<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, its maybe not appropriate to name a movie as a source of information, but if you don't plan on reading books about the psychological circumstances of radicalisation, I recommend you to watch Scorceses "Taxi Driver". I guess there has never been a more intense portrait of a man decaying to a point where he becomes a time bomb. While the motives and the milieu are completely different to the ones we face in global terrorism, the mechanics of radicalisation stay the same.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, so the world's biggest terrorist Bin Laden didn't hate the US all his life, he relied on the US for training and equipment to help kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, it was only just before the first Gulf War that he developed his hate for the Americans.
When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the insurgents fight the US marines in Iraq today....
Its when they cross the line and become willing to kill innocent men women and children that they become terrorists.
<!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Feb 5 2005, 12:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Feb 5 2005, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its when they cross the line and become willing to kill innocent men women and children that they become terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good point, let me just edit your statement to reflect this wisdom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the <b>terrorists</b> fight the US marines in Iraq today....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 5 2005, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 5 2005, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Feb 5 2005, 12:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Feb 5 2005, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its when they cross the line and become willing to kill innocent men women and children that they become terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good point, let me just edit your statement to reflect this wisdom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the <b>terrorists</b> fight the US marines in Iraq today....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Clever use of words.
Since when did incoherant shelling of police stations and civilian centers equate to freedom fighting and if so.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Feb 5 2005, 06:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Feb 5 2005, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 5 2005, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 5 2005, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Feb 5 2005, 12:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Feb 5 2005, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its when they cross the line and become willing to kill innocent men women and children that they become terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good point, let me just edit your statement to reflect this wisdom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the <b>terrorists</b> fight the US marines in Iraq today....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Clever use of words.
Since when did incoherant shelling of police stations and civilian centers equate to freedom fighting and if so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Probably to cause instability within the country. To try to cause a rebellion against the occupationaly forces. You can't protect us so now we'll turn on you!
Sorry, I don't care what your cause is; there is neither honor nor purpose in intentionally running a car full of explosives into an area full of innocent men woman and children.
That is why the media needs to start calling them terrorists not insurgents. Call evil by its name.
<!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Feb 5 2005, 10:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Feb 5 2005, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the insurgents fight the US marines in Iraq today....
Its when they cross the line and become willing to kill innocent men women and children that they become terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree. Futhermore, upon looking back at some of these instances mentioned you can see the the problem in the definition of terrorist. Yes I find it unacceptable to kill innocent men women and childern, and no I'm not sympatizing with the terrorists. But, if you look at the tatic s used by the French, Polish, Russian, Dutch, etc resistance movements in World War 2, you find a remarkable similiarity between them and the ones the "terrorists" are using now.
They would us explosives to topple trains in to rivers, they would bomb german buildings, even if some innocent bystanders might be there, they would kidnap torture, kill, and on occasion leave the corpse on display both German soldiers and civilian "colaberators". Put on top of that fact that they knew that any action by them would lead to the Germans killing innocent country men in reprisals.
Now theses men and women are celebrated as heros in many places. Yes, they were fighting what I doubt many people hesitate to call evil, adn the Germans did far worse, but does this end justify their tactics? No it doesn't.
Applying this to theIraq confilct, and terrorism in general, it leaves us in a sticky situtation. Clearly we can not approve of their tactics, but at the same time we celebrate the use of those tatics when we were invaded in the past.
This leads to the questionable conculsion that terrorism is terrorism when it doesn't align with your politcal ideas. It is freedom fighting when it does. The terrorists are wrong, and the Germans were wrong. Prehaps its time we take a close look at our past and our current tactics and relise that we too have been,and often are wrong. And then, if we are able to do this, and correct where we do have problems, prehaps we could win this form of conflict.
