NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a war in the world. Some call it a war on terror, others a war in Iraq. But there is no dispute that a war is being fought. Blood is being spilt on ruinous battlegrounds across the world and death is abroad.
In my opinion this no ordinary war. The two sides are not divided by religion, language, doctrine or cultures. They are divided by two basic elements of the human mind: bravery and cowardice.

The cowards are those who would spread terror to this world. They hide behind barricades: barricades built from the bodybags of their innocent victims. These 'men' (I hesistate to use the term) fight not by any flag or for any nation or for any principles. They fight only to spread their murderous terror around the world. They cower in the shadows, never daring to emerge, waiting for a moment of weakness. These cowards have no morals, no compassion. They kill all: children, woman and the elderly. They care not about the misery they reap: all they desire is to see terror spread around the world. Their aim is to destroy trust, compassion and decency whether they might find it. These people, these murderous villians, are the cowards beyond all doubt. Even their causes they hide behind a mask of religious fanaticism. The good name of Islam has been besmirched by these wicked, foul and indecent men. Their leaders are the biggest cowards of all. These men would not risk their own lifes, their own liberty for their causes. instead they indoctrinate the young and naive with their foul poisons and send them forth to do their evil bidding. This is a war that will go on for centuries and has been going for centuries. It is a war against those whose minds are so warped, so inhumane that they murder children to spread their venom into the world.

The brave are now at war: they stand in Iraq and throughout the world, ready to fight on our behalf. They do not shield themselves from savage attack: instead they stand in the open for all to see. And why not, for they have naught to fear or to be ashamed of. Liberty, truth and freedom are the watchwords of the brave and so they need not cower in craven terror. They are prepared to fight against the darkness whether it may sprout its head. They are prepared to defend the innocent who have committed no sin.

So we must stand, stolid by the brave. We must show our revulsion at these craven terrorists who skulk in the shadows without a bone of honour within their bodies. We must not quake in fear or in fright. We must not flee when the evil shows its head. To do so would be a betrayal and a surrender. We must stand firm against this insidious enemy and grimace. We must bare all they have to throw. No matter what casulaties they cause, we must not show terror. No matter what destruction, we must not cower. All we have to do is stand beside the brave and fight. Not fight with weapons as they do but with the arsenal that every human is readily equiped: our mind. We must not bow to terror, we must not lose hope to suffering. The civilised nations of this world must stand in disgust at those who would support terror and murder in the name of misery. There can be no surrender nor peace against these foul foes: only ever present vigilance will save our souls from the floods of ruin that biesiege us. Only ever present determination will help us stand by the brave in their battle to save those who cannot save themselves.

It would have been a good speech if not for just one thing:
You paint things black and white.
And the world is grey.

This speech makes baby Jesus cry. :headbang:

It would have been a good speech if not for just one thing:
You paint things black and white.
And the world is grey.

The world is various *shades* of grey. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are times when different philosophies or people are almost totally at opposite ends of the spectrum.

BTW ... I liked the speech.

There is a war in the world. Some call it a war on terror, others a war in Iraq. But there is no dispute that a war is being fought. Blood is being spilt on ruinous battlegrounds across the world and death is abroad.

Some do see it as a grey area. Here is an interesting article on the vast history of the terrorists of today.

http://www.catsprn.com/under_attack.htm

This speech makes baby Jesus cry. :headbang:

Yes, it probably does, because the ideas contained are sadly too true.

So all the children, women and innocent Iraq people are cowardly terrorists and the US and UK and all the other forces there are being brave?
Get real!

So all the children, women and innocent Iraq people are cowardly terrorists and the US and UK and all the other forces there are being brave?
Get real!

I didn't read anything about "children, women and innocent Iraqi people" in this speech.

The world is various *shades* of grey. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are times when different philosophies or people are almost totally at opposite ends of the spectrum.

BTW ... I liked the speech.

Oh, but i do agree that are very different philosophies. The thing is, not one is innocent. Things happen because of a reason.

The cowards are those who would spread terror to this world. They hide behind barricades: barricades built from the bodybags of their innocent victims. These 'men' (I hesistate to use the term) fight not by any flag or for any nation or for any principles. They fight only to spread their murderous terror around the world. They cower in the shadows, never daring to emerge, waiting for a moment of weakness. These cowards have no morals, no compassion. They kill all: children, woman and the elderly. They care not about the misery they reap: all they desire is to see terror spread around the world. Their aim is to destroy trust, compassion and decency whether they might find it. These people, these murderous villians, are the cowards beyond all doubt. Even their causes they hide behind a mask of religious fanaticism.

I could have sworn you were talking about the US before you mentioned Islam.

I didn't read anything about "children, women and innocent Iraqi people" in this speech.

I never said there was children and women mentioned, the gist of this speech is that the US and allied forces are the brave ones, the terrorists are the cowards.
Well, terrorists are undoubtably cowards but they are in an extreme minority in any country, let alone Iraq, the casualties of any war are mostly innocents, which include children and women and ordinary citizens.

