their OWN country...that sounds like a civil war to me.

Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.

No, they did not actually attack...

Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.

you are acting like they were hiding among the civilian population to avoid a battle or something.

Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.

This is sort of like filler information as it really does not relate to your point.

Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?

It was an act of protest against their own government...the key words you need to see here are 'their own government'. Civil wars are not in the same league as terrorist. The North never called the South, terrorist. Get it?

Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?


Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.

 

[Townsend]

Funny but in your reference books you never actually call it that do you. I believe it is always called the 'war of independence'.

I never referenced any books...

Right ... they never attacked for the whole war.

They never invaded is what I meant...of course they attacked English armies.

Yes. You're right. That is exactly what the Green Mountain Boys did.

The word I would use to describe the Green Mountain Boys would be guerillas, not terrorist. In this case the definition actually fits.

Really? this is exactly the point we are making ... that the perception of the terms we used is governed by concept and patriotism. Was Arnold a Patriot or a traitor?

Perception I can see...twisting the way a word is defined and used I cannot.

Weren't you just stating that the 'terrorists' in Iraq were killing their own people, children and government?

The archetypal form for a terrorist is not what the colonist were. Some were paramilitary and used guerilla tatics but they are not the same as terrorist. Nice try though. It make for interesting discourse to say the least...

Perception, my friend.

You are unable to let go and see things as they are because you are conditioned.

Right...and you, the one who keeps putting words into my mouth, are going to show me the light...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Hold on there bucko...I admit the America has a tainted past. I am not proud of everything done by my ancestors. Slavery topping the list followed by the outright slaughter of the American Indians. You assume way too much.

Really? And can you divorce yourself from the emotion of the moment well enough to own up to the American illegalities in the war against Iraq?

Justice is not something viewed with perfect 20-20 hindsight but is achieved best whle the crime is still being committed so that it can be halted.

There has been a reluctance on the part of America to acknowledge the Downing Street Memo for what it is for example because of a perception of 'well, what is done is don and we can't fix it now'.

I am not a blind patriot...in fact if we keep losing liberties at the rate we currently are I will most likely become an expatriate. I value liberty of the individual, both economically and socially above EVERYTHING ELSE. I would die to defend that but if my country gets too far from that then I won't hesitate to find a new place to live.

Again you assume too much.

Regards,

Really?

You have already dismissed another's links as 'BS' even though they wre proved later to be from the source you denied they were from.

You will also find it very hard to become an expat, I fear.

You seem to be having a hard time showing anyone an opinion about current events much less history that would make you welcome in another culture or make another culture appealing to you. (LOL. Unless Canada is your object of desire but then that would smack of 'draft dodging' wouldn't it? )

 

[Hurkyl]

Just to make sure I have it straight.

Are you defending, or even supporting, this act of terror?

What would YOU say?

I've reread your post, and yes, I say you are defending this act of terror, or at least tolerating it.

When I read your posts, I see legitimizing. I see rationale. I see blame shifting. When I pressed you for your actual stance, I saw evasion.

And now, I see deflection.

I see everything but "Yes, this was a terrible act."

 

[Townsend]

Really? And can you divorce yourself from the emotion of the moment well enough to own up to the American illegalities in the war against Iraq?

The war in Iraq is an entirely different matter...I have reasons for feeling the way I do about it that are anything but mainstream.

Justice is not something viewed with perfect 20-20 hindsight but is achieved best whle the crime is still being committed so that it can be halted.

I agree

There has been a reluctance on the part of America to acknowledge the Downing Street Memo for what it is for example because of a perception of 'well, what is done is don and we can't fix it now'.

I guess I will have to do some reading about that...

You have already dismissed another's links as 'BS' even though they wre proved later to be from the source you denied they were from.

I didn't dismiss it...the content of the link was such that I had a good reason to question where it came from. When I saw that I was wrong about my assumptions I said so. You can accept that?

