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 are just soldiers on a new battlefield

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
why do so many people single out terrorists and forget the horrors of the war in iraq. People where soon to forget the Bagdad bombings, but never forgot 9/11. Yes 9/11 and other bombing are a great trajity, but why do we forget other people like the poor families on both sides of the war who have lost family, and the bombings that both sides of the war have caused




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
please cold people tell me whether they agree or disagree



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Because you posted this in the wrong forum. This forum is about aliens.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Terrorists is a just a name for someone whos has killed in a war but wasn't backed by media

soldiers on what turns out to be the loosing front may be called terrorists or war criminals
Machiavelli knew it centuries ago; the winner gets to write history and that's the end of it

that being said, killing and wars are pointless indeed

unless you're the one making millions off of it obviously


edit: true, wrong forum, feel free to move, but I think the question stands

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Mirrorshade]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
terrorist purposely set out to attack civilians or economic targets for political gain.

persons who are not registered or acting under the orders of a state/army who attack millitary targets of a nation that are not at war with each other, are also terrorists

easy.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Let me guess, you are one those that thinks terrorists are "freedom fighters," right?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
A terrorist is a person who has no national or official backing but performs an act against civilian or non-combatant personnel with intentional harm or causing a government to alter a condition of government.

It is possible for combatants to perform terroristic acts against civilians.

Freedom Fighters, such as America's founding fathers, were terrorists in the eyes of Great Britain, but the founding fathers had put the Declaration of Independence in place. This was a legal document for the formation of our great country and those fighting for those aims would be considered soldiers. Without this legal framework, it was just a band of terrorists.

Now for Iraq. The bombing of Baghdad was a legitimate target during war conditions. As were many cities bombed in Europe and Asia during WW2. Death rate was much higher in that war but you just didn't see or hear the anti-war propaganda. It could be that people understood that bad things happen in times of war and there are people that just need to be killed for the betterment of mankind.

9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq or Baghdad. Those who say so are fools or idiots.

I'm just an average American who has seen too many things over the years. If it was up to me, we would have never invaded Iraq. Does this make me antiwar or a Bush hater. Hardly... There isn't 1000 Iraqis worth even 1 dead American. I would have reduced our nuclear stockpile while the weather had a nice westerly wind so Iran could share in the effects. I would show the world the meaning of true warfare and not this crap going on now. But then, I'm not in a position to have this done.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky


I'm just an average American who has seen too many things over the years. If it was up to me, we would have never invaded Iraq. Does this make me antiwar or a Bush hater. Hardly...


I agree. I certainly am not a fan of this whole Iraq affair. While I think Iraq was an inevitability, I don't understand why it took place when it did. However, now that we are there, I see no real way of backing away from it, without consequences.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Let me guess, you are one those that thinks terrorists are "freedom fighters," right?


Depends,
Iraqi's killing American troops are not terrorists.
People hijacking planes and killing innocents, are terrorists.

Then, by definition

People using tanks, guns and missiles to kill innocents in their own land, are terrorists.
People from that land fighting the foreign invader, are freedom fighters.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Yes but Hamas are laballed as terrorists after being democratically elected by the People of Palastine. Even after not commiting a suicide bombing after 2 years even after intense Isralie bombardment and American pressure. They are the occupied people yet it is they who are terrorists when Isralei civilians are killed. But when Palastinians are murdered it's a defensive measure by the IDF!

Hezbollah are seen as terrorists when fighting against the invading forces of Israel into Lebanaon.

The insurgents of Iraq, both Sunni and #'e are seen as terrorists even though their country has been illegally invaded and occupied. I mean come on do i need to continue? I mean what would you do if your country was invaded?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
QUOTE:

'Freedom Fighters, such as America's founding fathers, were terrorists in the eyes of Great Britain, but the founding fathers had put the Declaration of Independence in place. This was a legal document for the formation of our great country and those fighting for those aims would be considered soldiers. Without this legal framework, it was just a band of terrorists.'

So, by this logic, if Osama Bin Laden and his buddies write up some document/fatwah/declaration (which I think they've done more than once already), they become no longer 'terrorists', but 'freedom fighters'? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. It's an illogical contradiction.