The fact that terrorists will hide behind a barracade of innocents doesn't mean that it absolves the invading force from any blame should these innocents become victims, they could just pull out of the war and save more lives instead of taking them.

So all the children, women and innocent Iraq people are cowardly terrorists and the US and UK and all the other forces there are being brave?
Get real!

No, that is not what is being said. First you have to realize there are 2 factions of insurgents in Iraq right now. One are the international terrorists that we see popping up everywhere as franchised movements. These are the same type of people that you saw as leaders of the Nazi party, who practice ethnic cleansing, who torture as a form of pleasurable recreation. They are sociopaths. The second group you see are the Sunni. In Saddam's regime they were the privileged elite, even though they made up less than 20% of the country's population. They are no longer the masters of their world and they just plain don't like the demotion. Further, they are afraid they will not have a voice in a democratic election due to their fewer numbers. The terrorists take advantage of those feelings and enlist them in their mindless attacks.

A vast majority of the people in Iraq want the insurgents stopped, the elections to occur, their own permanent government and security installed, and the foreign troops to go home. They are not the ones slaughtering and destroying, they're the ones working on rebuilding their country. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that the coalition troops are targeting the good decent people of Iraq. Their targets are the franchised terrorists and their supporters.

I never said there was children and women mentioned, the gist of this speech is that the US and allied forces are the brave ones, the terrorists are the cowards.
Well, terrorists are undoubtably cowards but they are in an extreme minority in any country, let alone Iraq, the casualties of any war are mostly innocents, which include children and women and ordinary citizens.

The fact that terrorists will hide behind a barracade of innocents doesn't mean that it absolves the invading force from any blame should these innocents become victims, they could just pull out of the war and save more lives instead of taking them.

Do you honestly think lives would be saved if the troops pulled out? What do you forsee as the possible result of such an action?

No, that is not what is being said. First you have to realize there are 2 factions of insurgents in Iraq right now. One are the international terrorists that we see popping up everywhere as franchised movements. These are the same type of people that you saw as leaders of the Nazi party, who practice ethnic cleansing, who torture as a form of pleasurable recreation. They are sociopaths. The second group you see are the Sunni. In Saddam's regime they were the privileged elite, even though they made up less than 20% of the country's population. They are no longer the masters of their world and they just plain don't like the demotion. Further, they are afraid they will not have a voice in a democratic election due to their fewer numbers. The terrorists take advantage of those feelings and enlist them in their mindless attacks.

A vast majority of the people in Iraq want the insurgents stopped, the elections to occur, their own permanent government and security installed, and the foreign troops to go home. They are not the ones slaughtering and destroying, they're the ones working on rebuilding their country. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that the coalition troops are targeting the good decent people of Iraq. Their targets are the franchised terrorists and their supporters.

I don't believe for a moment that the coalition are targeting the good people in Iraq, I never said that.
What I said was that innocents were being killed by the coalition because the insurgents/terrorists were using them as a shield, knowing that ,I find it hard to believe that all out "Brave" soldiers are doing the right thing. NO innocent lives are acceptable losses.
Maybe thats an ideal thats too hard to deal with, or unrealistic in a time of war, but remember these innocents didn't ask Bush or Blair or any of the coalition to come into their country and start bombing, at best they perhaps wished a UN force to come in, get rid of Saddam and his regime, and then quietly leave and let them have democratic elections, I don't know but the might of the US and British armies invading Iraq smacks more of bullying than anything else.

Oh, but i do agree that are very different philosophies. The thing is, not one is innocent. Things happen because of a reason.

They do? Hmmm. What about the essential randomness of the universe, eh?

I am probably going to get flamed for this, but seeing as nobody else is going to say it:

Sacrificing ones self for ones beliefs is never a cowardly act, you may consider it to be vile, cruel, malevolent, cheep, horrible, disgusting, or even evil (though this term is so subjective that I loath to use it), but never cowardly.

I don't believe for a moment that the coalition are targeting the good people in Iraq, I never said that.
What I said was that innocents were being killed by the coalition because the insurgents/terrorists were using them as a shield, knowing that ,I find it hard to believe that all out "Brave" soldiers are doing the right thing. NO innocent lives are acceptable losses.
Maybe thats an ideal thats too hard to deal with, or unrealistic in a time of war, but remember these innocents didn't ask Bush or Blair or any of the coalition to come into their country and start bombing, at best they perhaps wished a UN force to come in, get rid of Saddam and his regime, and then quietly leave and let them have democratic elections, I don't know but the might of the US and British armies invading Iraq smacks more of bullying than anything else.

The US did not lead a war against the Iraqi people but against Saddam and his regime. The UN did not and and we now know would never have taken the lead in cotnrolling Saddam. Money from the oil for food program far outweighed any outcries they might have heeded. The coalition went into Iraq because multiple reputable intel sources said that Saddam had WMD and immediate plans to enable their use on the US and Israel. The sources were wrong. So now do we say "Pardon me, my mistake" and leave the country to civil war and a resurgence of the brutal regime in place before the war? Or do we support the temporary Iraqi government in destroying the animals ravaging their country and help them take their first steps to freedom?

