It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


America - Terrorist by definition

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:57 AM

...I would never fight a war by advocating that people strap bombs on their bodies and become suicide bombers. It is, on its face, obviously self defeating because the bomber naturally dies in the process.

my take.

becoming a soldier naturally entails that you will have an extremely high chance of dying. if you prefer a higher chance of dying from natural causes, dont become a soldier.

strapping a bomb to your self or crashing your plane into an enemy vessel is just a war tactic. willingness to die for a cause you believe in or for your country is one of the most honorable actions a man can take. any general in any army would want you on their side.

in war, a soldier would use any means possible to disarm,disable or kill enemy soldiers. no one is going to heed-"you cant use landmines coz i havent got any" or "you cant use ak-47s coz ive only got swords" or "youre not supposed to crash your plane into my ship coz ur supposed to be dropping bombs at me and im supposed to be shooting my guns at you".

terrorism to me is when you deliberately strap a bomb to yourself or crash your plane killing innocent enemy civillians for whatever reasons. this is wrong.

[edit on 25/6/04 by agent]

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:54 AM
The point of "suicide soldiers" was well covered by Mr. agent. In war it's simply a way of either attacking or defending a specific target. A well executed suicide attempt can make a big difference, that's a fact.

Then for some food to Blarney:

I guess you have never had the misfortune of being the underdog

I think this and his previous statement from Mr. Spider refered to Iraq and Your personal experience. General Lee was indeed a brave and intelligent man with experience in actual war. I'm sure you have "underdog" experience too, but is it actually relevant compared to what we are discussing?

Regarding Bin Laden btw, at the moment I'm not sure what to think actually. The way I see it there's a possibility that he is not at all that connected to 9/11, if connected at all. What I'd like to say here though is that the "boy piercing tire" story may well go all the way up among intelligent adults. Correctly offended, even adults can get into destructive circles. And at that point I would say: the more money and power they have the more dangerous they are.

Civilians represent their country. That's reason enough.

Well, obviously it is reason enough as we have seen now over and over. Why did America invade Iraq again btw..? It seems to me the reasons are kind of unclear. Now that sure doesn't make the Iraqis any happier.

For America, Iraq is a war about revenge, power, money and dominance. Now I'm sorry, but I don't see much respectable in that.

For many Iraqis on the other hand, the war is all out war. They are being invaded and killed by the thousands. Now Saddam is gone and all proof that Iraq had either WMD or any involvement in 9/11 is just rubbish, but they are still being bombed and called terrorists cause they fight for their own land. Now where's the sense in all this?

Now even more foreign military and business men are arriving, trying to earn a buck out of the whole thing and restore "peace". It's upsetting for many of us spectators to see, we can just imagine what the natives feel.

If catching a foreigner during circumstances like this and demanding that they leave is too much... then I don't know what they could do. And since they simply didn't leave, why not just cut the darn head of the hostage. Nothing else works anyway.

Ok, now I've given a point of view to the situation. May it be right or may it be wrong. Let's just think about it and share our ideas. For me at least it is comprehendable what they are doing. And justified.

About the WWII end btw, I'm not qualified to discuss what would have happened if America did not drop their Nukes over Japan, perhaps the outcome would have been different. At least to my belief, I do think the Kamikaze pilots did a great and honorable job serving their purpose at that time. This not because I have anything against America in particular, but from a war point of view.

I do express some hostile attitudes against America in my threads here and there. Be sure though that my hostility towards stupidity is equal against all, no matter what nationality. However, at times like this I don't mind favouring the underdogs. Especially when the yankees are doing their "Hot dog rallies" (I'm the coolest in the world crap) Some people do need to get thrown down on the ground now and then.

Regarding Tiananmen I have nothing to say. Haven't dug in to it.

PS: Blarney, You do got some good points and I do enjoy discussing with ya'll

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 04:54 AM

For America, Iraq is a war about revenge, power, money and dominance. Now I'm sorry, but I don't see much respectable in that.

I partially disagree with the above. A very large part (if not most) of the citizenry of the U.S. support the war in Iraq for patriotic, well intentioned, altruistic motives. A lot of citizens also disagree with the war for patriotic, well intentioned reasons.

