who are the real terrorists?

[B Campbell]

I read the paper today. Learned that as many as 21 Afghans were killed in a raid a while back. Apparently we though it was an Al-Quaida base, but the people there were actually anti-Taliban Afghans, people who were on our side. One man said that he was knocked to the ground and kicked so many times that his ribs cracked.

Also recently, a 'drone' of ours fired a missle at a suspected Taliban camp. We thought Bin Laden might have been there. Instead, it was camp of peasants scavenging for scrap metal. They all died.

We have already killed more innocent Afghan civilians than those who were killed in the September 11th attack.

Recently after Spetember 11, dozens of people of middle-eastern descent were taken in for 'voluntary questioning', though it wasn't quite voluntary. None of them had any suspected links to the Taliban or Al-Quada, making this a direct violation of our constitution and bill or rights.

One man of middle-eastern descent who had an airplane-band radio in his hotel was imprisoned for over 30 days after the 9-11 attack. It was only when a white man who was staying at the hotel came forward with the informatin that it was his radio that the man was released. The imprisoned man lost his job because of this, and wanted some kind of compensation for his losses; none was given. No action was taken against the man who actually owned the radio.

King (I say King because he was not actually elected, but took power by force) Bush has been slowly repealing the Freedom of Information Act, which says that all government documents are open for the public to view, by sealing presidental documents from 1980-onward.

The Afghani civilians are surely terrified of our actions in their country. Many Americans are terrified of the actions of it's government. So, who are the real terorists?

 

[Jordan]

Could you provide links to these stories on reliable news sites (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, New York Times, etc.) you mention? Your heavy partisan attitude makes me question your statements. But, true or not, accidents are not the same as terrorist attacks.

 

[Klostrophobic]

The US government.

 

[higgimonster]

this is just one of the tribulations of the americanization of the world. If we want everyone to be like us we may have to kill some of them. Just the way it is.

(sarcasm should be getting pretty thick by now )

 

[rhnelson]

Originally posted by Jordan
Could you provide links to these stories on reliable news sites (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, New York Times, etc.) you mention? Your heavy partisan attitude makes me question your statements. But, true or not, accidents are not the same as terrorist attacks.

How about The Guardian?

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pen-l/2001IV/msg03117.html

or

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/0,6957,,00.html

You're not likely to find much in the US media on the topic of civilians killed by the US in Afghanistan.

Rick

 

[Flip]

Not to be disagreeable or anything but America was attacked, I think it's really hard and frustrating to fight back at terrorists because they are so dispersed and one strike one life oriented in their attacks, the rules change I think, if they were honorable people, they would not have done it in the first place and whatever comes from it I lay it at the feet of the terrorists.
Of course not all the afgan people are like that and i really feel sorry for their situation, maybe they should realize that following those nuts will bring about their own demise and rebel like the NA, they sure look like they like americans when they speak english, wear jeans, dance, smile.
Freedom comes at the cost of blood.

 

[LoudMusic]

"who are the real terrorists?" you ask?

CNN

~LoudMusic

 

[Flip]

Ta-dang!

 

[InterCooler]

US regards Taliban/Al-Queda as terrorists.

Taliban/Al-Queda say US is the terrorist.

Israel says Palestine in the terrorist.

Palestine says Israel is the terrorist.

It depends on who you ask. 9-11 incident was clearly a terrorist attack. I also think US is taking FULL ADVANTAGE of the situation and holds Afghanistan as the hostage.

US embassy has been attacked before by the Al-Queda. The attack on US warship about a year back has also been linked to Al-Queda. Even the WTC has been bombed before by Al-Queda. But those attacks have not been 'significant' enough for US to launch a retaliation attack.

Thousands of people from many countries were needlessly killed on 9-11. It is tragic for people who suffured the loss of the loved ones. However, the demise of WTC gave US an ideal excuse to launch an internationally 'condoned' attack.

US citizens, while being patriotic (and there is nothing wrong with that), must also take time to consider people of the other side. An eye for an eye is the law of the old. US is still practise Christianity and 'love your neighbour/enemy' & 'In God we trust' thing do they not?

For eg. the Anthrax thing. Who was responsible for that? Didn't that issue slowly die away when it was found that the source of the virus was from inside the US? So who was the terrorist in that case?

Just a few things to think about.