Ah, but the difficulty in using the "freedom fighter vs terrorist" argument here is that the "insurgents" care nothing for liberating Iraq from Americans, they just want to attack Americans. If some other country, say Saudi Arabia, were occupying Iraq, you can be damn well sure there would be a whole hell of a lot less "insurgency." There's no question that the terrorists in Iraq aren't freedom fighters by any stretch of the imagination when you consider that most of them probably aren't even Iraqis. Perhaps in the early months after the end of the war, but now...I don't think so.
heh, I think the USA could win the war agaisnt anyone, the only thing stopping us is the fact that a lot more countrys have nukes now then just us and russia. so if the US invented a fail safe way to block nuke missles then we could take over the world
the only countrys that could put up a fight would be
1- England - who's been beatna once and can be beatan again 2- cina - I mean 1 billion people... thats gonna take a lot of bullets 3- india- same thing as china 4- japan - not quite as powerfull as it use to be, but if they had enough time they could build up pretty strong 5- russia- russia is impossible to easily invade by land... hitler made that mistake and it cost him the war
but other then that the rest of the world would fall pretty easily
I mean , we took over iraq with losing what... 1.5k troops? sounds like a pretty small number to me....
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Feb 5 2005, 10:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 5 2005, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, but the difficulty in using the "freedom fighter vs terrorist" argument here is that the "insurgents" care nothing for liberating Iraq from Americans, they just want to attack Americans. If some other country, say Saudi Arabia, were occupying Iraq, you can be damn well sure there would be a whole hell of a lot less "insurgency." There's no question that the terrorists in Iraq aren't freedom fighters by any stretch of the imagination when you consider that most of them probably aren't even Iraqis. Perhaps in the early months after the end of the war, but now...I don't think so. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First off, they actualy are mostly Iraqi. Heres some support: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3629322.stm' target='_blank'>500 Iraqis Captured as insurgents in one mission</a> <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4066865.stm' target='_blank'>A look at rising recruitment of Iraqis</a> <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3493777.stm' target='_blank'>Heres just one instance of an attack that was blamed on foreign insurgents...</a>
Futhermore, simply becasue some of them aren't Iraqis does not mean that they "care nothing for liberating Iraq". During World War 2, to continue my example, the French resistance was not comprised of just French people. Did the Dutch and British and Americans supporting the resistance there care about freeing France? Of course they did. I'm sure that the French invovled might have had stronger feelings about it, but foreigns involved also wanted to liberate France.
Now at this point, by your argument, the foreigners invovled would be just there to attack the Germans. There is some merit to this idea. A Dutchman invovled in the resistance in France, probably, at some level, has his own interets at heart. In this case, it would be getting the Germans out of Holland, so he can go back home. But to do this, he is trying to free France first. Is he not still, by our definition, a Freedom Fighter?
Alright, now the obivous rebutal to this arguement, is that the forgien insurgents are coming from places that are not occupied by Americans, except maybe if they happen to hail from Afghaistan. Now, I could argue this one out, but its late, and I've been drinking since I woke up today(damn pats...) so I fear that it would get tooo long and hard to follow. Instead I'm going to link to two pages.
<a href='http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html' target='_blank'>This</a> one is about a Pentagon report that claims that Islamic "terrorists" do not hate americans because of our freedom or our higher standard of living or simply becasue we are Americans, but rather becasue of our foreign policy. Its also brings up that fact that many arabs see the rab contries that we support as tyrannies, including Saudi Arabia, which leads me to wonder, just how much less of an insurgency there would have been if it had been Saudi Arabia invading.
