It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terrorists and why people support them

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

Originally posted by Legalizer
Did your son get paid for his actions there?
Did he give up his pay to do it "for freedom"?
No I'm sure he didn't, he did it because thats what he's paid to do.


Perhaps, it would not be practical to do these things for free considering he doesn't live in a communist state. He lives in a place where he must support his family by earning a wage or salary. Forfeiture of salary would be ridiculous so your argument is pointless. All men in the western world work for a salary and that does not make them mercenaries. All soldiers have been paid since the very beginning.


Originally posted by Legalizer
Did he leave Iraq in worse shape than its been in three decades?
Yes he did

His son is not responsible for that. The people who are making the living conditions worse are the ones who are deliberately targeting civilians and anyone who is trying to make Iraq a better place. How can we improve anything when terrorists/insurgents/add your name for them here/ are tearing it down as fast as we can fix it. How can improvements be made to infrastructure when the environment is too hostile to have unarmed contractors make things better? They cannot.

If you want to start fixing blame, you may want to look into a mirror. The more you support the insurgents, the longer it will take to stabilize and the more men, women and children will needlessly die. Maybe you should have a chat with Jane Fonda about how she feels now about her overt support for the North Vietnamese while her countrymen died. Her actions breeding more and more VC causing the war to linger on. She thought she was helping the war to come to an end. She eventually she only realized she was being used to kill her own people.


Thanks for that Xman.

I couldent have pointed that out any better.




posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Her actions breeding more and more VC causing the war to linger on. She thought she was helping the war to come to an end. She eventually she only realized she was being used to kill her own people.


Your history education on Vietnam is severely flawed. LOL Jane Fonda caused the war to linger on - that was a good one, it's a terrible weasler euphemism. Forming an opinion on a corrupt government killing people for profit is one thing - going over to have relations with a public U.S. enemy and aiding them is quite another.

Also there is no draft here. This is an all voluntary military. Kids in Vietnam didn't sign up to defend America they were thrown in a rice paddy having very little training to fight a people who had been at war for decades. It was a pissing match between the soviets and the U.S. and although we totally wasted the VC, over 1,000,000 casualties compared to our 50,000, we pulled out of the war on the ground of, "No more kids need to get wasted, it's bad for our political careers."

Get your facts straight.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Her actions breeding more and more VC causing the war to linger on. She thought she was helping the war to come to an end. She eventually she only realized she was being used to kill her own people.


Your history education on Vietnam is severely flawed. LOL Jane Fonda caused the war to linger on - that was a good one, it's a terrible weasler euphemism. Forming an opinion on a corrupt government killing people for profit is one thing - going over to have relations with a public U.S. enemy and aiding them is quite another.

Also there is no draft here. This is an all voluntary military. Kids in Vietnam didn't sign up to defend America they were thrown in a rice paddy having very little training to fight a people who had been at war for decades. It was a pissing match between the soviets and the U.S. and although we totally wasted the VC, over 1,000,000 casualties compared to our 50,000, we pulled out of the war on the ground of, "No more kids need to get wasted, it's bad for our political careers."

Get your facts straight.




Scroll up a bit more, like to page 7 and actually quote who said that. I quoted xman, you mis quoted me.

Get your facts right too.

[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Yeah I was aware of that thanks for the heads up. Since you agree with the statement that makes you an insurgent doesn't it?

[edit on 12-5-2005 by vincere7]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
How do you come to that conclusion?

I suggest you read from page 1 before making any more remarks like that.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
It's called a loaded question just like the euphemism you agreed with by blackx. Amazing when the tables turn,



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
How about giving us your view of the title of this thread? and not make assumptions that I am an insurgent. I still fail to see where you get that from.

Maybe you could answer the question in the title? After all, thats what this thread is about.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
How about giving us your view of the title of this thread? and not make assumptions that I am an insurgent. I still fail to see where you get that from.

Maybe you could answer the question in the title? After all, thats what this thread is about.


I gave a response on page 6. You fail to see why you're labeled an insurgent for the same reason you agree with blackx, who believes in an ideology that exists only in his mind. It's tactical politics and it's easy to paint someone or something they're not. Of course you're not an insurgent, but I sure as hell can make people believe you are. The insurgents are Iraqi civilians waging war against an invader - the U.S.