I am probably going to get flamed for this, but seeing as nobody else is going to say it:

Sacrificing ones self for ones beliefs is never a cowardly act, you may consider it to be vile, cruel, malevolent, cheep, horrible, disgusting, or even evil (though this term is so subjective that I loath to use it), but never cowardly.

Which leads to the phrase, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I think to look at the war on terror you have to realize that millions of Arabs genuinely think we invaded Iraq to steal its oil and serve as a staging point for further invasions of the area. They believe we are going to force them to change their religion or put them into some sort of serfdom. The Middle East doesn't hate us because of our freedoms, as the president suggested in a speech, but because we have meddled in their affairs so often and so poorly that they see even the slightest gesture as threatening -- and invading Iraq on a false cause and slim evidence is somewhat more than a "slight" gesture.

To fight terrorism, we first have to fight the conception in the Middle East about who we are and what our motives are. A successful Iraq rebuilding would certainly help do so. Humanitarian aid to other Middle Eastern countries could not hurt either. If we can kill the misconception we won't have to kill terrorists anymore.

The US did not lead a war against the Iraqi people but against Saddam and his regime. The UN did not and and we now know would never have taken the lead in cotnrolling Saddam. Money from the oil for food program far outweighed any outcries they might have heeded. The coalition went into Iraq because multiple reputable intel sources said that Saddam had WMD and immediate plans to enable their use on the US and Israel. The sources were wrong. So now do we say "Pardon me, my mistake" and leave the country to civil war and a resurgence of the brutal regime in place before the war? Or do we support the temporary Iraqi government in destroying the animals ravaging their country and help them take their first steps to freedom?


The UN was controling saddam. They claimed he didnt had WMD, and surprise surprise, he didn't.
The food for oil program was plagued by corruption of individuals, it was designed to help the Iraqui people. If there was no program, alot more than those 100.000 iraqui childreen that died before the implementation of the program would die.
The US can stay alone, and be called imperialist, or you can call help, and seem less imperialist, and perhaps get some more..legitimacy. Your choice.


PS: Have my childreen, Skepticism :D

The US did not lead a war against the Iraqi people but against Saddam and his regime. The UN did not and and we now know would never have taken the lead in cotnrolling Saddam. Money from the oil for food program far outweighed any outcries they might have heeded. The coalition went into Iraq because multiple reputable intel sources said that Saddam had WMD and immediate plans to enable their use on the US and Israel. The sources were wrong. So now do we say "Pardon me, my mistake" and leave the country to civil war and a resurgence of the brutal regime in place before the war? Or do we support the temporary Iraqi government in destroying the animals ravaging their country and help them take their first steps to freedom?

I don't have the answers (I have a habit of "shooting from the lip" before my brain is in gear ;) ) but I firmly believe that Saddam could have been taken out with less blood spilled than just letting Bush send the troops in gung-ho style against the wishes of the UN.
He did go in on the WMD ticket and none have been found so far which seems to me that he jumped the gun.
Ok so now that they are there they can't just up sticks and leave a ravished country to it's own devices but equally they must let the Iraq people decide for themselves who to govern their country.
The war was wrong from the start, that was my main thought before my anger got the better of me, I hate it when people try to justify killing of any sort.
Yes Saddam needed to be ousted but it should have been his own people who did it with the help, if asked, of the UN. It should never have been up to Bush and his administration to act as an international police force.

They are sociopaths.

Why do I get that odd little feeling that the Terrorists involved seem to think that same is true of America and the Western World?

NO innocent lives are acceptable losses

Militaries of the Earth....DISBAND....or face the consequences....of...errr...hold on just....a...second......I seem...to have misplaced...your consequences....one moment....I'll be right back...

Militaries of the Earth....DISBAND....or face the consequences....of...errr...hold on just....a...second......I seem...to have misplaced...your consequences....one moment....I'll be right back...

LOL, it must be great to be you.

The world is various *shades* of grey. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are times when different philosophies or people are almost totally at opposite ends of the spectrum.

BTW ... I liked the speech.
Agreed, the world is in shades of grey, but whilst the western nations are a fairly light grey, terrorists are a very dark grey.

The speech is good.

Lets clear a few matters up:

1. I am not talking exclusively about Islam. If you note in the first paragraph I mention that this is a war conducted by two sides WHO ARE NOT SEPERATED BY RELIGION, LANGUAGE, DOCTRINE OR CULTURE. There are many, many Islamic people who reject terrorism in all its forms. I have a good Islamic friend and I have asked him if, at any point, the Qu'aran advocates the use of violence against innocents. He told me and strongly rejected the charge. I have in one paragraph referred to terrorists as hiding behind Islam: however this could be also be applied to the IRA hiding behind Catholicism or any other semi religious terrorist group
This also applies to the side I have termed as 'the brave'. They are not neccessarily British or American troops - the brave are those who reject the principles of terrorism and fight against it. You can be of any nationality, culture or religion to reject the evils of terrorism.