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/' target='_blank'>Second</a> is an interview with a CIA officer about "terrorists". In it he states that it will be impossible for us to win "the war on terror" if we continue to view these people as "gangsters or terrorists or criminals," If someone who has the bacground (22 years) in the CIA says that Osama bin Laden should not be seen as a terrorist, I'd listen to him.
thing i do not understand is how people believe a god would want them blowing them selfs up for some thing for more death ( - because is isnt a god it is some one telling them *insert name*)
Also i would say they it could be won but it will be hard and violence may not be the only way
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Feb 10 2005, 11:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Feb 10 2005, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There's a vast lack of real world experience being demonstrated in this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First, whose demonstrating it. Second, what kind of real world experience are you referring to that would somehow enhance our understanding of terrorism. Third, do you feel that you have it. Fourth, if so, please share.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Feb 10 2005, 08:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Feb 10 2005, 08:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First, whose demonstrating it. Second, what kind of real world experience are you referring to that would somehow enhance our understanding of terrorism. Third, do you feel that you have it. Fourth, if so, please share. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->heh, I think the USA could win the war agaisnt anyone, the only thing stopping us is the fact that a lot more countrys have nukes now then just us and russia. so if the US invented a fail safe way to block nuke missles then we could take over the world
the only countrys that could put up a fight would be
1- England - who's been beatna once and can be beatan again<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can possibly subdue the nations that are known supporters for terroristic organisations, however you will never solve the problem this way. Maybe you stall it for a few years, maybe decades, but the conflict will remain.
Unfortunately, I think that we have crossed the point of no return long ago.
the war on terror will end around the same time as the war on drugs.
As long as there are people who oppose Bush's flavor of blind nationalism, there will be terrorists. Maybe not the folk who blow up bus's but people will get labeled it, and the sheep will eat it right up. (And no, I hated Kerry just as much as Bush)
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Feb 10 2005, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Feb 10 2005, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can possibly subdue the nations that are known supporters for terroristic organisations, however you will never solve the problem this way. Maybe you stall it for a few years, maybe decades, but the conflict will remain.
Unfortunately, I think that we have crossed the point of no return long ago. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Moslty I agree...but I don't think we can "stall" it as you said. Look at Iraq, we haven't stalled anything there, we've helped it along. If you ment attacks on US soil, I would say that it hasnt been long enough to claim we've stalled them yet. It took al-Qaida eight years betweent eh their first attack ont he world trade center and their next action in the 9/11. Otherwise, so true. Invading countries will never end "terrorism", and we have passed the point of no return as you put it. Not because I belive there is no action we could take that would, in the course of a few years placate those who oppose us, but because the way American politics is set-up we never could adopt that policy (bascaly stop acting like we rule the fricking world...)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->only way to win against terrorism is have, MANY nations unified, and have them use their CIA, covert agents, elite military...that's winning against terrorism in the short run. they could concentrate on getting rid of the people who fund the terrorists and other covert operations.
in the long run..i agree with nemesis.
i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.
EX: suicide bombers are brought up to hate isreal, people fill their brain with nonsense like saying it's for a good cause and for their family, and what gives them a good reason is their family gets around $60,000. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what I think of this
If the larger countries would have been nice to smaller countries in the last 50 years there would not be so many terrorists. Many people have a reason to hate the US (government).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not think that every terrorist is just a mislead kid that is just angry. There are terrorists who know what they do
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->only way to win against terrorism is have, MANY nations unified, and have them use their CIA, covert agents, elite military...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this will be the ultimate enslaving of all humans. Superpowers like the US have now established this spooky terrorist ghost that throws bombs just for fun (preferably arab). Just scare the people and take away all civil liberties for fake security. This is a very ancient nazi method
Going back to the subject of the thread for a minute.. No it can not and never will be won, because the terrorist threat that a majority of Americans beleive exists, simply doesnt exist in anything remotely resembling what you have been told. There was a great 3-part docmentary on the BBC a few weeks ago called "The Power Of Nightmares" which very nicely summed up the truth of the "terrorist" "threat". I'm sure you've heard this before, but it is the truth, and you are going to have to come to terms with it.
As for the torture carried out by UK and US troops - as some of you have already mentioned in this thread - these are "standard" interrogation techniques for <i>special forces</i>. The people who have stood trial so far have not been special forces, they have been regular soldiers who received no training in such interrogation methods, and who have been so brainwashed by the popular media about the country they are entering that they feel the need to take action on the anger they feel against these people.