Do you know whats up or down anymore or only whats painted for you to believe? Education in critical thinking will go a long way in helping Americans see through rhetoric, and yet it is the very disease that erodes moral thinking.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7

Your history education on Vietnam is severely flawed. LOL Jane Fonda caused the war to linger on - that was a good one, it's a terrible weasler euphemism.

Get your facts straight.



I think you should follow your own advice. You are sticking your head in the sand if you cannot appreciate the HUGE results of her propaganda in the US. It was so bad that people were in the airports waiting for soldiers to return home. Were they there to welcome them? NOPE! They spit on soldiers...even the ones who were drafted and had no choice. They spit on them and called them baby killers. Such was the influence of the North Vietnamese in this country all due to alliances with people just like Jane Fonda who was filmed sitting in a AAA battery saying that she wished that one of the US planes were overhead now so that she could personally take a shot at them.

You say that those words had no power in the US? I am sure that stirred up all those in the US who felt that the 'man was just bringing them down.'

Wow, that sounds so familiar doesn't it. Except, just change 'man' to Bush and we have a winner of a phrase to incite the weak minded to endlessly repeat the words in their mindless opera ad nauseum.

They are old tricks, but sometimes they work best. The US could have ended the war quickly if it had the support at home to remove the supply lines to the VC in the South.

Where do you get your 'facts'? A google search for "stuff only the uninformed believe" or do you make them up as you go?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7

You fail to see why you're labeled an insurgent for the same reason you agree with blackx, who believes in an ideology that exists only in his mind. It's tactical politics and it's easy to paint someone or something they're not. Of course you're not an insurgent, but I sure as hell can make people believe you are. The insurgents are Iraqi civilians waging war against an invader - the U.S.

Do you know whats up or down anymore or only whats painted for you to believe? Education in critical thinking will go a long way in helping Americans see through rhetoric, and yet it is the very disease that erodes moral thinking.



The only person who has labeled me an insurgent is you, because I agreed with what someone else wrote.
I find that ludicrous. I can agree, or disagree with whom i choose.

I do know whats up and down. I see the same things you see, read the same things you read. Its all there, maybe not black and white, but its there. We have to make our own minds up as to weather we believe it or not. Because I choose to believe things,or agree with things, that makes me an insurgent in your eyes.
I am interested as to how you could make people believe that I am an insurgent. Do you have some kind of special powers that can manipulate peoples minds? Get real!

I do know things that have happened in Iraq from someone who was actually there. I can take the stories as true and make my mind up as to weather or not the things i have been told are true. The things i have heard, first hand so to speak, are not shown in any media coverage.
There are things happening over there that never get broadcast, because they don't involve killing etc.

Because you don't see or hear of anything more than the violence , you are guilty of what you quote about knowing up and down. you take it as gospel that its only killing thats happening out there. Take time to read some posts from people on ATS who have knowledge of what good goes on in Iraq.

But be careful what you read and agree with. We wouldn't want you to turn into an insurgent now would we?.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I thought that insurgents were the ones who were causing all the trouble in Iraq at the moment?

the statement made against you is stupid.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
You are sticking your head in the sand if you cannot appreciate the HUGE results of her propaganda in the US.


What you call her propaganda was soviet propaganda through the university, which carried a wide following among students and celebrities. Jane Fonda was just another active participant.


Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
It was so bad that people were in the airports waiting for soldiers to return home. Were they there to welcome them? NOPE! They spit on soldiers...even the ones who were drafted and had no choice. They spit on them and called them baby killers. Such was the influence of the North Vietnamese in this country all due to alliances with people just like Jane Fonda who was filmed sitting in a AAA battery saying that she wished that one of the US planes were overhead now so that she could personally take a shot at them.


Again you are forming an opinion based on your view of history. The influence was not North Vietnamese but a turn-keySoviet espionage machine. Just as aid in Afghanistan was not French but U.S.


Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
You say that those words had no power in the US? I am sure that stirred up all those in the US who felt that the 'man was just bringing them down.'


I never said such things and the "man" - the government did bring our people down. If you were to explore the LBJ, Nixon era I'm sure you would come to the same conclusion.


Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Wow, that sounds so familiar doesn't it. Except, just change 'man' to Bush and we have a winner of a phrase to incite the weak minded to endlessly repeat the words in their mindless opera ad nauseum.


The weak minded are those who believe that President Bush is annointed by God and sincere in democracy for American citizens.


Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
They are old tricks, but sometimes they work best. The US could have ended the war quickly if it had the support at home to remove the supply lines to the VC in the South.


Ended the war quickly? Remove the supply lines? Could've? It's very clear when discussing Vietnam you have no idea what you are talking about.


Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Where do you get your 'facts'? A google search for "stuff only the uninformed believe" or do you make them up as you go?


Experience kid.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
calling someone a terroist/insurgent for what they choose to believe is just plain crazy, these terrorists/ insurgents are called that because of the actions they take by deceiding to blow something up or cause terror by slautering people in the streets, bikereddie is no more a terrorist/insurgent than you or i....



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The term 'insurgent' is being used VERY loosely in the media right now. Earlier on in the war, the government was using the term insurgent in correct context, which the media ran with probably because it sounded cool, or whatever.

The insurgents that were referred to originally were people who came from other countries to help aid the Iraqi resistance in their fight.

I think we ought to just cease to use the term terrorist, anyway. The tactics they use that we think make them terrorists are NOT NEW TACTICS. Terrorism is a HOTWORD intended to push people's buttons. The only difference in tactics that I can tell that would justify the use of the word 'terrorism' would be the intended target. If civilians are deliberately targeted, then that would come close, but the reality is that in most cases, it is not civilians that are deliberately targeted. Most of the targets are the Iraqi police and the Iraqi national guard, but it so happens that civilians become casualties subsequent to the attacks on the intended target.

These 'terrorists' will soon find that deliberately attacking civilians does not achieve the level of results that they expect, and they will eventually have to make new, more effective plans if they intend to survive to fight on.

So when the question is asked "who supports terrorism, and why", and we discuss, I think we need to be working with the same set of definitions for these words. And since that is never going to happen, we need to discuss instead 'what side are each of us on, and why'.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Good post delta maybe the general guide lines should be that set out in the dictonary

terrorist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

insurgent
n a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
n a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
adj in opposition to a civil authority or government

freedom fighter
n.
One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

think that was all the terms used should be no more incorrect usage of any of those terms




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
But the first term, terrorist, using a derivitave of another derivitave of the actual root 'terror' doesn't offer a definition for the term at all.

Terrorism, I would assume, would mean to cause fear. Well, if we were to use that definition, what is actually going on in Iraq right now is not terrorism.

In the case of September 11th, I would probably want to call that an Iconological attack. Maybe part of the intent was to cause people fear, but the choice of target was rooted in symbolism. OBL wanted to attack one of the major economic hubs of the world, not to bring down the economy, but to let people know that he was pissed about it, and who controlled it.

The September 11th attacks had many unforseen benefits (from the OBL point of view, not ours). Such as the airline crisis that ensued, the logistical backup that caused a lot of lost revenue. I'm sure he had some of that in mind, but I bet he didn't and couldn't calculate the effects prior to his action.

But after all was said and done, were we scared? Was that fear something that prevented us from doing something about it? Some, like myself, would say that what we did was hasty and could have been planned and executed better, but if there was the intent of causing fear from the attacks, it failed, and even backfired.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Terrorism

[n] the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

hope that helps delta



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jayce
Terrorism

[n] the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

hope that helps delta


Yes, granted. But there just isn't a lot of actual terrorism going on right now, especially in Iraq, which is my point. If someone supports the Iraqi resistance, that doesn't necessarily mean they support terrorism, unless of course they are hanging on the words of the media, in which case, everything is terrorism.

[edit]And if that's the definition we're going to use, we and everyone else who has ever engaged in combat operations, no matter the side, is a terrorist. No, that doesn't help at all. That is a horrible definition, unless everyone just wants to concede that they are by definition, terrorists.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by DeltaChaos]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
"But there just isn't a lot of actual terrorism going on right now, especially in Iraq,"

Hate to argue small points mate but how can you say this? Currently in Iraq myself and everyday terrorism happens, go check out some of there statements what they release! here is a web site with the translations on www.globalterroralert.com

Terrorism

[n] the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

this what they try to do on a daily basis! using suicide bombers and complex ambushes! there is no way you deniy these facts!

and regarding your edit, i did not write the dictonary that is the definition what is used for that word! unless you think of a better one let me know

[edit on 13/5/05 by jayce]

[edit on 13/5/05 by jayce]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
1. The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.

2. Violent and intimidating gang activity (street terrorism) ter·ror·ist (-ist)
adj or n.




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join