You will also find it very hard to become an expat, I fear.

No...it would be all too easy. I have been around the world twice already you know.

You seem to be having a hard time showing anyone an opinion about current events much less history that would make you welcome in another culture or make another culture appealing to you. (LOL. Unless Canada is your object of desire but then that would smack of 'draft dodging' wouldn't it? )

It wouldn't smack of draft dodging at all...I cannot be drafted so I cannot dodge the draft...

Canada does have an appeal but I had my eyes set on some place else, if the need were to ever come.

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

I never referenced any books...

Come now. You state in your own profile that you are a student of history, among other things and unless you picked up your knowledge through osmosis, oral tradition or the A&E network, your perceptions came from books written in America.

They never invaded is what I meant...of course they attacked English armies.

Iraqi terrorists invaded their own country? Interesting concept.

The word I would use to describe the Green Mountain Boys would be guerillas, not terrorist. In this case the definition actually fits.

LOL ... Now you are getting it. "The word I would use"... Exactly! And the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan know when they have found an Al Qieda training camp when they come across photocopies of the CIA training manuals in Guerilla tactics.

Perception I can see...twisting the way a word is defined and used I cannot.

Then stop twisting them. It is merely your 'opinion' again that is keeping you from applying the word correctly. In your 'opinion' the 'revolutionaries' were correct so the nice terms of 'guerilla warrior' and 'freedom fighters' spring to mind because you automatically assume the actions of terrorists to be something that 'evil people' do.

I'd be interested in your opinion of 'The Patriot' by our Aussie friend, Mel Gibson. What do you think of the opinion the character held of his own actions at the beginning of the movie? When did he become a 'patriot' in your eyes after watching the superior forces kill both his sons?

When was he a traitor, when was he a patriot and to which country?

The archetypal form for a terrorist is not what the colonist were. Some were paramilitary and used guerilla tatics but they are not the same as terrorist. Nice try though. It make for interesting discourse to say the least...

Right...and you, the one who keeps putting words into my mouth, are going to show me the light...

The archetypal definition is one who invokes terror in others through his actions.

Are you telling me that firing on camped soldiers and their entourage day and night from the trees under the cover of darkness and while wearing no uniforms, in clothing of a colour meant to camouflage is the act of a regular soldier of the day?

Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I've reread your post, and yes, I say you are defending this act of terror, or at least tolerating it.

When I read your posts, I see legitimizing. I see rationale. I see blame shifting. When I pressed you for your actual stance, I saw evasion.

And now, I see deflection.

I see everything but "Yes, this was a terrible act."

You'd be wrong then.

It was a terrible act.

Happy?

What you see is the result of stripping away the emotion and applying the same thought to the actions on both sides and equating the two together.

I think the actions of the terrorists is terrible and the acts of the Americans in the same light.

I do remember the young boy who lost both his arms and his own family too who was featured on the news ... but I guess you wouldn't equate the two.

 

[Townsend]

The archetypal definition is one who invokes terror in others through his actions.

Are you telling me that firing on camped soldiers and their entourage day and night from the trees under the cover of darkness and while wearing no uniforms, in clothing of a colour meant to camouflage is the act of a regular soldier of the day?

Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.

You convinced me to give it a second look...I will get back to you, fair enough?

p.s.-don't wait for me...I need to read some Harry Potter...but I will get back to you in good time...

 

[The Smoking Man]

The war in Iraq is an entirely different matter...I have reasons for feeling the way I do about it that are anything but mainstream.

Care to share?

I guess I will have to do some reading about that...

I am surprised you have not already done so.

I didn't dismiss it...the content of the link was such that I had a good reason to question where it came from. When I saw that I was wrong about my assumptions I said so. You can accept that?

I do accept that.

No...it would be all too easy. I have been around the world twice already you know.

Living in countries as an independent citizen or on military bases?

I have not seen 'home' in 15 years ... not even on vacation.