And then there's the Palestine/Israel issue. Israel may be a bully in that area but damn it, Palestine MUST stop the suicide bombers. You cannot achieve peace with violence.

 

[rhnelson]

Originally posted by InterCooler
... You cannot achieve peace with violence.

No?

Heard of anyone being attacked by Apache Indians?

Seen Milosovich on trial today?

How long's it been since Germany fought a war?

Been on a tourist trip to Viet Nam?



Rick

 

[InterCooler]

Originally posted by rhnelson


No?

Heard of anyone being attacked by Apache Indians?

Seen Milosovich on trial today?

How long's it been since Germany fought a war?

Been on a tourist trip to Viet Nam?

Rick

Pretty good points, Rick.

Heard of anyone being attacked by Apache Indians?
No. Only from Apache helicopters.

Seen Milosovich on trial today?
No. I thought he was beaten in election.

How long's it been since Germany fought a war?
57+ years. Would you be asking the same question if Germany won?

Been on a tourist trip to Viet Nam?
No. Americans brought peace to Viet Nam? All Vietnam war movies are nothing but hoax? I honestly don't know what is going on there but I think the credit is due to the people of Viet Nam, not the Viet Nam war.

 

[rhnelson]

Originally posted by InterCooler



Seen Milosovich on trial today?
No. I thought he was beaten in election.


Been on a tourist trip to Viet Nam?
No. Americans brought peace to Viet Nam? All Vietnam war movies are nothing but hoax? I honestly don't know what is going on there but I think the credit is due to the people of Viet Nam, not the Viet Nam war.

Milosevic is being tried at a UN tribunal at the Hague for war crimes. I doubt that would be happening if not for the violence of the US bombing of Serbia.

Viet Nam is peaceful enough today to have tourists. But it took a lot of violence for them to get rid of the French and then the Americans.

The point is that it's possible to get to peace with violence. It's not necessarily the only way, but we can't say it's impossible to obtain peace with violence.

Another silly saying I've seen on a bumper sticker is "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war"

Rick

 

[InterCooler]

I apologize for being sarcastic in early e-mail. That was rather childish.

You are right about the bumper sticker. A country with a strong defensive capability will have fewer wars.

Violence was a factor in both Milesovic situation and Vietnam but I do not believe that the violence was 'the' factor that determined the outcome.

In all cases, violence is the reason peace was broken in the first place (whether it be war, torture, inhumanity, etc). I think we have different definition/understanding of 'violence': one being violence as in being harmful & causing damage; the other being a a justifiable force to end the 'former' definition of violence (but justifiable in whose eyes?).

 

[rhnelson]

Originally posted by InterCooler
I apologize for being sarcastic in early e-mail. That was rather childish.

Violence was a factor in both Milesovic situation and Vietnam but I do not believe that the violence was 'the' factor that determined the outcome.

In all cases, violence is the reason peace was broken in the first place (whether it be war, torture, inhumanity, etc). I think we have different definition/understanding of 'violence': one being violence as in being harmful & causing damage; the other being a a justifiable force to end the 'former' definition of violence (but justifiable in whose eyes?).

Not a problem. anyway, I didn't detect any sarcasm; my detector must be out of whack. :-)

As far as Vietnam, I doubt if the Vietnamese could have gotten rid of the colonial occupiers by talk alone. Ho Chi Minh tried to get his country's independance after WW 1, but President Wilson wouldn't talk to him. Free elections were promised in Vietnam in the 50's, but the Americans and Frence vetoed them because they were afraid that Ho would be elected President.

I'm using the dictionary definition of violence - "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse".

Rick

 

[InterCooler]

Rick, you are the sanest person I've met so far on a forum! Glad you are here!

 

[kyle]

I don't know.

 

[Klostrophobic]

I have a feeling Osama is the one we should be worrying about.

 

[TAFJonathan]

Originally posted by Jordan
Could you provide links to these stories on reliable news sites (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, New York Times, etc.) you mention? Your heavy partisan attitude makes me question your statements. But, true or not, accidents are not the same as terrorist attacks.

I agree that what B Campbell said was HEAVILY partisan, somewhat ignorant, biased, and one-sided. HOWEVER, I just thought I'd say that FOX IS NOT A RELIABLE NEWS SOURCE. I'd go for The Guardian, The New York Times, and MAYBE CNN, but take CNN with a grain of salt...they get $$ from the government as well.

