NationStates Jolt Archive


Have any of you considered....

Aust
08-11-2004, 21:40
...That the supposed terrorists in Iraq may not be terrorists at all? They may actually be Freedom Fighters, or at least to Iraqies. Lets just look at the cituation in reverse.

A larger nation with a diffrent religion and a mad presdent invades your nation for dubious reasons. He removes your leader and his forces begin to oppress the people, after a year or so of promises things don't get better. Lets just say a American mistakes your brother for a terrorist and shoots him dea, or maybe it's your cousain, or freind, or nabour. Then you here reports of other mistaken killings, and still things are no better. Then someone fights back, he plants a bomb and kills two Americans. He tells you that they have invaded for no good reason. You realise tht they are actually fighting to free your country from a puppet goverment, ao you join in.

Now what would you call these people who fight. Terrorists? They don't fight to cause terror or kill innocent civillians do they, they fight to free the nation from what they precive as a foreign power. I think you would call them Patriots, Freedom Fighters. After all one mans terrorist is anothers Freedom fighter.

Just trying to see it from another prespective.
Superpower07
08-11-2004, 21:41
I just consider them to be rebels - that's a generic enough term for me
Aust
08-11-2004, 21:43
I just consider them to be rebels - that's a generic enough term for me
So weren't the American Patriots rebles?
Jalkerika
08-11-2004, 21:50
yea. makes sense. read the bin laden video translation. it basically says that.
Japaican Madness
08-11-2004, 21:54
perhaps us Americans are the terrorrists. *puts pinky up to mouth*
The Black Forrest
08-11-2004, 21:57
Well?

How about this?

If they are Freedom Fighters, would they not take civilian casualties into consideration?
Even Newer Talgania
08-11-2004, 21:58
"Freedom fighters" don't target civilians. Terrorists do. I know that's hard for you to grasp in the haze of EUro-trash moral relativism, but try anyway.
Petsburg
08-11-2004, 22:00
I just consider them to be rebels - that's a generic enough term for me

I concour
The Astray
08-11-2004, 22:11
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It all depends on what side you're on. The insurgency in Iraq is willing to free their country from American troops using any means necessary, which includes condoning civilian casualties.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" seems to be their motto, for now at least.
Even Newer Talgania
08-11-2004, 22:15
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It all depends on what side you're on. The insurgency in Iraq is willing to free their country from American troops using any means necessary, which includes condoning civilian casualties.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" seems to be their motto, for now at least.
Exactly as I said, moral relativism.
Leppi
08-11-2004, 22:16
Also many of the civilians outside of police sstations or even near americans are considered traitors.

Another interesting thing is that the Americans happen to blow up many small children... right after a suicide bombing...with C4
The Black Forrest
08-11-2004, 22:18
Also many of the civilians outside of police sstations or even near americans are considered traitors.

Another interesting thing is that the Americans happen to blow up many small children... right after a suicide bombing...with C4

State your source please?
Aust
08-11-2004, 22:24
"Freedom fighters" don't target civilians. Terrorists do. I know that's hard for you to grasp in the haze of EUro-trash moral relativism, but try anyway.
*put's on Falmeproof suit* So, your not only condemming just a thought but also where I come from, saying that I am 'Euro-Trash' maybe you should just look at your own country before you critizise overs, you know, with a monkey in charge and all that....

Anyway, there have been 100,00 Iraqi casulties during the war, most cause by the Americans, after all just look at what happened in Faluja, they painted normal people as terrorists didn't they. there may be some terrorists, but normal Iraqies could not leave there nouse could they.
The Black Forrest
08-11-2004, 22:30
they painted normal people as terrorists didn't they. there may be some terrorists, but normal Iraqies could not leave there nouse could they.


Well that is tough as I am sure that the insurgents paint all casualties as civilian casualties.

However, a glimmer, I read one report over a hospitol that was taken over by the americans. It mentioned in the morgue were 14 bodies. They said 7 were fighters.....
Markreich
08-11-2004, 22:31
...
Now what would you call these people who fight. Terrorists? They don't fight to cause terror or kill innocent civillians do they, they fight to free the nation from what they precive as a foreign power. I think you would call them Patriots, Freedom Fighters. After all one mans terrorist is anothers Freedom fighter.

Just trying to see it from another prespective.

When they execute policemen, it is in a fight for freedom?
When they decapitate kidnapped victims, it is in a fight for freedom?
When they hire suicide bombers, it is for freedom?
When they kill and intimidate International relief workers, it is for freedom?

Please. The US, Uk and allies have stated TIME AND AGAIN that we do not wish to occupy Iraq.

