The Military Fights to Defend our Freedom, or absurdist things the news tells me.

[Revoltingest]

ter·ror·ism

   /ˈtɛr

əˌrɪz

əm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uh

m] Show IPA
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Personally, I think most countries in existence have engaged in such a thing. Including what we've done to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The definitions look good, but your application to these wars seems off the mark. By such reasoning, what wars weren't terrorism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is the same source I provided earlier, again:

IRAQ: U.S. Military Resorting to Collective Punishment - IPS ipsnews.net
and more commentary: US Resorting to 'Collective Punishment' in Iraq

If these reports are accurate, then it looks like terrorism.

 

[Aquitaine]

The definitions look good, but your application to these wars seems off the mark. By such reasoning, what wars weren't terrorism?

Exactly! In all wars all that ever happens is innocent Civilians get killed. It sucks.

I honestly don't see the difference: innocent people die either way. In relation to our actions with Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no difference: we attacked an innocent country, and we threatened to bomb and invade another country if they didn't comply with our demands (even though they kinda did, somewhat), but hey we went and invaded them too.

Seriously though, when you look at the end result (the casualities and destruction) is there really a difference between War and "terrorism" given that 90% of all wars consists only of pointless aggression?

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

do these noble freedom fighters know that US military action in the Middle East the past two decades has been to defend the lives of Muslims (against violence from other Muslims)?

The US military action in the Middle East for the past two decades had been to protect our interest in the petroleum that the Muslims happen to be sitting on. If Muslims were killing Muslims anywhere else, the US wouldn't lift a finger to stop it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

I take offense at this statement.

But it is true. Why in your progressive enlightened philosophy do you have a moral blind spot for radical Islam? The degrading way women are treated in Saudi Arabia somehow escapes your moral condemnation. The suicide bombers of Hamas somehow elude any mention. The governments of the Arab-Muslim world, which are virtually all totalitarian in nature somehow go without mention.

When the Muslim terrorist says he is fighting to defend his Muslim brothers and sisters you believe him completely. Why don't you apply the same skepticism you have for the US and Israel to the actions of Muslims in the Arab world? It would make you look more intellectually honest.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

It's perhaps ironic that Luis and I seem to have more respect for the expertise of the US military's interrogators than does Joe Stocks. But is it surprising that Joe would think he knew better than the military's experts what was going on?

Actually no, you argued that the radical Muslims told the interrogators they were fighting to defend their Muslim brothers and sisters who were being killed by the big bad US. Where is the expertise you speak of? You are just blindly believing what the Muslim terrorist is saying (I wonder if your blind acceptance of the terrorists assertions has anything to do with liberals' antipathy towards a foreign policy that promotes American values such as democracy and capitalism).

You are posing. You are taking any expert's opinion, you believe the terrorists claims uncritically.

Ann Coulter? You believe her! You actually believe, on the basis of Ann Coulter's words, that Luis and I side with radical Muslims. Well, you just show 'em, Joe! You just go ahead and appeal to Coulter's shrewd honesty, insight and intelligence. Who couldn't be more spot on than Ann Coulter!

I knew that would get a rise out of you. But she is right nonetheless. Luis has demonstrated that his ideology makes him unwilling to condemn terrorism conducted by Muslims. Hamas and Hezbollah get a pass. The sick Saudi treatment of women gets a pass. But gets who doesn't get a pass in Luis' upside down moral universe? The US and Israel (the latter he calls genocidal and then gets his feelings hurt when you correctly point out this blatant anti-Semitism).

You, on the other hand, play the 'understanding' game as you side with these barbarians. You 'understand' why these Muslim terrorists are killing us, after all we are killing their brothers and sisters and all these Muslims want to do is live in peace. Their murderous actions are given a complete pass.

And it is easy to see why this is the case; deep down you agree with the Muslim terrorists description of the US, Israel and Western Civilization in general. Muslim terrorists believe that pretty much all of the actions of the US and Israel are based on principles of war-mongering, racism and greed. And enlightened progressive like you and Luis, go "Yeah, they are like that." Thus, the unholy alliance between the left and Muslim terrorists is a classic 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' strategy.

Your lack of moral condemnation of the evils in the Arab-Muslim world shows you share the same moral blind spot as Luis.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Badran,

Wow. How does Iraq fit into that picture?

And, assuming that in someway or another that is the case, the result remains to be awful. As ridiculous as this notion is, it still doesn't justify invading another country and destroying it and killing civilians and torturing them in prison.