 

[KevinPSX]

Well, by calling him "King" Bush you manage to destroy your credibility. I certainly didn't see him commanding tanks and directing them to fire at Al Gore. It would have been no more illegitimate or legitimate had Gore become President. Apparently someone's a sore loser.

Seriously, though I am worried about some of the stuff, especially from Ashcroft and the Justice Department.

If you ask me, though, finding someone with an airplane-band radio in a NYC hotel and questioning them was fairly reasonable.

And about the Constitution: somehow, I get the impression that you like all the Bill of Rights' Amendments except number two.

 

[Pupik]

Originally posted by Stealth Viper
I agree that what B Campbell said was HEAVILY partisan, somewhat ignorant, biased, and one-sided. HOWEVER, I just thought I'd say that FOX IS NOT A RELIABLE NEWS SOURCE. I'd go for The Guardian, The New York Times, and MAYBE CNN, but take CNN with a grain of salt...they get $$ from the government as well.

I once read that there are something like 6-7 major media companies in the US, and they tell us 99% of all the news we hear. Listen to public radio a little (NPR), but even they are guilty of making inaccuracies in reporting. Sometimes there is a little less bias, but you really have too see all sides of the story. Read a foreign news website, sometimes it's a bit less partisan. Still, in wars and conflicts, it's really difficult to know exactly what's going on for about 10-20 years. Sad but true.

I think the reall terroists are the "Homeland Security" brain trust. They have no clue what's going on because anything could be a terrorist threat, and they are making more and more laws that just put white-out on the Constitution. They have no idea what's going on becasuwe they have no intellignece men out there, they just get fourth and fifth-hand information.

 

[TAFJonathan]

The real terrorists are Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, most of the Palestinian Liberation groups, and some of the Israeli army.

 

[Flip]

And I'll go one more on this Stealth Viper.
The real terrorists are people who probably never lifted a hand to fight for their country, the real terrorists are the people who want to let the Sept. 11 go and blame it on America and the civilized world. They are the same ones
that are responsible for the murderers running the streets and our nation going soft on capital crime. Now we got kids killing people and can't do a damn thing about it.
Who the hell can't tell the difference between a terrorist act and normality?
Get a ****ing brain you bunch of pyscho misfits and grow up before you put your opinions in public because you're a real insult to intelligence,
or better still, go fight for Al-Queda.
I'm glad there's somebody in this world to stand up to these stupid ****s and put them in their place, which is a goddamn hole in the ground.

 

[LoudMusic]

On a similar, yet different, subject ...

The English would regard the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as a terrorist group. AND THEY ARE.

How about we define 'terrorist' real quick?

From Dictionary.com

terrorist \Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

terrorist adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

ter·ror·ize Pronunciation Key (tr-rz)
tr.v. ter·ror·ized, ter·ror·iz·ing, ter·ror·iz·es
To fill or overpower with terror; terrify.
To coerce by intimidation or fear. See Synonyms at frighten.

ter·ror Pronunciation Key (trr)
n.
Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
Informal. An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.

Ok then, by definition, who is/are the terrorist(s) ?? Anyone who supports any act of violence to pursuade the judgement of others.

Originally ... the guys on the planes were the terrorists. And in my honest opinion, the television media and our own government became the terrorist not long after. They were using someone elses acts of violence to pursuade our way of life. They were not just informing us of the news, they were using it to gain possition.

But I won't be happy until I'm in control ... vote for me in 2016 and together we can make a difference! (:

~LoudMusic

 

[Flip]

ter·ror·ize Pronunciation Key (tr-rz)
tr.v. ter·ror·iz

Originally ... the guys on the planes were the terrorists. And in my honest opinion, the television media and our own government became the terrorist not long after. They were using someone elses acts of violence to pursuade our way of life. They were not just informing us of the news, they were using it to gain possition.
~LoudMusic [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you need position when you are under attack, traditionally, the high ground.
Using someones acts of violence, c'mon, why not, terrorists attacked the United States, I mean we all know about the problems the media(major evil) has promoting itself, but you are going kind of far out there. The media didn't promote the attack and in war there's going to be civilian casualties.The purpose is to win this thing, not drag our sorry asses back home and wait for the next attack.
Maybe I'll be more forgiving after they stop taking bodies out of WTC. No.