Also, consider the foreign born terrorists.
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why are they not fighting in Afghanistan?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why did they not fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why did they not fight for Kuwait in the 90s?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why have they not attacked Israel to free Palestine at ANY point over the last 50 years? (No, suicide bombings don't count.)

This thread is a sad joke.
Aust
08-11-2004, 22:39
When they execute policemen, it is in a fight for freedom?
When they decapitate kidnapped victims, it is in a fight for freedom?
When they hire suicide bombers, it is for freedom?
When they kill and intimidate International relief workers, it is for freedom?

Please. The US, Uk and allies have stated TIME AND AGAIN that we do not wish to occupy Iraq.

Also, consider the foreign born terrorists.
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why are they not fighting in Afghanistan?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why did they not fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why did they not fight for Kuwait in the 90s?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why have they not attacked Israel to free Palestine at ANY point over the last 50 years? (No, suicide bombings don't count.)



This thread is a sad joke.
I was just trying to show a view on the terrorists from another perspective thats all, maybe this is what they think. (NO I am not condoning Terrorism of any sort.)

1) I didn't mention foreign fighters, just Iraqies who feel like they must fight.

2) They are most likely Islamic extreamists who don't deserve to live, (The examples that you show at the top) I was as shocked and saddened by Ken Bigley as anyone, I am a dove and hate violence.

3)They have stated that again and again, I know this however that it must seem to Iraqies(Who if they get any news at all is mainly biasted eather way)

4) So to recap, I am not condoning foregn born terrorists, I am just saying that must be what some Iraqie's have in there heads when they join the fight against terrorism.

5) If you must insult something, please insult me not the thread.
Free Soviets
08-11-2004, 22:39
"Freedom fighters" don't target civilians. Terrorists do.

i don't know that that generalization can be made quite so hastily. after all, resistance against the fascists in europe sometimes targetted civilians who collaberated with the fascists (or were accused of it) and sometimes lapsed into what can only be called terrorism. and yet they were clearly freedom fighters.
Crydonia
08-11-2004, 22:39
Actually, there are both freedom fighters and terrorist operating in Iraq at the moment.

The freedom fighters, are Iraqi citizens, who are fighting foreigners they see, as an occupying force who invaded their country. This is both understandable, and expected. While Saddam was no angel, there were a significant number of Iraqi's who supported and respected him. They are the ones fighting for their countries freedom, and (from what I've seen), do try to keep their action to foreign troops, and Iraqi's they see as colabarators. I'm not saying they have never killed innocents, but nowhere near the numbers that the terrorists have.

Then there are the "outsiders", who entered Iraq just to kill foreigners, especially the Americans. I read a report (can't remember where, or I'd link it here), that most of the kidnappings (and beheadings that follow), and indiscriminate bombings are down to them. They don't care if innocents are killed, because they have their own agenda, and protecting the Iraqi people, and the feedom of Iraq, are'nt on it. These people are just using the situation in Iraq to further their own causes.
Even Newer Talgania
08-11-2004, 22:39
*put's on Falmeproof suit* So, your not only condemming just a thought but also where I come from, saying that I am 'Euro-Trash' maybe you should just look at your own country before you critizise overs, you know, with a monkey in charge and all that....

Anyway, there have been 100,00 Iraqi casulties during the war, most cause by the Americans, after all just look at what happened in Faluja, they painted normal people as terrorists didn't they. there may be some terrorists, but normal Iraqies could not leave there nouse could they.

Prove it. Where is the International Red Cross study showing this number of casualties? How about a Red Crescent study? Where is the documentation? How was the number of 100,000 determined?

There is no proof, this is simply propaganda.
GermanyAsIknowIt
08-11-2004, 22:41
(Edit: removed pointless elaboration.)

Of course they're both. Terrorists and Freedom Fighters. There's no difference between the two from an objective point of view, the difference in definition stems from your bias.

Please don't claim moral justification for this. That's always just a side-effect of every war-like action.
The US is trying to establish a more powerful foothold in the Middle East, create a secondary oil source as levelerage against Saudi Arabia and striking a blow against Europe, which is trying to establish itself as equal to the US in the future.

Whereas your 'Freedom Fighters' are trying to de-stabilize a nation-state that is getting back on its feet. Their aims are the creation of a theocracy in a far more severe shape than Iran (think pre-9/11 Afghanistan,) use of this country as another base of support for their world-wide agenda, striking a blow against the US and garnering support (or anti-support for the US cause) through the images of war.

It depends on whom you want to side with, I'm siding with the US for various reasons. Further down on the list you'll find 'the chance for Iraq to become a half-way secular and prosperous state under US supervision.' It's not my main reason but the morally most sound one.


Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? Depends on whom you want to side with.
Aust
08-11-2004, 22:42
Actually, there are both freedom fighters and terrorist operating in Iraq at the moment.

The freedom fighters, are Iraqi citizens, who are fighting foreigners they see, as an occupying force who invaded their country. This is both understandable, and expected. While Saddam was no angel, there were a significant number of Iraqi's who supported and respected him. They are the ones fighting for their countries freedom, and (from what I've seen), do try to keep their action to foreign troops, and Iraqi's they see as colabarators. I'm not saying they have never killed innocents, but nowhere near the numbers that the terrorists have.

Then there are the "outsiders", who entered Iraq just to kill foreigners, especially the Americans. I read a report (can't remember where, or I'd link it here), that most of the kidnappings (and beheadings that follow), and indiscriminate bombings are down to them. They don't care if innocents are killed, because they have their own agenda, and protecting the Iraqi people, and the feedom of Iraq, are'nt on it. These people are just using the situation in Iraq to further their own causes.
Exacly my point.

Even Newer Talgania, Front page of the Gardian, a few days back, if you want me to, I can find the Artical and a subsiquent thread about it on here.
Markreich
08-11-2004, 22:52
I was just trying to show a view on the terrorists from another perspective thats all, maybe this is what they think. (NO I am not condoning Terrorism of any sort.)

1) I didn't mention foreign fighters, just Iraqies who feel like they must fight.

2) They are most likely Islamic extreamists who don't deserve to live, (The examples that you show at the top) I was as shocked and saddened by Ken Bigley as anyone, I am a dove and hate violence.

3)They have stated that again and again, I know this however that it must seem to Iraqies(Who if they get any news at all is mainly biasted eather way)

4) So to recap, I am not condoning foregn born terrorists, I am just saying that must be what some Iraqie's have in there heads when they join the fight against terrorism.

5) If you must insult something, please insult me not the thread.

1) How can you tell which does what? If they are foreign or natives, the tactics are deplorable, sub-guerella and inhuman.
2) Yep.
3) That's certainly fair. The situation in Iraq is bad, but it certainly isn't as bad as it could be. Yet I can't come to the idea of these people as "Freedom Fighters".
4) Good to see that we agree on that. But even if they do (and cast their lot with the terrorists), then they themselves are terrorists and are no less guilty. Can't be just a little pregnant.
5) I'm not insulting you. I'm insulting the thread. Please see that I do not mean you any malice, but I think that this is a very bad concept. Like disco.
Daajenai
08-11-2004, 22:53
Prove it. Where is the International Red Cross study showing this number of casualties? How about a Red Crescent study? Where is the documentation? How was the number of 100,000 determined?

There is no proof, this is simply propaganda.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

To get their numbers, they gather data from:
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

See http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods for more on how they do what they do.
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 22:53
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why have they not attacked Israel to free Palestine at ANY point over the last 50 years? (No, suicide bombings don't count.)

This thread is a sad joke.


I'd like to start by saying i don't condone either side's behaviour, but why don't suicide bombings count? It takes a hell of a lot more courage to die for your cause than it does to kill others
Even Newer Talgania
08-11-2004, 22:54
Exacly my point.

Even Newer Talgania, Front page of the Gardian, a few days back, if you want me to, I can find the Artical and a subsiquent thread about it on here.
Yeah, I saw that. It was basically a POLL taken of "randomly chosen" Iraqis. Just like those amazingly accurate "exit polls" that showed Kerry winning every state by double digit percentages. The "study" you speak of is unscientific and flawed to its core. There is no PROOF that 100,000 people died. Or that their deaths were caused by American troops. There is no PROOF of anything even remotely approaching your claim.
Even Newer Talgania
08-11-2004, 22:57
It takes a hell of a lot more courage to die for your cause than it does to kill others

Or stupidity. Or brainwashing.

"No one ever won a war by dying for his country [or cause]. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country [or cause]."
Gen. George S. Patton
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 22:58
i don't know that that generalization can be made quite so hastily. after all, resistance against the fascists in europe sometimes targetted civilians who collaberated with the fascists (or were accused of it) and sometimes lapsed into what can only be called terrorism. and yet they were clearly freedom fighters.

How do you define civilian?
how many of the Afghans being held by Americans are freedom fighters/terrorists and how many were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

at the end of WW2, 90% of war casualties were soldiers
now, 85-90% are civilians, civilians get killed by armies as well as terrorists
Markreich
08-11-2004, 22:58
I'd like to start by saying i don't condone either side's behaviour, but why don't suicide bombings count? It takes a hell of a lot more courage to die for your cause than it does to kill others

It takes no courage, just desparation. If I had graduated school, hadn't worked anything but menial labor for 7 years and had a wife and three hungry kids... and some guy walks up, offers me a trip to paradise with 72 virgins and $20,000 (more money than I'd made in 7 years by far) to my family after my death, I'd probably do it. Especially since God wants me to.
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 23:00
Or stupidity. Or brainwashing.