The 'founding fathers' as you call them were in fact rebellious British colonists attacking, by any means possible, the people who were 'legally' in charge of the country at the time (although I'm sure native americans would have something to say about that one..). The people who were legally in charge were the British and the British monarchy...simple. So by that definition (yours) the rebels become something other than 'freedom fighters'. Again, it's simply a matter of perspective. Look at WWII, Vietnam, Korea, any major conflict - and the demonisation of the enemy is always a standard tactic.

But of course, as a poster above wryly noted: it's the victor who writes the history books. George Orwell's '1984' springs quickly to mind also. 1984 (the book) is an uncanny parallel to the events of today. If you've never read it folks - I'd strongly advice that you did.

J.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Yes but Hamas are laballed as terrorists after being democratically elected by the People of Palastine.


Point well taken. They are an official government who still sponsers terroristic acts. There is a fine but fundamental difference. If it was the official policy of Hamas to attack and kill civilians, then it would be an act of war by the state governed by Hamas. Not making a public policy while helping terrorists, is the difference.


Originally posted by Peruvianmonk The insurgents of Iraq, both Sunni and #'e are seen as terrorists even though their country has been illegally invaded and occupied. I mean come on do i need to continue? I mean what would you do if your country was invaded?


Iraq is a legal war. You have a different point of view which is fine, but it does not change the fact that the Iraq war was sanctioned by the UN. Saying it has been illegally invaded, does not make it so. The terrorists of Islamic faith are terrorists. They have no legal backing in their acts except in trying to kill civilians or destroy property in attempting to cause civil unrest or economic hardship. They are not supported by the legal government of Iraq. This is what makes them terrorists. If they had the full and legal backing of Iran, and Iran made a statement saying these are our soldiers, treat them as such when captured, then it would be an act of war by Iran. This will not happen so these terrorists are performing terroristic acts.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
the Iraq war was sanctioned by the UN


No, the previous head of the UN 'Koffi' declared the United states Actions UNLAWFUL!



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

So, by this logic, if Osama Bin Laden and his buddies write up some document/fatwah/declaration (which I think they've done more than once already), they become no longer 'terrorists', but 'freedom fighters'? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. It's an illogical contradiction.


Not at all. Osama is a stateless person. All he has to do is have some country support his mission then he would have legal standing to attack who he saw fit.


Originally posted by jimbo999
The 'founding fathers' as you call them were in fact rebellious British colonists attacking, by any means possible, the people who were 'legally' in charge of the country at the time (although I'm sure native americans would have something to say about that one..). The people who were legally in charge were the British and the British monarchy...simple. So by that definition (yours) the rebels become something other than 'freedom fighters'. Again, it's simply a matter of perspective.


Your point is British and it is understandable how you would be confused in these matters. This is why there was a legal document establishing The United States of America before any warfare took place. America declared herself independent and the British took it upon them self to impose a false government will back onto the freed Americans. The Americans then defeated the British and fully established her freedom from others. This may also, coincidentally, be the last war that the French won while still fighting as French without invading armies in their country.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
QUOTE: 'Iraq is a legal war. You have a different point of view which is fine, but it does not change the fact that the Iraq war was sanctioned by the UN. Saying it has been illegally invaded, does not make it so. The terrorists of Islamic faith are terrorists. They have no legal backing in their acts except in trying to kill civilians or destroy property in attempting to cause civil unrest or economic hardship. They are not supported by the legal government of Iraq. This is what makes them terrorists. If they had the full and legal backing of Iran, and Iran made a statement saying these are our soldiers, treat them as such when captured, then it would be an act of war by Iran. This will not happen so these terrorists are performing terroristic acts.'

Iraq war sanctioned by the UN??? Errmmm...nope. It wasn't sanctioned at all!! Is there some 'other' UN that I know nothing about?? We ARE talking about that international body with it's headquaters in New York right???

J.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
QUOTE: 'They are not supported by the legal government of Iraq. This is what makes them terrorists. If they had the full and legal backing of Iran, and Iran made a statement saying these are our soldiers, treat them as such when captured, then it would be an act of war by Iran. This will not happen so these terrorists are performing terroristic acts.'