 

[LoudMusic]

Originally posted by Flip
I think you need position when you are under attack, traditionally, the high ground.
Using someones acts of violence, c'mon, why not, terrorists attacked the United States, I mean we all know about the problems the media(major evil) has promoting itself, but you are going kind of far out there. The media didn't promote the attack and in war there's going to be civilian casualties.The purpose is to win this thing, not drag our sorry asses back home and wait for the next attack.
Maybe I'll be more forgiving after they stop taking bodies out of WTC. No.

Ok ok, I'm jumping them pretty hard there, but still ... they (media ...) are abusing the news and taking advantage of the situation in order to boost ratings. Instead of repeating the same thing for weeks on end they could have just said, "There's nothing new. Here watch a happy episode of the Cosby Show." But instead they continued to replay footage of the buildings falling and people screaming and mug shots of suspected terrorists. In my mind, they are aiding the terrorists. They are putting greater fear in peoples minds than there should be. We are all aware of what happened, what could happen in the future, and how the government and millitary are dealing with it. Until then, I don't want to see replays of our nation getting the crap kicked out of it.

~LoudMusic

 

[TAFJonathan]

Perhaps they were aiding them. But that wasn't their INTENTION. That's the defining factor here.

Originally posted by LoudMusic


Ok ok, I'm jumping them pretty hard there, but still ... they (media ...) are abusing the news and taking advantage of the situation in order to boost ratings. Instead of repeating the same thing for weeks on end they could have just said, "There's nothing new. Here watch a happy episode of the Cosby Show." But instead they continued to replay footage of the buildings falling and people screaming and mug shots of suspected terrorists. In my mind, they are aiding the terrorists. They are putting greater fear in peoples minds than there should be. We are all aware of what happened, what could happen in the future, and how the government and millitary are dealing with it. Until then, I don't want to see replays of our nation getting the crap kicked out of it.

~LoudMusic

 

[vat_man]

My concerns with this are as following:
- I have no issue with the US or international coalition pursuing Al Qaeda in response to the WTC attack, and the bombing of the African Embassies
- I have a problem with innocent Afghanistanis being killed in pursuit of Al Qaeda. I also have a problem with the US manipulating media reports both concealing that Afghanis are being killed, and how many. The implication is that the life of a US citizen is worth more than an Afhani citizen. The Taliban did not win in a popular vote, they took over the country by force.

Whilst I do not identify the US as terrorists, I resent the media manipulation we have seen since the Vietnam war. The concealment of truth, the lies - it's sickening.

What I also find annoying is the US Govt attitude that since it is acting as a self-appointed global policeman, it is above criticism (and is free to criticise others). Not so.

As I said, I have no issue with the campaign. Just watch the hypocrisy.

 

[LoudMusic]

Originally posted by vat_man
What I also find annoying is the US Govt attitude that since it is acting as a self-appointed global policeman, it is above criticism (and is free to criticise others). Not so.

Bingo. I distinctly remember telling my friends and teachers during Desert Storm that we should get all our troops off of other people's soil before we piss off the wrong guy. I was in sixth or seventh grade at the time ...

Ten years later, 8,000+ of our citizens are killed, and a national landmark is destroyed.

~LoudMusic

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by LoudMusic


Bingo. I distinctly remember telling my friends and teachers during Desert Storm that we should get all our troops off of other people's soil before we piss off the wrong guy. I was in sixth or seventh grade at the time ...

Ten years later, 8,000+ of our citizens are killed, and a national landmark is destroyed.

~LoudMusic

Nice insight.

Isn't the figure under 3000 now? Mind you, that is still a hell of a lot of people...

 

[LoudMusic]

Originally posted by vat_man


Nice insight.

Isn't the figure under 3000 now? Mind you, that is still a hell of a lot of people...

Really? I guess I should turn the TV back on ... ha ha. Yeah man, either way it's that many more than should have died.

My whole idea revolved around the United States getting its nose out of everyone else's business - bring our boys home and have them watch our own borders. It's a good idea, but there is a certain amount of 'world policing' that just has to be done. Knowing that people are killing eachother and not doing anything about it would bring just as much ridicule as getting right in the middle of it. "There are hundreds of people dying everyday, the United States could make it all stop ... but they just sit there and watch it happen. WHY!?" So there is a fine line that must be walked.

I agree, the US gets into more than they should, and then toots their horn about it. But if you don't toot your horn, you get sick of helping out.

~LoudMusic