"No one ever won a war by dying for his country [or cause]. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country [or cause]."
Gen. George S. Patton

some would argue that the Americans and British are brainwashed just as badly, perhaps worse.

When we go to war to get shot its patriotism, when they do its brainwashing. go figure
Even Newer Talgania
08-11-2004, 23:01
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

To get their numbers, they gather data from:
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

See http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods for more on how they do what they do.

Sorry, not proof. It's mere speculation by an obviously biased and unrecognized organization, arrived at through flawed methods. ("Analysis" of media coverage? What a joke!) I want an actual body count by the Red Cross or other equally recognized international organization. And BTW, why aren't there any pictures of the graves of these alleged victims? Surely they'd have been circulated by now. It's bullcrap, just like the "Jenin massacre" that people said the Israelis did a few years back.
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 23:03
It takes no courage, just desparation. If I had graduated school, hadn't worked anything but menial labor for 7 years and had a wife and three hungry kids... and some guy walks up, offers me a trip to paradise with 72 virgins and $20,000 (more money than I'd made in 7 years by far) to my family after my death, I'd probably do it. Especially since God wants me to.

The American's are worse for carrying out God's will than anyone
Even if God didn't explicitly make the request in writing
Crydonia
08-11-2004, 23:03
I am going to surprise a few people who may think I am anti-war. I supported the war, because I felt Saddam was a threat to the world (maybe not an immediate threat, but difinetly someone who needed to be taken out of power), and also, after what he had done to the Kurds, Shia's and the way he treated prisoners, it would be better for the Iraqi people to have him gone. It would have been better though, if the coilition had secured Iraq's borders and stopped the stream of foreign terrorists that flooded through during, and just after the fighting.

I did not say in my post above that I condoned, or encouraged the freedom fighters in Iraq. It would be best for all Iraqi's if all the fighting stopped, and they put their energy into rebuilding their country, forming a stable government and making the streets safe for their kids, not to mention kicking all the foreign terrorists out of their country. Then the coilition troops would happily leave.

I can understand the freedom fighters stance. If Australia was invaded by a another country, no matter what excuse they used to justify it, I and many other Aussies would fight anyway we could to free our country. I am sure most Americans would as well, if (not that it ever would) the same happened to them
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 23:05
Sorry, not proof. It's mere speculation by an obviously biased and unrecognized organization, arrived at through flawed methods. ("Analysis" of media coverage? What a joke!) I want an actual body count by the Red Cross or other equally recognized international organization. And BTW, why aren't there any pictures of the graves of these alleged victims? Surely they'd have been circulated by now. It's bullcrap, just like the "Jenin massacre" that people said the Israelis did a few years back.

what like the counting the severed right hands of every corpse?
Daajenai
08-11-2004, 23:12
Sorry, not proof. It's mere speculation by an obviously biased and unrecognized organization, arrived at through flawed methods. ("Analysis" of media coverage? What a joke!) I want an actual body count by the Red Cross or other equally recognized international organization. And BTW, why aren't there any pictures of the graves of these alleged victims? Surely they'd have been circulated by now. It's bullcrap, just like the "Jenin massacre" that people said the Israelis did a few years back.
Believe what you wish. However, do recognize that the entire political spectrum is represented in thier research, not just those news organizations that were/are against the war. If you choose not to believe data arrived at by compiling numbers from such a wide variety of news sources, you have either reached previously untold levels of cynicism, or are simply unwilling to aknowledge that they just might be correct due to your own bias.
Talondar
08-11-2004, 23:12
Looking at the Iraqi Body Count webiste I see a max of 16,405 civilians. That's a far cry from the 100,000 previously claimed.
Now I'd like to know how many of these 16,000+ civilian deaths are due to Saddam, and now the insurgents, using hospitals, mosques and schools as bases. How many were killed not by coalition soldiers, but by carbombs?
Sukafitz
08-11-2004, 23:13
This topic is suggesting that terrorists are brave, wise, and/or heroes...

Do heroes send women & children into cities with bombs strapped to them?

Do heroes kidnap innocent people and execute them on video?
Daajenai
08-11-2004, 23:19
Looking at the Iraqi Body Count webiste I see a max of 16,405 civilians. That's a far cry from the 100,000 previously claimed.
Now I'd like to know how many of these 16,000+ civilian deaths are due to Saddam, and now the insurgents, using hospitals, mosques and schools as bases. How many were killed not by coalition soldiers, but by carbombs?
I simply reported the numbers I've seen and regard as likely to be most accurate. Note that I did not make the original claim.
As to the cause of the deaths, realize that the count begins with deaths reported in January of 2003. Also, this is found on their methodology site:
"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"

Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 23:23
This topic is suggesting that terrorists are brave, wise, and/or heroes...