Is a free, democratic Iraq better for Muslims than a tyranny in Iraq?

Nobody is saying that its a "noble" defense, but rather the reaction they do to what the US does. That includes invading countries, killing their brothers and sisters, supporting another invading country, and so on. This is clearly the prime motivator for anybody to go extreme.

Except were these Muslims acting in the same way when Saddam was murdering about a million Muslims? I don't think so. There seems to be selective moral outrage here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Stocks http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...reedom-absurdist-post2088279.html#post2088279
(especially their Muslim sisters, Muslims treat women like excrement).

No they don't.

Oh please, in Saudi Arabia women can't even drive and where a woman gets jail time and 200 lashes for getting gang raped (the unhealthy mixing of the sexes was her fault of course).

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lava,

so there are still people who believe that story. i hope someday you get chance to hear what those Muslims who's being "protected" by Western forces feel and think about that issue.

Is a government in Iraq where Iraqis can choose their own leaders morally superior to Saddam's Iraq? Is a democratic Iraq good or bad for Muslims?

plan was simple and it worked out well enough. support Saddam, give him anything he needs and make him feel like he is a friend of USA. make him torture Kurds. do the same with Turkish government so that one day start supporting the Kurd once you made target. divide Iraq, divide Turkey and use Kurds to make that happen. after all Kurds did suffer because of authorities in the past. but sure noone would remember, it was done by command of USA. so Iraq goes down and they arrest Saddam. uh oh what a surprise. he gets killed long before his trial was completed. so dozens of files, his confessions and everything goes to trash bin. secrets were buried with him. you don't wonder why? well, too bad!

This insane tribalism is why the Arab-Muslim culture is one of most backward in the world. Saddam kills a million people and its the US fault (what no Israeli role?). This is rich.

 

[Caladan]

If these reports are accurate, then it looks like terrorism.

Par your own opinion on the role of Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, I assume you would place value on the analysis of the high command which manages coalition forces in the middle east, am I correct in this?

 

[Revoltingest]

Par your own opinion on the role of Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, I assume you would place value on the analysis of the high command which manages coalition forces in the middle east, am I correct in this?

I would if I had their real opinions, but I fear that they get filtered thru a political process.
For what it's worth, I've no doubt that the US is capable of terrorism, eg, pre-WW2 torture in SE Asia.
But the sins of one do not wash away the sins of another.

 

[Caladan]

I would if I had their real opinions, but I fear that they get filtered thru a political process.

I am talking about the Military high command, not the politicians. considering your view of the mission of coalition forces in the middle east, I can only assume you would value the analysis of this high command?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am talking about the Military high command, not the politicians. considering your view of the mission of coalition forces in the middle east, I can only assume you would value the analysis of this high command?

Obama is the Commander in Chief, so I presume that he exerts pressure to say things which comport with
his agenda. As we see, excessive candor can get even a general booted from his post. But does this matter?

 

[Caladan]

Obama is the Commander in Chief, so I presume that he exerts pressure to say things which comport with
his agenda. As we see, excessive candor can get even a general booted from his post. But does this matter?

Again, Im talking about Military men, not politicians, not presidents, but the people who command coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, Im talking about Military men, not politicians, not presidents, but the people who command coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I really don't have a response to that. Does it matter that I don't entirely trust what military leaders say? Does it matter that the US has been
guilty of terrorism on occasion, particularly when I believe that it's happened? Have you some point to make which I should address, but haven't?

 

[Caladan]

I really don't have a response to that. Does it matter that I don't entirely trust what military leaders say? Does it matter that the US has been
guilty of terrorism on occasion, particularly when I believe that it's happened? Have you some point to make which I should address, but haven't?

Considering that its your assertion that coalition forces in the middle east are doing proper military job, while the Israelis conduct involves terrorism, I wonder what you think about former commander of British forces in Afghanistan analysis that:

"based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare"

(Colonel Richard Kemp, who was a Commander of British forces in Afghanistan)

 

[Revoltingest]

Considering that its your assertion that coalition forces in the middle east are doing proper military job.....

I never asserted any such thing.

....while the Israeli conduct involves terrorism, I wonder what you think about former commander of British forces in Afghanistan analysis that:

"based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare"

(Colonel Richard Kemp, who was a Commander of British forces in Afghanistan)

Perhaps you missed the part where I criticized a single Israeli practice as terrorism. I never applied that to their military as a whole, & allow that much of what they do is reasonable.