2. Someone believes that dying for your principles is not cowardice. That is all well and true. However picking on school children in their buses (such as some Palestinian suicide bombers have done) is absolute cowardice. If you are going to fight for your principles do so against your foes: not some innocents who have little to do with the conflict. If these terrorists had even an ounce of honour in their evil bodies, then they would attack military or political targets rather than helpless people.

3. The innocents of Iraq ARE NOT TERRORISTS. They are innocents, whatever their nationality is. At no point did I insinuate that the people of Iraq were terrorists. However there is a small minority who are and this could be said as the case for all terrorism.

4. Thank you for all praise related to the speech. I would one day like to speak it if I can get my confidence and oratorical skills to scratch.

Here's a better speech

*puts up a little mustache*

"Ze time has come! Ze armies of liberation are marching! No-one will stop us now! You are either with us or against us! Ze international conspiracy of terrorizm will not survive this war!
March my soldiers! Liberate the whole world, and bring glory to ze fatherland!

doom

I don't believe for a moment that the coalition are targeting the good people in Iraq, I never said that.
What I said was that innocents were being killed by the coalition because the insurgents/terrorists were using them as a shield, knowing that ,I find it hard to believe that all out "Brave" soldiers are doing the right thing. NO innocent lives are acceptable losses.
Obviously someone who doesn'tlive in the real world.

I could have sworn you were talking about the US before you mentioned Islam.
I must admit - the only reason I read it through to the end was I was waiting for the punchline which said it was the US and the rest of the coalition who are the terrorists.

A vast majority of the people in Iraq want the insurgents stopped, the elections to occur, their own permanent government and security installed, and the foreign troops to go home.
Of course you have a source that will support your claim?

Lets clear a few matters up:

1. I am not talking exclusively about Islam. If you note in the first paragraph I mention that this is a war conducted by two sides WHO ARE NOT SEPERATED BY RELIGION, LANGUAGE, DOCTRINE OR CULTURE. There are many, many Islamic people who reject terrorism in all its forms. I have a good Islamic friend and I have asked him if, at any point, the Qu'aran advocates the use of violence against innocents. He told me and strongly rejected the charge. I have in one paragraph referred to terrorists as hiding behind Islam: however this could be also be applied to the IRA hiding behind Catholicism or any other semi religious terrorist group
This also applies to the side I have termed as 'the brave'. They are not neccessarily British or American troops - the brave are those who reject the principles of terrorism and fight against it. You can be of any nationality, culture or religion to reject the evils of terrorism.

2. Someone believes that dying for your principles is not cowardice. That is all well and true. However picking on school children in their buses (such as some Palestinian suicide bombers have done) is absolute cowardice. If you are going to fight for your principles do so against your foes: not some innocents who have little to do with the conflict. If these terrorists had even an ounce of honour in their evil bodies, then they would attack military or political targets rather than helpless people.

3. The innocents of Iraq ARE NOT TERRORISTS. They are innocents, whatever their nationality is. At no point did I insinuate that the people of Iraq were terrorists. However there is a small minority who are and this could be said as the case for all terrorism.

4. Thank you for all praise related to the speech. I would one day like to speak it if I can get my confidence and oratorical skills to scratch.

Well now that that's cleared up I can accept what you're saying.

See: I am sick of this war. THE ONE IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW!! See, it was 100% unnecessary. Bush had several sources saying that there were no WMDs but he ignored them. Also it wasn't our job to rid Iraq of Saddam's regime--especially not at the expense of innocent lives! Besides the UN told us not to get involved. Every sensible person did--but bush is a dumbass and didn't listen! Hey Bush, :upyours: !

I could make a ridiculously long post about how hypocritical it is for us to be over in Iraq. But I'll keep it to this:

The "terrorists" aren't trying to envelope the entire world in terror, regardless of what Bush's propaganda says. They just want us out of their business. The reason they hate the U.S. is because we always back Israel to the detriment of the Arabs. But the thing is, Israel has its share of "terrorists" as well, and I don't see Bush going after them. As usual, terrorism is considered to be fine as long as it fits with our national interest.

I could make a ridiculously long post about how hypocritical it is for us to be over in Iraq. But I'll keep it to this:

The "terrorists" aren't trying to envelope the entire world in terror, regardless of what Bush's propaganda says. They just want us out of their business. The reason they hate the U.S. is because we always back Israel to the detriment of the Arabs. But the thing is, Israel has its share of "terrorists" as well, and I don't see Bush going after them. As usual, terrorism is considered to be fine as long as it fits with our national interest.


Really? I missed the part where a bunch of Hebrew radicals flew an airplane into an office building. Or was it when those hebie-terrorists blew up a nightclub in Bali? No? Hmmm, maybe then all those Jewish ailine hijackers. No?

Gee, then I guess you'd have to be pretty ignorant to compare Radical Islamic Arab Terrorists to anyone Jewish.

Really? I missed the part where a bunch of Hebrew radicals flew an airplane into an office building. Or was it when those hebie-terrorists blew up a nightclub in Bali? No? Hmmm, maybe then all those Jewish ailine hijackers. No?