Do heroes send women & children into cities with bombs strapped to them?

Do heroes kidnap innocent people and execute them on video?

someone just read the first and last post and then jumped right in there.
Lets not forget that our American war heroes heroically dropped gallons of napalm on 8 year olds heroically. But that was different because the 8 year olds were TERRORISTS.*

http://www.ettnet.se/~stefan-a/hiroshima/mini001a.jpg

And this is another photo of the American's strategic strike during World War 2, the result of weeks of planning to avoid civilian casualty


*may not be true
Aeruillin
08-11-2004, 23:23
Sorry, not proof. It's mere speculation by an obviously biased and unrecognized organization, arrived at through flawed methods. ("Analysis" of media coverage? What a joke!) I want an actual body count by the Red Cross or other equally recognized international organization. And BTW, why aren't there any pictures of the graves of these alleged victims? Surely they'd have been circulated by now. It's bullcrap, just like the "Jenin massacre" that people said the Israelis did a few years back.

There are people who deny the existence of the holocaust this way. Can you dig up the bodies of all the humans that were then killed, and shovelled into ditches or burned? Is it therefore right to deny they were? I think it is an insult to them.

Civilians killed in Iraq are lucky if anyone remembers their name at all. Most of them are killed in such a way that their remains cannot even be identified. To deny their death, their very existence is just gross. Even to downplay this number is.

And this is not a strawman or slippery-slope reasoning. I am not deliberately bringing up the holocaust to demonize this denial. It is only that there were independent reports of these 100,000 dead, and there are as many, if not more, who would gain from the denial of such a number, than those who would gain from exaggerating it. In such a case, I maintain that denying it given it is real, and thereby justifying the continuation of the war (and again that number, possibly) is a far worse crime than to believe it, were it exaggerated.
Apollina
08-11-2004, 23:25
When they execute policemen, it is in a fight for freedom?
When they decapitate kidnapped victims, it is in a fight for freedom?
When they hire suicide bombers, it is for freedom?
When they kill and intimidate International relief workers, it is for freedom?

Please. The US, Uk and allies have stated TIME AND AGAIN that we do not wish to occupy Iraq.

Also, consider the foreign born terrorists.
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why are they not fighting in Afghanistan?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why did they not fight against the Taleban in Afghanistan?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why did they not fight for Kuwait in the 90s?
* If they are Freedom Fighters, why have they not attacked Israel to free Palestine at ANY point over the last 50 years? (No, suicide bombings don't count.)

This thread is a sad joke.

Aust is not saying he considered these people as freedom fighters not terrorists; he is saying that on the ground, in a totally different situation some Iraqis and Arabs may see these people as freedom fighters. Other nations have extreme nationalist pride other than the USA, especially in Arab nations, and quite a number may see the loss of a few as a benefit to the many. Especially in a culture where they tend to be on the side of collectivism rather than rabid individualism.
Talondar
08-11-2004, 23:32
I remember a report in towards the end of the initil invasion. Right before we'd moved into Baghdad, but we were still controling much of the country. In the report, I think, a half dozen civilians (women and children) were killed when they tried to ram a US road barrier in a truck. They had been hijacked by enemy soldiers, and forced to attack coalition forces. The US soldiers opened fire, destroying the truck, and killing a half-dozen civilians. It seems this website would count those as civilian deaths caused by the US, when I would put the blame entirely on the Iraqi forces.
Insurgents are still hiding in mosques and hospitals and schools. They base in these civilian centers and take potshots at coalition troops. These terrorists give the Americans the choice to die or possibly kill civilians. It's a hard choice. The fact that the civilian deaths aren't ten times higher prove how much restraint coalition troops have in these situations.
Nadkor
08-11-2004, 23:34
were the french resistance in the 40s terrorists or freedom fighters? the iraqis are the same as them.
Genial Smartopia
08-11-2004, 23:34
This topic is suggesting that terrorists are brave, wise, and/or heroes...

Do heroes send women & children into cities with bombs strapped to them?

Do heroes kidnap innocent people and execute them on video?