I am sure that some policymakers in the U.S. wanted war for revenge and/or power and/or money and/or dominance. But I think this is too simplistic. It is true that the evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the previous President Bush - the revenge aspect would be tied into that event. I would prefer to label it payback or a deterrent to other countries. An assassination attempt on a president or prime minister of one country by another country is, by itself, a sufficient reason to go to war.

As for power or dominance, there is a lot of desire for that stuff. I would agree with you that this is an element contributing to the United States' decisions. But, one of the reasons given for PLO terrorists or Iraqi terrorists doing what they do is their sense of helplessness or lack of power or control over their situation. You (Chinalurker) captured it well when you described how some (not all) Iraqis must feel seeing foreigners controlling their country; in fact, you wondered out loud why not "cut off their heads" because nothing else works anyways. You're describing a feeling of a lack of power or dominance. Thus, the terrorists that are against the U.S. are motivated by power and dominance or the lack thereof - they are not on a higher moral plane than the leaders of the United States. Any motivation of the United States for keeping or obtaining power or dominance is not more evil than someone else cutting off a head because he lacks (and wants more) power or dominance.

As for money, it is a factor indirectly. I think more correctly that oil is a bigger factor. Iraq is the second largest producer of oil. Saddam Hussein was our ally prior to 1991 and everything was fine. He essentially went against the U.S. when he invaded another ally, Kuwait. There was no way that Hussein would be allowed to invade Kuwait and take her oil fields. Once the war began, the relationship between the U.S. and Hussein would never heal.

I guarantee you this, the United States will never allow its supply of oil to be jeapardized. We have about a thirty day reserve of oil. If the oil supply was shut off completely, there would be riots in the streets and the military would be unable to defend this country. We will never allow matters in the middle east to become so unstable that our supply of oil is threatened. But, oil is, in my opinion, a legitimate reason to go to war. The lack of oil is an unacceptable security risk.

This has always been true since oil has become so important in the industrial age. The main reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (a preemptive attack) was because the U.S. cutoff its supply of resources, mainly oil. Any modern country's government, whether in Europe, Asia or North America, would go to war for oil. I am somewhat sick of people saying the Iraq war is not justified because it is "only about oil". For national security reasons, oil is and always has been a sufficient reason for war. If the U.S. cutoff the oil supply to China or Europe the nuclear missiles would be in the air rather soon.

The fact that oil is a major factor does not nullify that Saddam Hussein's ouster stopped him from abusing his own people and also served to liberate many, many, Iraqis. These are positive results of the war and are no less true just because one may be against the war.

As for the underdog issue, it really is not material. Being the underdog does not justify violence - it explains it.

One last point, you (Chinalurker) tried to imagine how some Iraqis feel about foreigners involved in Iraq. I agree that some feel this way. But, there are some native Iraqi citizens who like the United States' involvement and Saddam Hussein's ouster. Can you imagine how they would feel if the United States' efforts prove to be unsuccessful? If we are going to go down this road of supposed empathy, we should at least try to imagine how both sides feel; no?

Sorry for the long post.

P.S. Chinalurker. We can agree to disagree on some issues. I enjoy the debate and I think examining these things helps to a better understanding for all. Thanks.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 05:04 AM
Some very good points there.
I'm heading out now and it's getting late, but I'll reply with my views tomorrow.


posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 09:47 PM
Well, the war with Iraq in my opinion both make sense and does not make sense, just depending on the perspective. There are certainly plenty of reasons both for and against.

One of my more fundamental ideas that is for the war is that America need more time and resources to develop crucial technology and such for the benefit of the future of the human race in general. This may justify the whole situation in my opinion. At present, America is most fit for this task. This is a matter of global importance, so it should also be in the highest interest also for other nations, along with developing similar capabilities themselves (China Europe etc...).

Another reason in my opinion for the war is that we cannot allow too much internal (global) dispute (terrorism) at this time. Terrorism and destruction in my opinion lacks justification from all higher perspectives.

Based on the foundation and my hope that America is working for the "highest good" of all people on this planet from the perspective of us all being equal in this world and that we are on this boat together, I am actually on the American side.