It wouldn't smack of draft dodging at all...I cannot be drafted so I cannot dodge the draft...

Canada does have an appeal but I had my eyes set on some place else, if the need were to ever come.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you would be a draft dodger just that for a military person, this would be a thought in the back of your mind ... People who previously fled what they thought was an unjust government ... etc.

 

[Pengwuino]

Are you telling me that dumping a tea shipment disguised as native Americans was merely protest and not meant to insight terror?

Americans were the very definition of terrorists of the day because they broke every rule of field combat accepted at the time.

Now... i don't like jumping into conversations after i get 2 or 3 pages behind in it... but really, what in gods name are you thinking when you wrote this. Dumping tea is an act of terrorism? Ok ok... if that's TERRORISM... then i suppose my friend who helped out in a protest against walmart needs to be labeled a terrorist and sent to gitmo right?

And if your definition of "terrorist" is someone who doesn't attack exactly like the mainstream armies do... then i suppose the French and British and Japanese were allllllll terrorists because they used this insane concept of aerial warfare and rocket attacks.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Now... i don't like jumping into conversations after i get 2 or 3 pages behind in it... but really, what in gods name are you thinking when you wrote this. Dumping tea is an act of terrorism? Ok ok... if that's TERRORISM... then i suppose my friend who helped out in a protest against walmart needs to be labeled a terrorist and sent to gitmo right?

And if your definition of "terrorist" is someone who doesn't attack exactly like the mainstream armies do... then i suppose the French and British and Japanese were allllllll terrorists because they used this insane concept of aerial warfare and rocket attacks.

Now I am sure you have some sanitized version of the 'Boston Tea Party' that you refer to however there is an awful lot that seems to be missing from that retelling.

Can you give me reasons along with the schoolboy tale? Why disguises? Who was there? Do you imagine a loaded ship with a valuable cargo was sitting at dock without guard, watch officers and the obligatory representative of the King? This was a port and subject to taxation and smuggling. Who was there to enforce the law?

As far as your juvinile association of the French, British and Japanese, they all still recognize that actions of this type with no uniforms or identifying marks and the penchant for blending into the population ARE indeed acts of a terrorist.

You know as well as I do that a 'terrorist' resorts to these methods when they are unable to direct a frontal assault on a superior force. That IS after all why you feared Saddam had WMD is it not? That's what was said to the UN.

Do you believe that if Bin Laden could supply his men with the same armaments the US forces have, guns, body armour, cruise missiles, etc. you would be facing 'terrorists'?

Remember, when Bin Laden was fighting the USSR who held an opposing ideology than you, he was given Stinger Missiles training manuals and called a freedom fighter. Let's not lose sight of context here. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.'

Both he and Saddam owe America a lot for securing their positions and dominance in their own cultures. The Iranians, in fact, are of the opinion that the USA should be sitting in the box beside Saddam for the satellite intel they supplied to Saddam that allowed him to release gas with such devastating effect. (Especially since the new government has appologized to Iran and stated they were the agressor in the war)

 

[Pengwuino]

Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population. Civilians not working in military applications are not to be targeted and when they are, this constitutes acts of terrorism. The military is suppose to fear a bomb hitting their bases or an attack on a convey. Civilians are not suppose to fear a bomb at a local market or an attack on a school. The latter would constitute terrorism.

Oddly enough, I do wonder what you believe actually happened in Boston that day. What has your government told you? Were we throwing babies overboard as well? Did we burn people alive? And exactly what does it matter what the Iranians think? For a nation that retaliated with their own chemical weapons and kidnapped US citizens, i don't think their opinion should matter much.

Also, the UN TOLD US that Saddam had WMD's. We also did not fear him using WMD's against us as it would have been painfully obvious that our retaliation would have been with nuclear weapons. The fear was that Saddam would engage another nation in a rather unstable region. I mean, he does kind of have a history of invading other nations.