Not your idea of a hero, or mine. But the hatred for westerners that has built up in these people over the decades has led them to regard us as sub-human. Therefore, to destroy us monsters makes them heroes. Remember, not everyone thinks the same way you do. Many people think in a very different way.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 23:40
I remember a report in towards the end of the initil invasion. Right before we'd moved into Baghdad, but we were still controling much of the country. In the report, I think, a half dozen civilians (women and children) were killed when they tried to ram a US road barrier in a truck. They had been hijacked by enemy soldiers, and forced to attack coalition forces. The US soldiers opened fire, destroying the truck, and killing a half-dozen civilians. It seems this website would count those as civilian deaths caused by the US, when I would put the blame entirely on the Iraqi forces.
Insurgents are still hiding in mosques and hospitals and schools. They base in these civilian centers and take potshots at coalition troops. These terrorists give the Americans the choice to die or possibly kill civilians. It's a hard choice. The fact that the civilian deaths aren't ten times higher prove how much restraint coalition troops have in these situations.


what about the 6 year old boy that got capped in the head because US troops saw him lying on a roof?

Presumably the insurgents put him there but managed to recover the long range rifle before the US troops got to the body. They probably put Lee Harvey Oswald up to it as well.
Daajenai
08-11-2004, 23:41
I remember a report in towards the end of the initil invasion. Right before we'd moved into Baghdad, but we were still controling much of the country. In the report, I think, a half dozen civilians (women and children) were killed when they tried to ram a US road barrier in a truck. They had been hijacked by enemy soldiers, and forced to attack coalition forces. The US soldiers opened fire, destroying the truck, and killing a half-dozen civilians. It seems this website would count those as civilian deaths caused by the US, when I would put the blame entirely on the Iraqi forces.
It all depends on the individual people running the website. In this case, I would fully agree with you that the deaths are to be attributed to the insurgents. As I understand it, the site owners keep pretty good records; why not email them and ask?

Insurgents are still hiding in mosques and hospitals and schools. They base in these civilian centers and take potshots at coalition troops. These terrorists give the Americans the choice to die or possibly kill civilians. It's a hard choice. The fact that the civilian deaths aren't ten times higher prove how much restraint coalition troops have in these situations.
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not wish to place blame upon our troops. I agree, they're being placed in a horrible situation, one in which I have no idea if I myself could even function in, let alone with the ability our troops have. I have nothing but respect for the troops. It is those who placed them there in the first place that I wish to call to task, as I believe they were placed there unnecessarily. I believe that is also the intent of the website.
Markreich
08-11-2004, 23:46
were the french resistance in the 40s terrorists or freedom fighters? the iraqis are the same as them.

So the US is going to make Iraq a state soon?
So the US is deporting minorities to death camps?

Wake up!
Markreich
08-11-2004, 23:47
The American's are worse for carrying out God's will than anyone
Even if God didn't explicitly make the request in writing

*How*? Name a single war that the US fought "for God's will".
Styvonia
08-11-2004, 23:54
*How*? Name a single war that the US fought "for God's will".

Not necessarily wars (and in fairness, not just the US) but the Christians in general are the worst for deciding that God wants this or God wants that. The ongoing debate in the states about whether gay marriage (or being gay) should be allowed, whether abortion is right or wrong, and so on.

a lot of the anti-gay, anti-abortion stuff is coming from the church, who have decided that they know best
Presidency
08-11-2004, 23:54
The Empire of Presidency does not alow its citizens the luxury of such musings. To speak of such results in death.
Perfect Werdan
09-11-2004, 00:04
I'm sorry I don't have time to read all the things you guys have said so if anyone has cited this source I apologize. its a report on the 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties from CNN. http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-us-12-l6&flok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20041028%2F1457167130.htm&sc=rontz
Apollina
09-11-2004, 00:07
I'm sorry I don't have time to read all the things you guys have said so if anyone has cited this source I apologize. its a report on the 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties from CNN. http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-us-12-l6&flok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20041028%2F1457167130.htm&sc=rontz

I looked at the article and one title struck me "VERY BAD FOR IRAQI CIVILIANS" - No shit Sherlock!
The Holy Palatinate
09-11-2004, 01:20
Where is the International Red Cross study showing this number of casualties? How about a Red Crescent study?
Please note that the "Red Crescent" is merely the symbol the Red Cross uses in Islamic nations. They do this - and if you don't believe me, read the Geneva Convention for yourself - because using anything that even vaguely resembles a Christian symbol in the Islamic world is suicidal. (Even though the Red Cross is actually an inversion of the Swiss flag, and completely non-religious).
Nadkor
09-11-2004, 02:03
So the US is going to make Iraq a state soon?
So the US is deporting minorities to death camps?