Gee, then I guess you'd have to be pretty ignorant to compare Radical Islamic Arab Terrorists to anyone Jewish.
30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.
How the U.S. has Voted // Vetoed- See any bias - See any pattern ?

by rp 3:38pm Sat Mar 8 '03


1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year -----Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

There is a war in the world. Some call it a war on terror, others a war in Iraq. But there is no dispute that a war is being fought. Blood is being spilt on ruinous battlegrounds across the world and death is abroad.
In my opinion this no ordinary war. The two sides are not divided by religion, language, doctrine or cultures. They are divided by two basic elements of the human mind: bravery and cowardice.

The cowards are those who would spread terror to this world. They hide behind barricades: barricades built from the bodybags of their innocent victims. These 'men' (I hesistate to use the term) fight not by any flag or for any nation or for any principles. They fight only to spread their murderous terror around the world. They cower in the shadows, never daring to emerge, waiting for a moment of weakness. These cowards have no morals, no compassion. They kill all: children, woman and the elderly. They care not about the misery they reap: all they desire is to see terror spread around the world. Their aim is to destroy trust, compassion and decency whether they might find it. These people, these murderous villians, are the cowards beyond all doubt. Even their causes they hide behind a mask of religious fanaticism. The good name of Islam has been besmirched by these wicked, foul and indecent men. Their leaders are the biggest cowards of all. These men would not risk their own lifes, their own liberty for their causes. instead they indoctrinate the young and naive with their foul poisons and send them forth to do their evil bidding. This is a war that will go on for centuries and has been going for centuries. It is a war against those whose minds are so warped, so inhumane that they murder children to spread their venom into the world.

The brave are now at war: they stand in Iraq and throughout the world, ready to fight on our behalf. They do not shield themselves from savage attack: instead they stand in the open for all to see. And why not, for they have naught to fear or to be ashamed of. Liberty, truth and freedom are the watchwords of the brave and so they need not cower in craven terror. They are prepared to fight against the darkness whether it may sprout its head. They are prepared to defend the innocent who have committed no sin.

So we must stand, stolid by the brave. We must show our revulsion at these craven terrorists who skulk in the shadows without a bone of honour within their bodies. We must not quake in fear or in fright. We must not flee when the evil shows its head. To do so would be a betrayal and a surrender. We must stand firm against this insidious enemy and grimace. We must bare all they have to throw. No matter what casulaties they cause, we must not show terror. No matter what destruction, we must not cower. All we have to do is stand beside the brave and fight. Not fight with weapons as they do but with the arsenal that every human is readily equiped: our mind. We must not bow to terror, we must not lose hope to suffering. The civilised nations of this world must stand in disgust at those who would support terror and murder in the name of misery. There can be no surrender nor peace against these foul foes: only ever present vigilance will save our souls from the floods of ruin that biesiege us. Only ever present determination will help us stand by the brave in their battle to save those who cannot save themselves.

How about this:

We are now fighting a war against no country, a war in which our enemy is not a people or a religion. We have been called to arms against a threat which, though active as long as any other, has vaulted into new realms of danger in recent times, a threat that grows perhaps faster than any other.

We call this enemy "terrorism," and many would end the definition there. The first step towards being able to defeat an adversary, however, lies in understanding him, and in this regard we are poorer equipped than ever before. While totalitarian regimes and runnaway dictators threaten not only ourselves but the safety of the world, we have confronted such opponents before and know what they want, how they think. In the case of terrorism, however, we understand nothing. And in that lies a failure which will result in the failure of all of our endeavors against terrorism until we rectify it.

Clever, devious leaders have used radical interpretations of Islam to convince young men to attack and murder, but that hardly constitutes the entire picture. Clear-headed men and women do not become murderers at the tip of the hat, upon hearing a new idea. Rather they must be conditioned, from birth. In creating Israel, we reversed Great Britain's promise to the Palestinians that the land would be theirs, in exchange for the Palestinian's aid in opposing the Ottoman Empire thirty years earlier. By supporting Israel's actions, protecting her from the UN, and supplying its army with weapons, we have made enemies of every Arab who believes that Jerusalem is their city, as well as the Israelis.

We placed Saddam Hussein in power, only to topple him later. And why did he receive our favor in the first place? To oppose the Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, who took over Iran in a popular coup over the Shah, whom we had placed in power. Most Arabs see the United States as scheming manipulators, trying to control their countries and steal their oil -- and why should they not, with our track record!? Terrorism is not an illogical or spontaneous act. Rather it is a culmination of many factors: oft-justified hatred against the United States; helplessness against our might, which we lent to Israel; frustration that even the UN cannot put upon us some form of check.

What is the translation of al-Qaeda? It means "the shield." Consider the implication -- the group we see as savage murderers considers themselves the defenders of the Arab world, a "shield" against the perceived greed and meddling of the United States. They do not call us "the Great Satan" for nothing; it constitutes a deeply held belief.

If terrorists take cowardly actions, it is because that is all they are able to do. Their countries are unable to fight on their behalf. All the diplomatic institutions of the world can hold us back only if we choose to let them, as seen with our recent invasion of Iraq. Some may call terrorists cowards; millions more call them freedom fighters. Consider that these men and women, however much we may despise them, however despicable their acts, are brave enough to stand against the most powerful country on earth with nothing more than their faith and whatever weapon they can get their hands on -- most frequently their own body. The terror they seek to incite is only the burden they have lived under their entire lives.