 

[vanesch]

A suicide car bomber attacked after waiting for a crowd of children to gather around an American humvee.

Let's look onto it on the positive side: some of these kids would probably have become suicide bombers 10 years from now, so that was a pre-emptive elimination of terrorists

 

[The Smoking Man]

Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population.

'Insults'? LOL

The term "terrorism" comes from the French 18th century word terrorisme based on the Latin language verbs terrere (to tremble) and deterrere (to frighten from). It dates to 1795, and originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobins in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". The Jacobins are even said to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves, although that is not certain. Note that the method employed was in most cases simply the arrest, and sometimes execution, of opponents. Terrorism and terror therefore originally referred to methods employed by regimes to control their own populations through fear, a tactic seen again in many totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The terms did not refer to bomb attacks, but rather to what is now called a police state. The current use of the term state terrorism, and the use of the term "terrorist", have much broader meanings.

Many definitions include a proviso that the action must be "unlawful" or "illegitimate". This is by far the least objective of the criteria, in the absence of any objective interpreter of international law. For example, the laws of war generally exclude the deliberate targeting of civilians, yet in World War II it is unquestioned that acts such as the bombing of Hiroshima or Dresden were carried out with the knowledge that civilian casualties would greatly exceed military ones. Whether the actions were legally justified, either in self-defense or on the grounds that they actually minimised civilian suffering by bringing the war to an earlier end, is not a question that can be objectively determined.

No definition of terrorism has been accepted as authoritative by the United Nations. However, the "academic consensus definition", written by terrorism expert A.P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, defines terrorism as follows:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought."

 

[Pengwuino]

Well thank you for proving my point Smokingman. I've never seen an argument where people attacked themselves.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Oddly enough, I do wonder what you believe actually happened in Boston that day. What has your government told you? Were we throwing babies overboard as well? Did we burn people alive? And exactly what does it matter what the Iranians think? For a nation that retaliated with their own chemical weapons and kidnapped US citizens, i don't think their opinion should matter much.

Interesting ... most of my education came from textbooks printed in the USA and then continued at Trinity College for my Masters.

What are you assuming is "your government"?

Your knowledge of Iran is also staggeringly lacking considering the USA and Britain overthrew the Democratically elected government of Iran for nationalizing the oil industry in the 1950's. By all means, if you are going to quote history at me go back to the start of events and don't join in part way through.

Also, the UN TOLD US that Saddam had WMD's. We also did not fear him using WMD's against us as it would have been painfully obvious that our retaliation would have been with nuclear weapons. The fear was that Saddam would engage another nation in a rather unstable region. I mean, he does kind of have a history of invading other nations.

Well, if that were true, Hans Blix performing a search for weapons that we now know did not exist would have been redundant, wouldn't it?

I also remember seeing Colin Powell sitting in the Chamber of the UN waving a 5 gram vial in the air trying to impress upon the folks assembled that this was the stuff (Anthrax) that Saddam was making.

Meanwhile, the French were jumping up and down saying, "Non. Non! Our intel is faulty. Do not use it. We have not released it to the intelligence community."

When it all comes down to it, you went to war with a 'Coalition of the Willing' that included about 40 countries which included the likes of Sierra Leone and the Philippines ... hardly world powers ... and far short of a majority of the 191 countries that make up the countries that represent the UN.

Make no mistake, what you did falls entirely on your head and did not reflect the feeling of the UN as an organization.

Laugh all you want at the Iraqi Information Minister but one thing is for sure ... he did say that after the war was over, you WOULD find out they were telling the truth about the WMD.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well thank you for proving my point Smokingman. I've never seen an argument where people attacked themselves.

Perception young one ... perception.

Terrorists dressed as natives boarded a boat in Boston harbour and attacked a civilian target under government protection with the intention of sending a message (intimidation and propaganda).

Remember, the tea itself was not owned by the King. The boat was not owned by the King. The TAXES were what was in question. The tea and the boat were civillian owned and crewed.