Americans should however make even more effort to improve their habits and act as even better images towards the international public in many ways. This goes out to all Americans. Being on top is a great responsibility, and it's because this is misused by so many irresponsible Americans that the world is reacting very negatively lately.

A lack of understanding is of course a main issue.

Big nations like America, China and Europe competing with each other to produce better results, technologies and outsmarting each other is very important for our development. If it leads to world war though and total destruction, I think we have lost the whole point altogether.

As leaders of nations it's in their interest to motivate the population to develop and make use of all resources. Hence competition is good. On the basis that we are all still competing towards excellence and further development. On this planet and beyond.

If the masses know all details about what's going on... they will not act with anger that is necessary if they knew for example that the 9/11 was actually a hoax to invade Iraq etc...

Regarding oil I just suggest that the world puts more emphasis on developing alternative less energy and material consuming power supplies, but until that's reliable, yes, oil is of importance for America.

Less usage by all would be encouraged though.

Regarding "terrorism" then... I do suggest that America use terror acts upon other nations to achieve their goals, however, the goals do in my opinion justify the actions.

Never look at anything from only one perspective.

And yes, there are iraqis who would like to see their country grow and develop, and who are thankful now, or will be thankful later when it's getting better. The majority I suppose. If not now, then at least later.

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by chinalurker

Americans call other countries and people "terrorists".

when was the last time an american smashed jet liners into buildings?

posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 10:04 PM
You don't actually believe that terrorism must be conducted in the same way every time, do you..?

Also regarding the 9/11... Besides what you read in the news, what do you actually know about what happened back then, and who were behind it?

Of course it is rediculous to believe that americans were behind anything connected to 9/11... but that actually sounds pretty successful to me


posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 03:17 AM

Originally posted by chinalurker
Based on the foundation and my hope that America is working for the "highest good" of all people on this planet from the perspective of us all being equal in this world and that we are on this boat together, I am actually on the American side.

It just seems that leaders of bigger countries are working for only their own profit, not for good of ordinary people or for worlds best.
And then they use all means to retain their power/get more of it.
Just like in Russia where independent medias telling unconvenient things about things like Chechnya have been shut down.
Same with China's government, and still occupying Tibet...
... businessis of Italy's prime minister...

"All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field."
-Albert Einstein

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 05:18 AM
America is not the terrorist but when we are pushed we will push back even harder the terrorist tested us on 911 now we responded and the rest of the world doesn't like it well too bad

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 05:20 AM
The US has made the world a more dangerous place to live with its "War on Terror" campaign.

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 07:30 AM
Personally I think the "War on terror" will be toned down eventually, in a no too distant future. We'll get other things in our minds soon enough.

That terror will come back here and there is of course inevitable, but let's try to focus our efforts in more constructive directions as far as possible.

I for my sake am gonna work my ass off so I can send my future child out in space if he/she wants into a space station or mars or something~ Perhaps I'll dig a bunker somewhere up in Mongolia or the north east here in China to stay on the safe side if we end up in some nuclear tossing the coming years... Or, if WW3 comes along I'll consider moving to Sweden, hehe~ They seem to have been pretty safe and sound the last two wars.

Certainly I won't move to America. I don't feel it's any safer there than here in China actually. Even during wartime I'd prolly be more happy and safe sticking around in China. Now that's just my opinion.


posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by chinalurker
Even during wartime I'd prolly be more happy and safe sticking around in China. Now that's just my opinion.

Country doesn't matter, it just depends how close to valuable targets/resources and population centers you are.

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 02:10 PM
History of the Middle East Database

"On March 8,1985, a Lebanese intelligence unit trained and supported by the CIA exploded a car bomb in West Beirut in front of the apartment building where Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah was living killing 80 and wounding 200."

Lebanon fears US will settle old scores in its new war

"Yet, the CIA believes Mr. Fadlallah personally blessed the two suicide bombers that blew up the US Embassy and the Marine barracks in 1983. A CIA-trained Lebanese hit squad tried to kill him in May 1985 with a car bomb. The explosion killed 80 bystanders, but he escaped."

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 04:42 PM
Chinalurker, I believe you are right about the term "War on Terrorism", it will fade, as things become more difficult in the US. A war on terrorism is a war that will never end, no matter what your government believes or chooses to tell you.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in