If we simplify the situation, declare terrorists "cowards" unilaterally, cast them as something worthy of scorn, death, and nothing more, we will succeed only in rousing more to fight us. Those who oppose us by force of arms must not do so with impunity, no, but at the same time our resources are best spent fighting the situation which has caused those people to turn against us in the first place.

How do we do so? I admit that I do not know. However, leaning heavily on Israel to create a Palestinian state, as they promised to allow 50 years ago and reneged soon after, could not hurt us. Allowing the UN to sanction what it sees as our excesses could not hurt. Assisting Middle Eastern economies with aid and technology instead of exploiting them for their oil could certainly not hurt. Until we take these or some similar action, we will never win the war against terrorism, for each terrorist we kill will only inspire another to take up the fight. See the terrorists as what they are: the best and brightest of their generation, strong-willed and desperately brave. Think of all these gifts wasted by the pursuit of revenge, and what their loss costs their countries and the world. Think, and see that until we fix our image, we fight not "terrorism" but only its foot soldiers, while allowing the real problem to grow more virulent with each passing day.

How do we do so? I admit that I do not know. However, leaning heavily on Israel to create a Palestinian state, as they promised to allow 50 years ago and reneged soon after, could not hurt us. Allowing the UN to sanction what it sees as our excesses could not hurt. Assisting Middle Eastern economies with aid and technology instead of exploiting them for their oil could certainly not hurt. Until we take these or some similar action, we will never win the war against terrorism, for each terrorist we kill will only inspire another to take up the fight. See the terrorists as what they are: the best and brightest of their generation, strong-willed and desperately brave. Think of all these gifts wasted by the pursuit of revenge, and what their loss costs their countries and the world. Think, and see that until we fix our image, we fight not "terrorism" but only its foot soldiers, while allowing the real problem to grow more virulent with each passing day.


Yes, identification with Israel is problematic in the Islamic world, but it is not anywhere near the whole story.

Saudi Arabia is the richest and most brutally repressive regime on the planet. It does not need aid. The Saudi regime survives by focussing anger away from itself and at the West. Using ummah as a way to link their regime (rich and hedonistic) with the wahibi religion (pious & simple) to appeal to the young and angry in a way that makes the West seem responsible for the suffering. The terrorist attacks are aimmed at overthrowing the West, in the hope of improving the life of Muslims in Muslim ruled countries. When in fact Muslim ruled countries are all ruled by Muslims that are oppressing their people with very little Western complicity.

Bravo Skepticism! Bravo! You beat me to the punch I guess. I had a speech I was preparing as I read through this thread, building on the orginal speech.

Until I read your post. It would seem more than a little redundant now.

30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.
How the U.S. has Voted // Vetoed- See any bias - See any pattern ?

.
So in your twisted view a veto at the UN is the same as blowing up a nightclub...

Terrorists don't have much to live for anyways. Many fight just for the sake of fighting. But now, when they have seen thier homes and families destroyed, they fight for revenge. They fight for what they belive in. I give them respect for that. However, I disagree on the methods of Terrorist fighting. They are sometimes quite effective, Unfortunetly.

We ourselves spread terror. All armies and fighting groups spread terror. In my opinion, no army is a liberator; they are murderers. So are we not Cowards ourselves? We have killed thousands of innocent people with bombs from the air.

So in your twisted view a veto at the UN is the same as blowing up a nightclub...
You are judging my views as "twisted"? Now try reading again the list of vetoes, minus your prevalent penchant for wrapping yourself in the flag and then tell me if you still believe my views are "twisted".

So in your twisted view a veto at the UN is the same as blowing up a nightclub...

Depends on how many poeple die as a result of vetoing, doesn't it?

Saudi Arabia is the richest and most brutally repressive regime on the planet. It does not need aid. The Saudi regime survives by focussing anger away from itself and at the West. Using ummah as a way to link their regime (rich and hedonistic) with the wahibi religion (pious & simple) to appeal to the young and angry in a way that makes the West seem responsible for the suffering. The terrorist attacks are aimmed at overthrowing the West, in the hope of improving the life of Muslims in Muslim ruled countries. When in fact Muslim ruled countries are all ruled by Muslims that are oppressing their people with very little Western complicity.
Yes, I agree that we need to have change occur in the kingdom, it would be best if it was orderly change, but any is better than none.

There is a war in the world. Some call it a war on terror, others a war in Iraq. But there is no dispute that a war is being fought. Blood is being spilt on ruinous battlegrounds across the world and death is abroad.
In my opinion this no ordinary war. The two sides are not divided by religion, language, doctrine or cultures. They are divided by two basic elements of the human mind: bravery and cowardice.