It was an act committed by a clandestined group for the criminal act of non-payment of tax and to send a political message (to the King as an audience) while attacking a symbolic CIVILLIAN target.

 

[Hurkyl]

What you see is the result of stripping away the emotion and applying the same thought to the actions on both sides and equating the two together.

The problem is you stripped too much -- you stripped away anything resembling a condemnation of this particular act, and that is the problem.

Despite your implication, I do apply the same "thought" to both sides. Since I've been convinced police are legitimate targets, I do not condemn insurgents for the civilian casualties incurred during an attack on a police station, just as I do not condemn the coalition for civilian casualties incurred in strikes against the insurgents.

When I raised the possibility that insurgents attack in public areas, thus putting civilians in unnecessary harm, I also wondered if the same could apply to coalition forces.

In fact, I generally test any criticism I levy against the insurgency to see how I would apply my principles in the reverse direction, and the reverse is true for defense of the coalition.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The problem is you stripped too much -- you stripped away anything resembling a condemnation of this particular act, and that is the problem.

Despite your implication, I do apply the same "thought" to both sides. Since I've been convinced police are legitimate targets, I do not condemn insurgents for the civilian casualties incurred during an attack on a police station, just as I do not condemn the coalition for civilian casualties incurred in strikes against the insurgents.

When I raised the possibility that insurgents attack in public areas, thus putting civilians in unnecessary harm, I also wondered if the same could apply to coalition forces.

In fact, I generally test any criticism I levy against the insurgency to see how I would apply my principles in the reverse direction, and the reverse is true for defense of the coalition.

Then we are in agreement.

I still harken back to the convoy of trucks carrying sheep to Syria that was attacked by rockets launched from planes because they suspected Saddam might have been aboard.

What you feel for those kids, I feel for the truck drivers some of whom would have had family members with them. (If you know anything about the culture)

 

[russ_watters]

You'd be wrong then.

It was a terrible act.

Happy?

No. That isn't good enough. What we want is an unequivocal statement that you accept that the act referenced in the opening post was terrorism, murder, and was wrong regardless of any wrong ever done to those who perpetrated it. I want you to acknowledge that killing civilians on purpose is murder and is not acceptable.

Just saying it was a terrible act still allows you to defend it - which you continue to do.

What you see is the result of stripping away the emotion and applying the same thought to the actions on both sides and equating the two together.

I think the actions of the terrorists is terrible and the acts of the Americans in the same light.

The second sentence contradicts the first: since the acts of terrorists and the things that the US has done are not the same, equating them just shines a bright light on your heavy bias. I really hope you see the irony of lecturing Americans for being narrow-minded about what goes on in other countries while simultaneously lecturing us on our own past. You're trying to have it both ways and it simply doesn't work that way: your perceptions of America are just as clouded as any American's is of foreign countries.

I do remember the young boy who lost both his arms and his own family too who was featured on the news ... but I guess you wouldn't equate the two.

Again - why should we equate the two? Was the boy the target of the attack?

What I really want to know is why is terrorism acceptable to you? Is it simply a matter of retribution? Do you think its "fair" to kill innocent civilians on purpose?

Here's a scenario for you: Let's say some citizens of country "S" take it upon themselves to kill 3,000 civilians from contry "A" for some wrong done by country "A". It seems that you think that makes it accepable for individuals in country "A" to fly over to country "S" and start indiscriminantly killing civilians.

 

[kyleb]

Since you are resulting to insults rather then factual arguments, it makes me wonder if you do even know what "terrorism" means. Terrorism is when you engage a civilian population as opposed to a military population.

Some more commonly accepted definitions can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

In those respects, the Boston Tea Party was most certianly an act of terroism.

 

[Townsend]

Some more commonly accepted definitions can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

In those respects, the Boston Tea Party was most certianly an act of terroism.

I think you're right. But I don't think that it is at all the same as modern day terrorism.