Wake up!
im not quite sure what your first point is to be honest. second point, guantanamo does the job apparently, force feeding muslims pork is probably just as bad as death.

my point was that the iraqi fighters are trying to free their country from what they see as an oppressive, occupying force. much as the french were.
The Holy Palatinate
09-11-2004, 02:53
im not quite sure what your first point is to be honest. second point, guantanamo does the job apparently, force feeding muslims pork is probably just as bad as death.

my point was that the iraqi fighters are trying to free their country from what they see as an oppressive, occupying force. much as the french were.
Oh, give it a break. Have a serious look at what Germany did to France during WWII. Note the absence of rebuilding infrastructure.

Note the casual massacres of villages, the stripping of the country's of resources, treasures, and history; the forced labour - ie slave labour; read as they partition the country and annex territory.

Besides - some Iraqis want the Westerners out? Good for them - they can sit back and vote in a govt that demands it, and all is well. If they want to attack Western troops - well, not so happy, but I'm happy to give them the respect due to an honourable enemy. But attacking civilians? Killing hostages? Hiding behind their own people to ensure that fellow Iraqis are killed in attacks?
Yes, there were vermin who did this sort of thing in France (every nation has it's share of scoundrels) but surprisingly few, and De Gaulle etc were not impressed - especially after the war. The vast majority of the Resistance focused on killing German troops, avoiding even German civilians. They also made a point of hitting restricted targets - such as trains - because the drivers etc were German, so as to avoid French casualties. Now, there may be some Iraqi insurgents who are acting in an honourable way - if so they're worthy of respect. But the one's we hear about are just scum. If you want a WWII comparison, go look what the Croats were doing.

Also - has it occurred to you that one reason that there is support for the occupation is because people keep hearing defences of these scum from opponents of the war? It means anything else you say is tarred with the same brush, and so ignored.
JuNii
09-11-2004, 08:41
Have you considered this?

Fire fighters fight fires
Crime fighters fight Crime
so what do freedom fighters fight?
Styvonia
09-11-2004, 10:11
Have you considered this?

Fire fighters fight fires
Crime fighters fight Crime
so what do freedom fighters fight?

so do gunfighters fight guns?
JuNii
09-11-2004, 10:16
so do gunfighters fight guns?and do Gunslingers throw them?

The real reason why I'm seemingly being comedic about this is one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. OBL was a freedom fighter when he was fighting the USSR... (our enemy) then he turned his US-weapons and US-training against us and became a terrorist. I feel that the true problem lies in the definition of Terrorist and Freedom Fighter. FF's tend not to hurt civilians... targeting only the enemy and minimizing the civilian casulties. Terrorists don't care who get's hurt... so long as they cause terror. I think things would be different if, instead of the WTC, if they only stuck to military targets... Pear Harbor... Pentagon... White House... things might have been different. One man's trash is another's treasure.
Styvonia
09-11-2004, 10:32
and do Gunslingers throw them?

The real reason why I'm seemingly being comedic about this is one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. OBL was a freedom fighter when he was fighting the USSR... (our enemy) then he turned his US-weapons and US-training against us and became a terrorist. I feel that the true problem lies in the definition of Terrorist and Freedom Fighter. FF's tend not to hurt civilians... targeting only the enemy and minimizing the civilian casulties. Terrorists don't care who get's hurt... so long as they cause terror. I think things would be different if, instead of the WTC, if they only stuck to military targets... Pear Harbor... Pentagon... White House... things might have been different. One man's trash is another's treasure.

The point of attacking the WTC wasn't that it was full of civillians though.
It was because, in the eyes of the attackers, it was a monument to capitalism.

Before I get flamed, I don't condone the terrorists or the attack on the WTC. Hate mail to the usual address.
JuNii
09-11-2004, 10:41
The point of attacking the WTC wasn't that it was full of civillians though.
It was because, in the eyes of the attackers, it was a monument to capitalism. Maybe so but they attacked it during the day. When the most people would be inside (even a couple of tour groups with International tourists) If they attacked it at night, when most of the computers are doing their backups. (and WTC is a HUB... In Hawaii, our Hospital has several datalines that go through WTC) that might do more damage with minimal civilian Casualties.

Before I get flamed, I don't condone the terrorists or the attack on the WTC. Hate mail to the usual address. Shouldn't be flamed for sharing opinions... Hate mail to... lets see... 1313 Deepsixed Way, Dumpster, LF 66666. Hmmmmm. address sounds familiar....
Styvonia
09-11-2004, 10:44
Shouldn't be flamed for sharing opinions... Hate mail to... lets see... 1313 Deepsixed Way, Dumpster, LF 66666. Hmmmmm. address sounds familiar....

You've probably written to me before
JuNii
09-11-2004, 10:55
You've probably written to me beforethat's right... I sent a Generic Hawaiian Greeting Card. I guess you didn't get it then.
Angry Keep Left Signs
09-11-2004, 10:56
Crucifixion I say. Should sort em out! Best thing the Romans ever did for us.
If we didn't have crucifixion this place would be in a right bloody mess!