Its important to note that the special forces troops who do use these methods go through a rigorous training procedure, <b>which includes them being made subject to their own techniques for up to several days</b>. This is an important part of the training, it lets them experience what their detainees will feel, and helps them to feel compassion and excersize restraint when carrying out interrogations themselves.
As the "interrogations" were carried out by regular military grunts with no training in the field, I think its very fair to call it <b>torture</b>, especially when you read about the many other cases of abuse & strange/inappropriate detention methods (torture) used by military forces all around the country. I think an important question should be who gave the orders for inexperienced & unqualified men to use such techniques, and who briefed them on the methods?
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 10 2005, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 10 2005, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the war on terror will end around the same time as the war on drugs.
As long as there are people who oppose Bush's flavor of blind nationalism, there will be terrorists. Maybe not the folk who blow up bus's but people will get labeled it, and the sheep will eat it right up. (And no, I hated Kerry just as much as Bush) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> woudln't you hate all leaders elected by a democratic government? just wondering, I've never been a communist before.. but I do like sharing... sharing stuff like Music and Movies Via the internet and stuff... I'm pretty communist on Limewire at least.....
Comments
Well, its maybe not appropriate to name a movie as a source of information, but
if you don't plan on reading books about the psychological circumstances of radicalisation, I recommend you to watch Scorceses "Taxi Driver".
I guess there has never been a more intense portrait of a man decaying to a point where he becomes a time bomb.
While the motives and the milieu are completely different to the ones we face in global terrorism, the mechanics of radicalisation stay the same.
i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, so the world's biggest terrorist Bin Laden didn't hate the US all his life, he relied on the US for training and equipment to help kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, it was only just before the first Gulf War that he developed his hate for the Americans.
When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the insurgents fight the US marines in Iraq today....
Its when they cross the line and become willing to kill innocent men women and children that they become terrorists.
Good point, let me just edit your statement to reflect this wisdom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the <b>terrorists</b> fight the US marines in Iraq today....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, let me just edit your statement to reflect this wisdom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the <b>terrorists</b> fight the US marines in Iraq today....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clever use of words.
Since when did incoherant shelling of police stations and civilian centers equate to freedom fighting and if so.
Good point, let me just edit your statement to reflect this wisdom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the <b>terrorists</b> fight the US marines in Iraq today....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clever use of words.
Since when did incoherant shelling of police stations and civilian centers equate to freedom fighting and if so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably to cause instability within the country. To try to cause a rebellion against the occupationaly forces. You can't protect us so now we'll turn on you!
That is why the media needs to start calling them terrorists not insurgents. Call evil by its name.
When a bigger country invades a small weak country, the army/people of the little country will obviously use guerrilla tactics to fight the stronger country, thats how the IRA fought the British, thats how the resistance in France, Poland, Holland fought the Germans, thats how the insurgents fight the US marines in Iraq today....
Its when they cross the line and become willing to kill innocent men women and children that they become terrorists. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. Futhermore, upon looking back at some of these instances mentioned you can see the the problem in the definition of terrorist. Yes I find it unacceptable to kill innocent men women and childern, and no I'm not sympatizing with the terrorists.
But, if you look at the tatic s used by the French, Polish, Russian, Dutch, etc resistance movements in World War 2, you find a remarkable similiarity between them and the ones the "terrorists" are using now.
They would us explosives to topple trains in to rivers, they would bomb german buildings, even if some innocent bystanders might be there, they would kidnap torture, kill, and on occasion leave the corpse on display both German soldiers and civilian "colaberators". Put on top of that fact that they knew that any action by them would lead to the Germans killing innocent country men in reprisals.
Now theses men and women are celebrated as heros in many places. Yes, they were fighting what I doubt many people hesitate to call evil, adn the Germans did far worse, but does this end justify their tactics? No it doesn't.