I think we need a different word to more precisely describe the horrific acts commits by terrorist today. Using a word to describe their acts that can also be used to describe things like the Boston Tea Party shows me the the word terrorist is to broad.

Any ideas for a good word?

Regards,

 

[The Smoking Man]

No. That isn't good enough. What we want is an unequivocal statement that you accept that the act referenced in the opening post was terrorism, murder, and was wrong regardless of any wrong ever done to those who perpetrated it. I want you to acknowledge that killing civilians on purpose is murder and is not acceptable.

Is that the 'royal' WE Russ?

Since when am I answerable to you?

What will you do, cancel my ID?

Just saying it was a terrible act still allows you to defend it - which you continue to do. The second sentence contradicts the first: since the acts of terrorists and the things that the US has done are not the same, equating them just shines a bright light on your heavy bias.

Because Russ, as per the definition I gave you of terrorism, the attack was random. The propaganda value was exposed when you then took this boy and paraded him in front of the media and showed how 'benevolent you were' while dragging him around the world getting him fitted for the series of appliances he will wear all his life.

The fact that you can not see what America has done was wrong indicates that it is YOU who has a heavy bias, not me.

I equate the two heinous forces in this 'war' with each other and place killing of innocents at the same level.

You, on the other hand, are fully prepared to forgive anything I post to the contrary as a "necessity" of achieving your ends in some vague hope of excusing your means.

You assume, because I equate the two, the 'terrorists' and the 'American forces' that I am raising the level of my view of the terrorists and forgiving them as YOU forgive your forces.

In reality, I am placing YOUR actions at the level of the terrorists and viewing both with equal distain.

Like most of the rest of the world, I place GW Bush in the exact same bag of human garbage as OBL.

You seem to want to take one kind of Child/shepherd/innocents murderer and elevate him to the level of Saint in a seeming act of goodness that violated World Law, American Law and the 'Higher' Laws of humanity itself.

So, who's biased here, Russ, me or you?

I really hope you see the irony of lecturing Americans for being narrow-minded about what goes on in other countries while simultaneously lecturing us on our own past. You're trying to have it both ways and it simply doesn't work that way: your perceptions of America are just as clouded as any American's is of foreign countries. Again - why should we equate the two? Was the boy the target of the attack?

Lecturing, Russ?

What educational institutions did you say yo were a part of?

When has expressing an opinion in an open forum thus inviting dialogue ever been considered 'lecturing'?

By this childish observation, are you trying to 'shame' or 'encourage' me into silence so you can do that yourself?

You see, it would appear to me that YOU can't remove the emotion from a situation and see it for what it is.

You can't see ANY force that attacks in a similar manner 'right or wrong' as being 'terrorism' AND 'freedom fighting' at the same time because, in the end, it is the 'Victor who writes the history' and thus bestows the title that sticks.

What I really want to know is why is terrorism acceptable to you? Is it simply a matter of retribution? Do you think its "fair" to kill innocent civilians on purpose?

Come on Russ ... That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife' scenario and justifies about as much in the way of response as the original.

Do you believe 'colateral damage' is 'fair'?

Here's a scenario for you: Let's say some citizens of country "S" take it upon themselves to kill 3,000 civilians from contry "A" for some wrong done by country "A". It seems that you think that makes it accepable for individuals in country "A" to fly over to country "S" and start indiscriminantly killing civilians.

Sorry Russ ... Did you mean to describe 9/11 and the resultant action of the USA.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think you're right. But I don't think that it is at all the same as modern day terrorism.

I think we need a different word to more precisely describe the horrific acts commits by terrorist today. Using a word to describe their acts that can also be used to describe things like the Boston Tea Party shows me the the word terrorist is to broad.

Any ideas for a good word?

Regards,

So, why not just take all the definitions you have by placing the words. "except if performed by Americans" since it seems you are looking for a definition that 'forgives you your transgressions'?