The cowards are those who would spread terror to this world. They hide behind barricades: barricades built from the bodybags of their innocent victims. These 'men' (I hesistate to use the term) fight not by any flag or for any nation or for any principles. They fight only to spread their murderous terror around the world. They cower in the shadows, never daring to emerge, waiting for a moment of weakness. These cowards have no morals, no compassion. They kill all: children, woman and the elderly. They care not about the misery they reap: all they desire is to see terror spread around the world. Their aim is to destroy trust, compassion and decency whether they might find it. These people, these murderous villians, are the cowards beyond all doubt. ......The cowards you are talking about...they just got "4 more years" to keep spreading their murderous terror around the world.

Depends on how many people die as a result of vetoing, doesn't it?
I will gladly pay you $100 for an official death certificate of any person with 'veto' as cause of death.

Only the most absurd and asinine individual would be able to place a UN veto on moral equivalence with a terrorist bomber. You are not illustrating enlightenment, only demonstrating foolishness.

I will gladly pay you $100 for an official death certificate of any person with 'veto' as cause of death.

Only the most absurd and asinine individual would be able to place a UN veto on moral equivalence with a terrorist bomber. You are not illustrating enlightenment, only demonstrating foolishness.
It is you that appears to be lacking any enlightment from the listing of UN vetoes. Look at the list, see what the US actually condones and perhaps you might have a better understanding why the UN's hands are tied, unless of course the US decides unilaterally that they will actually enforce some UN resolutions, only if they are directed against a country such as Iraq.

Can you not wonder why the cause of terrorism flourishes under those circumstances?

It is you that appears to be lacking any enlightment from the listing of UN vetoes. Look at the list, see what the US actually condones and perhaps you might have a better understanding why the UN's hands are tied, unless of course the US decides unilaterally that they will actually enforce some UN resolutions, only if they are directed against a country such as Iraq.

Can you not wonder why the cause of terrorism flourishes under those circumstances?

AH yes, so according to you the United Nations (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=12&u=/ap/20041124/ap_on_re_as/punishing_peacekeepers_1) is the last vestige of all that is good (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/87851.stm) and holy (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=228669)

I am reminded of a politician who claimed that he first voted FOR something percieved by many as a good thing, before he voted agaist it. His suporters said you had to look closer at why he voted agaist it to understand his motive. The same can be said of each UN resolution you mentioned.

Which still does not bring any moral relavance to those murderers who you foolishly defend.

AH yes, so according to you the United Nations (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=12&u=/ap/20041124/ap_on_re_as/punishing_peacekeepers_1) is the last vestige of all that is good (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/87851.stm) and holy (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=228669)

I am reminded of a politician who claimed that he first voted FOR something percieved by many as a good thing, before he voted agaist it. His suporters said you had to look closer at why he voted agaist it to understand his motive. The same can be said of each UN resolution you mentioned.

Which still does not bring any moral relavance to those murderers who you foolishly defend.
I challenge you to go through my 2,000+ posts and point out specifically any wording that would remotely suggest that I "defend" "murderers".

To throw the word "foolish" into the mix is doubly insulting.

The websites that you posted have zero bearing on the list of US vetoes that I posted, and it appears that you will forever and a day, live in denial that those very vetoes have resulted in the US turning a blind eye to some very serious issues regarding humanity and yes I would say has either condoned instruments of death, or resulted in further death and destruction of innocent humans.

I was in shock like most of the world at the terrorist actions on 9/11 and I fully supported the retalitory attacks against Afghanistan, which I am now second guessing because of the US invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq has given rise to terrorist causes, resulted in the death and destruction of innocent people and their homes, and is totally immoral, and I believe illegal.

Call me foolish if you will, but I believe that it is you, who is unable or unwilling to seperate fact from fiction. :(

There is a war in the world. Some call it a war on terror, others a war in Iraq. But there is no dispute that a war is being fought. Blood is being spilt on ruinous battlegrounds across the world and death is abroad.
In my opinion this no ordinary war. The two sides are not divided by religion, language, doctrine or cultures. They are divided by two basic elements of the human mind: bravery and cowardice.

The cowards are those who would spread terror to this world. They hide behind barricades: barricades built from the bodybags of their innocent victims. These 'men' (I hesistate to use the term) fight not by any flag or for any nation or for any principles. They fight only to spread their murderous terror around the world. They cower in the shadows, never daring to emerge, waiting for a moment of weakness. These cowards have no morals, no compassion. They kill all: children, woman and the elderly. They care not about the misery they reap: all they desire is to see terror spread around the world. Their aim is to destroy trust, compassion and decency whether they might find it. These people, these murderous villians, are the cowards beyond all doubt. Even their causes they hide behind a mask of religious fanaticism. The good name of Islam has been besmirched by these wicked, foul and indecent men. Their leaders are the biggest cowards of all. These men would not risk their own lifes, their own liberty for their causes. instead they indoctrinate the young and naive with their foul poisons and send them forth to do their evil bidding. This is a war that will go on for centuries and has been going for centuries. It is a war against those whose minds are so warped, so inhumane that they murder children to spread their venom into the world.