Applying this to theIraq confilct, and terrorism in general, it leaves us in a sticky situtation. Clearly we can not approve of their tactics, but at the same time we celebrate the use of those tatics when we were invaded in the past.
This leads to the questionable conculsion that terrorism is terrorism when it doesn't align with your politcal ideas. It is freedom fighting when it does. The terrorists are wrong, and the Germans were wrong. Prehaps its time we take a close look at our past and our current tactics and relise that we too have been,and often are wrong. And then, if we are able to do this, and correct where we do have problems, prehaps we could win this form of conflict.
misread the post I answered to. forget it.
the only countrys that could put up a fight would be
1- England - who's been beatna once and can be beatan again
2- cina - I mean 1 billion people... thats gonna take a lot of bullets
3- india- same thing as china
4- japan - not quite as powerfull as it use to be, but if they had enough time they could build up pretty strong
5- russia- russia is impossible to easily invade by land... hitler made that mistake and it cost him the war
but other then that the rest of the world would fall pretty easily
I mean , we took over iraq with losing what... 1.5k troops? sounds like a pretty small number to me....
First off, they actualy are mostly Iraqi. Heres some support:
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3629322.stm' target='_blank'>500 Iraqis Captured as insurgents in one mission</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4066865.stm' target='_blank'>A look at rising recruitment of Iraqis</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3493777.stm' target='_blank'>Heres just one instance of an attack that was blamed on foreign insurgents...</a>
Futhermore, simply becasue some of them aren't Iraqis does not mean that they "care nothing for liberating Iraq". During World War 2, to continue my example, the French resistance was not comprised of just French people. Did the Dutch and British and Americans supporting the resistance there care about freeing France? Of course they did. I'm sure that the French invovled might have had stronger feelings about it, but foreigns involved also wanted to liberate France.
Now at this point, by your argument, the foreigners invovled would be just there to attack the Germans. There is some merit to this idea. A Dutchman invovled in the resistance in France, probably, at some level, has his own interets at heart. In this case, it would be getting the Germans out of Holland, so he can go back home. But to do this, he is trying to free France first. Is he not still, by our definition, a Freedom Fighter?
Alright, now the obivous rebutal to this arguement, is that the forgien insurgents are coming from places that are not occupied by Americans, except maybe if they happen to hail from Afghaistan. Now, I could argue this one out, but its late, and I've been drinking since I woke up today(damn pats...) so I fear that it would get tooo long and hard to follow. Instead I'm going to link to two pages.
<a href='http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html' target='_blank'>This</a> one is about a Pentagon report that claims that Islamic "terrorists" do not hate americans because of our freedom or our higher standard of living or simply becasue we are Americans, but rather becasue of our foreign policy. Its also brings up that fact that many arabs see the rab contries that we support as tyrannies, including Saudi Arabia, which leads me to wonder, just how much less of an insurgency there would have been if it had been Saudi Arabia invading.
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/' target='_blank'>Second</a> is an interview with a CIA officer about "terrorists". In it he states that it will be impossible for us to win "the war on terror" if we continue to view these people as "gangsters or terrorists or criminals," If someone who has the bacground (22 years) in the CIA says that Osama bin Laden should not be seen as a terrorist, I'd listen to him.
edit:fixed link, thanks for pointing that out
Also i would say they it could be won but it will be hard and violence may not be the only way
First, whose demonstrating it. Second, what kind of real world experience are you referring to that would somehow enhance our understanding of terrorism. Third, do you feel that you have it. Fourth, if so, please share.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->heh, I think the USA could win the war agaisnt anyone, the only thing stopping us is the fact that a lot more countrys have nukes now then just us and russia. so if the US invented a fail safe way to block nuke missles then we could take over the world
the only countrys that could put up a fight would be
1- England - who's been beatna once and can be beatan again<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its not going to end.