It seems that I'm not connecting with you at all over this. I urge you to focus on exactly what I post, rather than your liberal interpretation of it.

 

[Caladan]

I never asserted any such thing.

You defferentiated the American forces conducts in the middle east as war and police action.

Perhaps you missed the part where I criticized a single Israeli practice as terrorism. I never applied that to their military as a whole, & allow that much of what they do is reasonable.

We could have saved alot if we would made that analysis earlier, we could also save alot by realizing American forces use what can be defined as collective punishment as well. that would place us in a position where either some Western forces use 'terrorism', or all Western forces use 'terrorism'.

It seems that I'm not connecting with you at all over this. I urge you to focus on exactly what I post, rather than your liberal interpretation of it.

It is possible to project alot on these posts, being that labeling the conduct of one force which is operating in middle eastern population as engaging in terrorism while another force which is operating inside a middle eastern population as engaged in war and police action should raise an eyebrow and an investigation.
at least we got more information after this debate, one, that all of these forces use methods which you initially labeled as terrorism, and two that you differentiate between these actions and the overall and general conduct and reality of the force.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Sunstone,



Actually no, you argued that the radical Muslims told the interrogators they were fighting to defend their Muslim brothers and sisters who were being killed by the big bad US. Where is the expertise you speak of? You are just blindly believing what the Muslim terrorist is saying (I wonder if your blind acceptance of the terrorists assertions has anything to do with liberals' antipathy towards a foreign policy that promotes American values such as democracy and capitalism).

You are posing. You are taking any expert's opinion, you believe the terrorists claims uncritically.



I knew that would get a rise out of you. But she is right nonetheless. Luis has demonstrated that his ideology makes him unwilling to condemn terrorism conducted by Muslims. Hamas and Hezbollah get a pass. The sick Saudi treatment of women gets a pass. But gets who doesn't get a pass in Luis' upside down moral universe? The US and Israel (the latter he calls genocidal and then gets his feelings hurt when you correctly point out this blatant anti-Semitism).

You, on the other hand, play the 'understanding' game as you side with these barbarians. You 'understand' why these Muslim terrorists are killing us, after all we are killing their brothers and sisters and all these Muslims want to do is live in peace. Their murderous actions are given a complete pass.

And it is easy to see why this is the case; deep down you agree with the Muslim terrorists description of the US, Israel and Western Civilization in general. Muslim terrorists believe that pretty much all of the actions of the US and Israel are based on principles of war-mongering, racism and greed. And enlightened progressive like you and Luis, go "Yeah, they are like that." Thus, the unholy alliance between the left and Muslim terrorists is a classic 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' strategy.

Your lack of moral condemnation of the evils in the Arab-Muslim world shows you share the same moral blind spot as Luis.

In the six years I've been on this forum, no one has put more words into my mouth more shamelessly than Joe Stocks. He feels no guilt telling me what I think and feel even when he must surely know he is fabricating what he says are my thoughts and feelings.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

In the six years I've been on this forum, no one has put more words into my mouth more shamelessly than Joe Stocks. He feels no guilt telling me what I think and feel even when he must surely know he is fabricating what he says are my thoughts and feelings.

No fabrication needed. You are the one that uncritically accepts the claims of Muslim terrorists (they simply are fighting to defend their Muslim brothers and sisters). I don't need to be a mind reader to know that in the course of our conversations (which have been limited, so I might have missed some things about your political views) I have never seen you critical of the Arab-Muslim world while you have been very critical of the US. Now, there is no problem being critical of the US, just for goodness sake be critical of others as well. I don't see that.

What I do see is the simplistic claim, "of course Muslims are killing Americans, we are over there killing their brother or sister ...." I know you are smart enough to think critically, yet you believe something so simple and naive.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Sunstone,



No fabrication needed. You are the one that uncritically accepts the claims of Muslim terrorists (they simply are fighting to defend their Muslim brothers and sisters).

What I accept is the belief of our military interrogators that the primary reasons they are fighting us is because we are killing them. What you don't accept is that the belief of our military interrogators can reasonably count for more than the opinions of Joe Stocks.

I don't need to be a mind reader...

Then do not presume to be one.

...to know that in the course of our conversations (which have been limited, so I might have missed some things about your political views) I have never seen you critical of the Arab-Muslim world while you have been very critical of the US.

I have indeed been critical of Arab-Muslim extremism. However, nothing requires me to point that out to you, Joe. You neither command nor deserve it, especially since you are all too willing to ignorantly put words in my mouth.