Jeez - were your 'founding fathers' supported by the legal government of North America at the time (the British)? These British renegades ('fouding fathers') also had the financial and military aid of France behind them.... ermm...all sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it???

J.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

No, the previous head of the UN 'Koffi' declared the United states Actions UNLAWFUL!



He was the figure head of the organization. It is the security council that has the ultimate say. Beside, as corrupt as the guy was, he would say anything for a price.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
In the past what the UN says, stood.
All the way up until the US didnt agree.

Turns out, the UN was right, and the US was wrong.
'' we have no evidence of a cladestine weapons programme ''

WOW, who woulda thought turned out they didnt have any evidence because one existed?
Yet the US insisted on a WMD programme cause they had evidence that was 'undeniable' which all turned out to be faked, created or lies.

The UN would of allowed action should WMD's of been found, which they wernt.
The UN resolutions allowed immediate response should saddam be found to be creating weapons, which he wasnt.

Thus, the head of the UN stated '' the United states has acted UNLAWFULLY ''

which it has.

The United states, and Australi have BOTH been found to of been dealing with Saddam in the oil for food scandal or while sanctiosn were in place.
Both our nations are as guilty of being curropt and in bed with saddam as anyone else, this does not give us the HIGH ground to dismiss what the UN says.

can we all say ' hypocritical '?

think about it,
We created the UN, in the wake of the days of hitler.
A war which shaped our world with such tremendous tragedy.
The UN remained involed one way or another, being the voice of direction from that day, UNTIL the US decided listening to them wasnt in their interest any more.

Doesnt that scare you?
A organisation charged with peace on Earth, around since the fall of Hitler has been dismissed by the United States because they wouldnt back them in an 'un-winnable / unproveable / illegial' war ??



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Sorry Hinky but when was the last time Hamas attacked Israel? Not for 2 years yet they are repeatedly targeted by bombings and incursions. Plus the U.S and Israile effort to arm Fatah and overthrow Hamas which was soundly defeated.

And to suggest the Iraq war is legal is beyond a joke. Plus American and our soldiers (British) soldiers are a legitamate target of attacks. As are those of other countries and of mercenary companies such as Blackwater.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Iraqi civilian casualty estimates are either:
Min: 600,000+ Max: 700,000+

There's a reason why we don't keep count, and it's because it's a hypocritical outrage that this is how we "free" people. Blow them to smithereens and then say it was for your own good.

Can anyone honestly think that this would not affect a person to such an emotional degree that they would join up with insurgents or "terror" groups or any faction that would strike back at the people they believe are to blame for the deaths of...sometimes a persons entire family? We have unwittingly (I'll give us the benefit of the doubt) manufactured a recruiting tool for upcoming terrorists.

You can scoff at the "freedom fighter" idea if it makes you feel better (commenting from a vacuum is easy) but I tell you that if this country were invaded by a foreign force that desired to institute its own "vision" for our path and during the course of that hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying you would be a coward not to stand up against them.

How can anyone tell me that a person can take such a loss and not feel embittered at all. Thats a preposterous notion that most Americans themselves don't hold to, because I personally saw the myriad flags and outrage after 9/11 and the Iraqi's have lost much more by comparison.

The average Iraqi is living a horror show the likes of which we currently in America have not seen. They've experienced a 9/11 times about 20-25 and counting and we all saw how 9-11 put the life of an average American to a screeching and shocking halt. They've lost hundreds of thousands based on erroneous info yet we can't even fathom the possibility of this happening to us let alone empathize with the foreign civilians who live this nightmare and the losses they face.

You read that twenty headless bodies were found on the street of Baghdad but they are merely numbers in the minds of most Americans. This is one of the problems we must overcome to truly implement the constructive world changes we claim we want to see.

Our American policies need to be severely readjusted because as of now we are currently instigating the situation and thereby creating an almost abstract enemy that we will fight endlessly. Our American ego is forcing us to write a check we can't cash (literally and figuratively) all the while this ego convinces us to think we are infallible, justified and indestructible.

This will be our inevitable undoing.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join