The brave are now at war: they stand in Iraq and throughout the world, ready to fight on our behalf. They do not shield themselves from savage attack: instead they stand in the open for all to see. And why not, for they have naught to fear or to be ashamed of. Liberty, truth and freedom are the watchwords of the brave and so they need not cower in craven terror. They are prepared to fight against the darkness whether it may sprout its head. They are prepared to defend the innocent who have committed no sin.

So we must stand, stolid by the brave. We must show our revulsion at these craven terrorists who skulk in the shadows without a bone of honour within their bodies. We must not quake in fear or in fright. We must not flee when the evil shows its head. To do so would be a betrayal and a surrender. We must stand firm against this insidious enemy and grimace. We must bare all they have to throw. No matter what casulaties they cause, we must not show terror. No matter what destruction, we must not cower. All we have to do is stand beside the brave and fight. Not fight with weapons as they do but with the arsenal that every human is readily equiped: our mind. We must not bow to terror, we must not lose hope to suffering. The civilised nations of this world must stand in disgust at those who would support terror and murder in the name of misery. There can be no surrender nor peace against these foul foes: only ever present vigilance will save our souls from the floods of ruin that biesiege us. Only ever present determination will help us stand by the brave in their battle to save those who cannot save themselves.

Simply Smashing Sir! We welcome your observations. Good thing to know that the Union Jack has still gotta pair!

I challenge you to go through my 2,000+ posts and point out specifically any wording that would remotely suggest that I "defend" "murderers".

To throw the word "foolish" into the mix is doubly insulting.

Right, foolish may have been harsh. Maybe
'lacking any enlightenment' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=375266&page=3&pp=15) would be more suitable for you.

Your 'defense' is the feeble attempt to justify terrorist acts by drawing a moral equivalent to US veto actions at the UN - a proven morally bankrupt organization. The websites I linked share some of the evidence of that.

I even gave you a very strong hint as to why you see that voting trend; I'm sorry I overestimated your ability to connect the dots. You must remember that any nation can propose a resolution and that Israel is alone in the Middle East, surrounded by over twenty hostile nations bent on their annihilation.

The US has time and again offered to support resolutions condemning Israel provided that these same resolutions condemn terrorists and their supporters. The UN has refused to comply each time.

Less than two years ago the Arab League met for the sole purpose of defining 'terrorism' - they were unable to reach a consensus.

So long as the Arab world condons terrorism they will find it hard to get any resolution passed condeming anyone else for responding to it.

Seperating fact from fiction would require you to have all of the facts. I gave you some but it is up to you to get the rest.

This sort of thing really saddens me. Do you honestly believe that all terrorists are some sort of shadowy cult of evildoers whose only aim is to kill people, New British Glory?
This is just a way of dehumanising the people who are driven to such acts. They are the common or garden terrorist (bastardus terroristicus), commonly found in desert ecosystems whose main activities include blowing stuff up and hating westerners.

EDIT: Just in case I made this a bit ambiguous, I'll be clear: New British Glory talks about terrorists as if they are not human. It's similar to the way soldiers in Vietnam called the Vietnamese people Gooks. Personally I don't think that it's a good idea to forget that you're fighting human beings, as it leads to people disregarding human rights "because they're just terrorists/gooks/whatever."

dehumanising murderers is so wrong!

dehumanising murderers is so wrong!

They are murderers. However, not all terrorists are lunatic far right muslims who want to see the west burn.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone terrorism in any way but I don't condone this pretence that they are "just evil". NO-ONE is just evil, there is *always* a cause. I would rather know what it is instead of just assuming that they're all just crazy or something.

Less than two years ago the Arab League met for the sole purpose of defining 'terrorism' - they were unable to reach a consensus.

So long as the Arab world condons terrorism they will find it hard to get any resolution passed condeming anyone else for responding to it.



Just run it past me how the Arab league failing to reach a consensus means the whole Arab world condones terrorism?

Just run it past me how the Arab league failing to reach a consensus means the whole Arab world condones terrorism?
I won't think for you. You should consider what possible reason the nations of the Arab League could have for not being able to set a clear and common definition of 'terrorism.' Think hard and rationally and you will find your own answer.

You should make certain you are familiar with the Middle East, particularly the six-day war in this exersise. An opinon not based on facts is folly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone terrorism in any way but I don't condone this pretence that they are "just evil". NO-ONE is just evil, there is *always* a cause. I would rather know what it is instead of just assuming that they're all just crazy or something.
Evil masquerades as good. Most of the bombers themselves are victims of hateful propoganda. A 'cause' does not afford morality to an action.

The motive of the people behind the propoganda can be found in the history of the middle east (like the six-day war - which most folks here couldn't even identify the participants of).

And yes, there ARE evil people.

Great speech.

...
Less than two years ago the Arab League met for the sole purpose of defining 'terrorism' - they were unable to reach a consensus.

So long as the Arab world condons terrorism they will find it hard to get any resolution passed condeming anyone else for responding to it.
...

Does the US have a definition of terrorism?

Yes, in fact I believe it was defined in the 80s. It is not difficult to find but you will have to do your own homework. I will give you a hint:

Title 22

You'll have to educate yourself from there. Have fun and let me know next time you need help with your education.