"Civil War" Inadequate term for Iraq war
Abuskedti
Posts: 1,917
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/15/iraq.main/index.html
Terrorist and Insurgent are also inadequate terms...
Terrorist and Insurgent are also inadequate terms...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
how 'bout 'Clusterfuck'? That seems more adequate.
Hail, Hail!!!
or FUBAR
Result of the most ignorant thoughtless abuse of aggresive military power.
Hail, Hail!!!
"The result of a few billion bad votes"
"Religion + Power = Genocide"
"You detract more muslims with bombs"
"If you can't fish, use dynamite"
I fail to see how "terrorist" is an inadequate term here. Don't be foolish. Killing civilians in this fashion pretty much fits the definition to a tee. Even if it is true that not all people fighting the U.S. occupation are terrorists (a statement I am willing to except), pretending that bona fide terrorism doesn't occur there is naive, if not delusional.
Do you think all 600,000 dead iraqis were militant?
Maybe the cluster bombs dropped on Lebanon didn't actually kill any civilians.
Is a terrorist anyone that targets civilians, or anyone that disregards civilians?
It's easy for the U.S. or Israel to say "thems terrorists" and then bomb a city killing more civilians than the terrorists did. But then who is the terrorist?
If a guy straps a bomb and blows up some dude on a street corner, he is a terrorist. But if dude launches a bomb from a tank and it kills 5 civilians and one militant, he's a hero?
I don't deny the term "terrorism".. that is indeed alive and well.
Terrorist however is delusional. There are very few people who are "terrorists" to the core - perhaps one per million - and you can't pick them out of a lineup.
To call a group of people terrorists - is inaccurate - and dangerous and irresponsible and dishonest.
Each group is different - each has it own needs - its own greatness - and its own ways of defending themselves.
There is no denying that in the last few years - no group of people have terrorized more people than the United States - and you don't call us "terrorists".
No, not even close to 600,000, although I am sure that thousands of these Iraqi deaths were in fact armed men putting up a fight. To answer your question, deliberate targeting of civilians is the commonly accepted definition of terrorism, and thus, a pilot who kills civilians in error is not a terrorist. One who deliberately bombs civilians might be considered such, as might be one who simply doesn't care who he kills. And WTF does Lebanon have to do with this thread? Like I've said to you a million times, many Isreali actions in that war fit the definition of terrorism. Is making me admit that some kind of major victory for you? I still think you need to talk to the other side involved in that conflict; your view is still rather biased, from the sounds of it.
Sounds like your a bit sensitive to the discussion of Israel and Lebanon. Perhaps you have a strong bias which you feel a need to defend.
Yes, I freely admit it. I have a strong bias against Hezbollah, who started the conflict, who hid behind the rest of the Lebanese population, and who remain at large. Sue me for having a sense of morality.
If you makes you feel any better though, I also feel that the Israeli command chose to wallow with the swine in this war, and basically proved itself to be little better than its enemy. The real victims here are Lebanese who got dragged into the conflict by both sides.
I disagree - its more complex than that. Calling them "Terrorist" implies something about their being. These people are not terrorists. They are fighting a war - and using what we call terrorism.
You commonly associate their tactics with the word terrorism. I don't see how that is and the "Shock and Awe" campaign is not. Nor the tactics we have been using for years in areas where heavy "insurgent" attacks originate. The US overwhelms them with superior weapons killing hundreds at a time if not more - including civilians... that surely is intended to influence through terror.
I don't wish to compare the morality of one method versus the other. I know that the members of the US military are good people - and not terrorists.
Just as well, I know the people of Iraq are good people and not terrorists. Just on different sides of a violent conflict using different methods to advance their cause which both feel is richeous.
There are no terrorists - even Bin Laden is not a terrorist. He is a leader to one side of a violent conflict. He has committed what the world considers war crimes and should be prosecuted for that. But even his is not a "terrorist" - he is a man on the other side - using different deadly tactics.
The term terrorist - dehumanizes the other side, making it easier for our side to feel good about the terror we have brought to bear on them - and continue today.
Terrorist is a bad term.
as well as insurgent.. one would be an insurgent if they were violently opposing a sitting government. Iraq has been defeated in a war - and therefore does not have a government yet. The united states, the conqueror, has created a government from the small group of Iraqis willing to do as the US wishes.. but you can not call it an Iraqi government when most of Iraq opposes it. Insurgent is not appropriate. These people are Iraqis. they are survivers of a war - and trying to rebuild their country - They can not because the conqueror won't leave them to their country. It is delusional to call them insurgents - they are the defeated.. just wanting their country back - to start all over again.
It will likely take a civil war for them to restore authority in their country.. nothing less. But the civil war can not commense while the US remains - and defeats any group that becomes capable of enforcing some of their wishes - if those wishes are contrary to those of the US.
The conflict now is simple - Iraq is being denied their right to rebuild their country by the occupying force. That is not insurgency.
Hey, if you want to throw out the term completely, power to ya. I still think the term can be used in a legitimate way to refer to specific people, of any nationality. It doesn't just refer to their actions. It refers also to a state of mind, an ideology, a (lack of) morality. One can potentially use terrorist tactics and not be a terrorist in this sense, true. But true terrorists do exist.
Like you, many need to hold on to the notion that "true terrorists do exist". But that is so obviously wrong. People do not live to terrorize - and no matter how different they dress or talk - Middle Easterners are people.