NAIL EM UP I SAY! NAIL SOME SENSE INTO EM!
JuNii
09-11-2004, 11:06
Crucifixion I say. Should sort em out! Best thing the Romans ever did for us.
If we didn't have crucifixion this place would be in a right bloody mess!

NAIL EM UP I SAY! NAIL SOME SENSE INTO EM!I'm sure they'll get the point then...
Angry Keep Left Signs
09-11-2004, 11:16
I'm sure they'll get the point then...

FIRMNESS! IT WOULD HAVE NEVER GONE BELLY UP UNDER THE ROMANS!
Aeopia
09-11-2004, 11:22
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" seems to be their motto, for now at least.

Oh great, they're terrorists AND Commies. Expect another Cold War boys and girls.
Angry Keep Left Signs
09-11-2004, 11:27
Oh great, they're terrorists AND Commies. Expect another Cold War boys and girls.

Yeah. Nuke the bastards! :gundge:
Markreich
09-11-2004, 15:01
Not necessarily wars (and in fairness, not just the US) but the Christians in general are the worst for deciding that God wants this or God wants that. The ongoing debate in the states about whether gay marriage (or being gay) should be allowed, whether abortion is right or wrong, and so on.

a lot of the anti-gay, anti-abortion stuff is coming from the church, who have decided that they know best

I've got to disagree with you on that one. *Every* nation, religion and/or culture does its best to make sure it wins. As a counter example, I would give the Arab/Israeli conflict. Or how about the Chinese (Communism against Tibet)?

Sadly, in this world no one side can be called right or wrong. It's all perspective. If you really wanted to, I could cite a counterexample used against Christians for every one you could cite as for them being "God-'totin'". It gets us nowhere. :(

Me? I prefer to think that the fact that we are all still here is proof that more times than not, what is good for the majority wins out.
Markreich
09-11-2004, 15:06
im not quite sure what your first point is to be honest. second point, guantanamo does the job apparently, force feeding muslims pork is probably just as bad as death.

my point was that the iraqi fighters are trying to free their country from what they see as an oppressive, occupying force. much as the french were.

My first point is that the War in Iraq is NOT for territorial gain, and by comparing the US, UK and allies to the Nazis you are not being rational.

Prove it. That's a lovely rumor, but I haven't heard it from ANY credible news agency. And I read the NY Times and listen to NPR.

Aha. So why not compare them to the Contras? Or the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan in the 80s? Or the NVA (Army of North Vietnam)? But no, you reach for the Nazi context.
Markreich
09-11-2004, 15:12
so do gunfighters fight guns?

Of course they do! In other people's hands...
Markreich
09-11-2004, 15:16
I'm sorry I don't have time to read all the things you guys have said so if anyone has cited this source I apologize. its a report on the 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties from CNN. http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-us-12-l6&flok=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20041028%2F1457167130.htm&sc=rontz

This week's issue puts the number at 15,000.
Markreich
09-11-2004, 15:20
Please note that the "Red Crescent" is merely the symbol the Red Cross uses in Islamic nations. They do this - and if you don't believe me, read the Geneva Convention for yourself - because using anything that even vaguely resembles a Christian symbol in the Islamic world is suicidal. (Even though the Red Cross is actually an inversion of the Swiss flag, and completely non-religious).

Absolutely true. There is also use a Red Star of David in Israel and was a Red Lion in use in Iran (until 1980).

http://flagspot.net/flags/int-red.html
Aust
09-11-2004, 17:06
Wow, how threads grow....
New Obbhlia
09-11-2004, 17:14
I really haven't got the time now to read through al this so:
How can these people be freedom fighters? There are two groups as I have got it, the syrian Bath-partists who want to get Saddam back in charge, and he had support from not even 20% of the iraqi citizens. And then we have got islamists, and as 80% (those kurds and shias who really didn't support Saddam) of the iraqi citizens are strongly secular or belong to another religion they can't be classed as freedom fighters neither...
That was just my point of view, have to leave now, so cya.
Aust
09-11-2004, 17:31
I really haven't got the time now to read through al this so:
How can these people be freedom fighters? There are two groups as I have got it, the syrian Bath-partists who want to get Saddam back in charge, and he had support from not even 20% of the iraqi citizens. And then we have got islamists, and as 80% (those kurds and shias who really didn't support Saddam) of the iraqi citizens are strongly secular or belong to another religion they can't be classed as freedom fighters neither...
That was just my point of view, have to leave now, so cya.
Anyone read Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's peace in the Guardian today, very incisive.