And all we have done in the revent years is to make the problems worse and many people who didnt really care either way now hate the US.
Maybe you stall it for a few years, maybe decades, but the conflict will remain.
Unfortunately, I think that we have crossed the point of no return long ago.
As long as there are people who oppose Bush's flavor of blind nationalism, there will be terrorists. Maybe not the folk who blow up bus's but people will get labeled it, and the sheep will eat it right up. (And no, I hated Kerry just as much as Bush)
Maybe you stall it for a few years, maybe decades, but the conflict will remain.
Unfortunately, I think that we have crossed the point of no return long ago. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moslty I agree...but I don't think we can "stall" it as you said. Look at Iraq, we haven't stalled anything there, we've helped it along. If you ment attacks on US soil, I would say that it hasnt been long enough to claim we've stalled them yet. It took al-Qaida eight years betweent eh their first attack ont he world trade center and their next action in the 9/11.
Otherwise, so true. Invading countries will never end "terrorism", and we have passed the point of no return as you put it. Not because I belive there is no action we could take that would, in the course of a few years placate those who oppose us, but because the way American politics is set-up we never could adopt that policy (bascaly stop acting like we rule the fricking world...)
in the long run..i agree with nemesis.
i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.
EX: suicide bombers are brought up to hate isreal, people fill their brain with nonsense like saying it's for a good cause and for their family, and what gives them a good reason is their family gets around $60,000.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what I think of this
If the larger countries would have been nice to smaller countries in the last 50 years there would not be so many terrorists. Many people have a reason to hate the US (government).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i mean, nobody just becomes a terrorist. it's a lifetime of hate, lifetime of propoganda and you just can't get them to change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not think that every terrorist is just a mislead kid that is just angry. There are terrorists who know what they do
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->only way to win against terrorism is have, MANY nations unified, and have them use their CIA, covert agents, elite military...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this will be the ultimate enslaving of all humans. Superpowers like the US have now established this spooky terrorist ghost that throws bombs just for fun (preferably arab). Just scare the people and take away all civil liberties for fake security. This is a very ancient nazi method
Going back to the subject of the thread for a minute.. No it can not and never will be won, because the terrorist threat that a majority of Americans beleive exists, simply doesnt exist in anything remotely resembling what you have been told. There was a great 3-part docmentary on the BBC a few weeks ago called "The Power Of Nightmares" which very nicely summed up the truth of the "terrorist" "threat". I'm sure you've heard this before, but it is the truth, and you are going to have to come to terms with it.
As for the torture carried out by UK and US troops - as some of you have already mentioned in this thread - these are "standard" interrogation techniques for <i>special forces</i>. The people who have stood trial so far have not been special forces, they have been regular soldiers who received no training in such interrogation methods, and who have been so brainwashed by the popular media about the country they are entering that they feel the need to take action on the anger they feel against these people.
Its important to note that the special forces troops who do use these methods go through a rigorous training procedure, <b>which includes them being made subject to their own techniques for up to several days</b>. This is an important part of the training, it lets them experience what their detainees will feel, and helps them to feel compassion and excersize restraint when carrying out interrogations themselves.
As the "interrogations" were carried out by regular military grunts with no training in the field, I think its very fair to call it <b>torture</b>, especially when you read about the many other cases of abuse & strange/inappropriate detention methods (torture) used by military forces all around the country. I think an important question should be who gave the orders for inexperienced & unqualified men to use such techniques, and who briefed them on the methods?
As long as there are people who oppose Bush's flavor of blind nationalism, there will be terrorists. Maybe not the folk who blow up bus's but people will get labeled it, and the sheep will eat it right up. (And no, I hated Kerry just as much as Bush) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
woudln't you hate all leaders elected by a democratic government? just wondering, I've never been a communist before.. but I do like sharing... sharing stuff like Music and Movies Via the internet and stuff... I'm pretty communist on Limewire at least.....