It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Syrian Sister
It might suprise you to know that i'm against capital punishment. But i must make an exception when it comes to war time, and when you are dealing with traitors and mercinaries.
You talk about the law in the UK being 20 years, but i guarrantee you if the war crossed to within your borders, that law would change, fast.
Your idea is utopian, but ultimately i think it is justified for resistance movements to shoot collaborators.
If only you knew how disgusting the collaborators are, if you knew what i knew, i don't think you'd still feel the way you do.
The resistance has decided NOT to execute him
But with the kidnappings in Iraq (or any other country, like Lebanon), it feels very wrong in my mind, possibly because it is just one sect against another as opposed to being an attack on a nation as a whole.
I don't think that someone leading your country astray is worth fighting for.
Iraq is not turning into an American government but a government of their own but one that the people have a say in.
And if a spy has to collaborate in even a small way to get information, does that make them a traitor too?
and I realise the main reason I feel the way I do about these things is because thats how they have been put in my mind.
My question wasn't who do you think is a collaborator, but rather who gets to decide who collaborators are(i.e. who appointed you as the arbiter of patriot vs. traitor/collaborater?
2 collaborator, collaborationist, quisling
someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying force
First the definition: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The US military isn't the enemy of the Iraqi population though, so that right there screws up the definition you posted.
The US is trying to provide security and stability, and foreign interference is hampering this goal. Were it not for this continued violence, US forces would be pulling out, allowing the Iraqi forces to handle the security needs, but they aren't ready yet for unilateral efforts due to the scope of the meddling.
Answer this question- does it matter which insurgent group one supports, or is one as good as the next so long as they are against the US? The reason I ask this is they all have differing ideologies and goals, which may not coincide with those of another insurgent group. How do you know which group to throw your support behind, or is it the enemy of my enemy is my friend point of view? Many times insurgent groups may fight amongst themselves as often as with coalition forces as they are trying to get more power, influence, prestige, or whatever.
These groups are primarily effective due to their intimidation of the locals, not because of the respect they garner.
I guess your views are completely unbiased and devoid of any influence from insurgent propaganda, as only the Americans are susceptible to that sort of thing right?