Terrorism

[Global_Justice]

just wondering where you all stand on terrorism, not just against zionism, because i think i know where we all stand there, but the terrorism attacks in iraq, 9/11, 7/7, and all accross the middle east?

personally i'm torn when it comes to iraq terrorism, on one hand, the iraqi people are being occupied and oppressed by the great oppresser, and are fully within there rights to fuck shit up to get freedom. however, an iraq controlled by the insurgents would surely be even worse than it was under saddam hussain, they would introduce the most extreme sharia law, music, tv, dancing would be banned, women would not be allowed out the house without there husbands, under punishment of getting the fuck kicked out of them.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Inside jobs.

[bcbm]

The resistance isn&#39;t all Islamists. <_<

[dannie]

i would support iraqi resistance if it didn&#39;t affect civillians that direct, blowing up 2 policeman and 6 innocent is the wrong way, killing the two pigs with a sniperrifle would be a better one

[Global_Justice]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 21 2005, 11:11 PM
The resistance isn&#39;t all Islamists. <_<
oh i wasn&#39;t suggesting that.

but unfortunately, it is more than likely that islamists will end up in charge if the insurgents take over.

[Guerrilla22]

Where do I stand on terrorism? The term terrorism has been twisted to only include acts perpetrated by non-government actors, as if their acts are illegitmate, but any act perpatrated by a national army somehow is.

[Bannockburn]

Where do I stand on terrorism? The term terrorism has been twisted to only include acts perpetrated by non-government actors, as if their acts are illegitmate, but any act perpatrated by a national army somehow is.

True. I agree on a level headed side. Yet, on a more philosophical side, personally I think terrorism as a concept is a myth, or boogieman to scare people. If you scare them enough like children they will often come running underneth the skirt of dearest mommy government. Governments have always created enemies. Back in the day, Colon Powell once said, I&#39;m running out of enemies, all I have is Saddam and Kim il. Hardly a threat to a US superpower. So, really OBL did the US a favor. He created an enemy who is never seen, omni-present, and will attack at any moment. At least with the red scares you had a target, a country to hit. Terrorism, none of that.

Moreover, everyone who is commiting these acts, generally like to try to say how it is necessary. Generally the human population doesn&#39;t agree. I think the protests before the war, during, and now shows this. In a world where illigitimate violance is not tolerated by anybody, any act of violence can be called terrorism. Hence, it can be OBL or the USA. Thus, if everyone is a terrorist, it results that nobody is a terrorist.

[FidelCastro]

Al-Queada have the same goals as us with regards to the collapse of capitalism

[James]

I think that the best definition of terrorism is that it is the deliberate targetting of civilians, primarily to cause fear.

bannockburn:


True. I agree on a level headed side. Yet, on a more philosophical side, personally I think terrorism as a concept is a myth, or boogieman to scare people.


Whilst i agree that it seems some have used it as such, there is a danger of going too far down this road. There are numerous "real threat&#39;s".


Although i think Al Q offers an example of both cases.
firstly it starts off with a real terrorist group: they are actual terrorists whom plan and commit terrorism.
Then governments identify this group as the terrorist "enemy", as you described. After this it is reasonably easy for the image of the group to outgrow its actual ability etc.
However, then an interesting twist emerges, in that other terrorists "subscribe" themselves as part of this "enemy", that is, the ever increasingly common perceptions of an Al-Q "merchandise" which groups subscribe too.
Al - Q itself then changed its fundamental up down stepped structure, to a more "network centric" one, to enable it to adapot to this change in circumstance (i believe that attempts were/are made to establish contact/issue guidelines/ provide assistance), and of course, in reaction to losses of highup personel to military action.

etc etc


So it starts off as a real threat, then it is "developed" as a concept by authorities, which then in turn becomes a real, actual threat in itself.

So i agree in a way, but also disagree.




If you scare them enough like children they will often come running underneth the skirt of dearest mommy government. Governments have always created enemies. Back in the day, Colon Powell once said, I&#39;m running out of enemies, all I have is Saddam and Kim il.

I think it is important to remember the context of such statements. This was after all in the days just following the death of the cold war. This was an opinion that was present throughout the 1990s.

This was an era of (to quote one of my lecturers) "problematising"; when different pressure groups/interest groups/concerns, tried to persuade the govenment/people to realise the importance of specific threats, with the hope that such a specific threat would recieve specific attention.

For example; terrorism, poverty, humanitarian disaster, the UN&#39;s role, global warming, a "clash of civilisations" etc etc

I think it is important to remember that.
I don&#39;t think that it is a characteristic of "capitalist government", but just human behaviour in general.



Hardly a threat to a US superpower.

I don&#39;t agree with that.
Nearly all such percieved threats were/are in some way a threat to the US in some way or another.



So, really OBL did the US a favor. He created an enemy who is never seen, omni-present, and will attack at any moment. At least with the red scares you had a target, a country to hit. Terrorism, none of that.

Well thats the changing nature of warfare in general: from a traditional geographical concentration of forces, to a more disperesed network centric form.
So again, whilst it has been exagerated, it is still a real threat. As 9/11 showed.



Moreover, everyone who is commiting these acts, generally like to try to say how it is necessary. Generally the human population doesn&#39;t agree. I think the protests before the war, during, and now shows this. In a world where illigitimate violance is not tolerated by anybody, any act of violence can be called terrorism. Hence, it can be OBL or the USA. Thus, if everyone is a terrorist, it results that nobody is a terrorist.

Again, i agree in part.

But i do think there is a difference between operation iraqi freedom and Al-Q action.

OIF: the main purpose was the overthrowing of a dictator who murdered many of his own people. Generally speaking, the method was an attempted to minimize loss of human life. A major element of the method and aim was to win the support of the population.

9/11: main purpose being debatable; some say the establishesment of a caliphate, some the overthrowing of capitalism.
The method was the targetting of the trade towers, which had symbolic as well as practical reasons. A major element of the method and aim however seems to have been pure and simple terror.


I strongly disagree that all are terrorists, so none are.
I think to describe OIF as terrorism is foolish as well as inaccurate.

[James]

- black banner black gun;
"The resistance isn&#39;t all Islamists."

Whilst this is most likely true, one must bare in mind that even in the elections secularist parties do significantly worse than their religious counterparts (according to the guardian). True, this is not conclusive evidence, but does suggets rather alot. Iraq is far more religious, and less diverse, than western society in general.

You live in "Occupied North America": the rest of the world though is VERY different (not having a go: its merely a point. It is easy to think that the rest of the world is and thinks like one does).

I think the burden of proof is more upon those who argue that the resistance is not religious.


- fidel castro
"Al-Queada have the same goals as us with regards to the collapse of capitalism"

capitalism? or western civilisation?
Are you a believer of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? If so, i strongly recomend you review your stance.

OBL is certainly no marxist. Nor is he secular. I think that the only similarities you can find, will be minor ones that you "pick and choose" from his and his groups, aims, goals and methods.
Indeed i&#39;d argue that between the two evils, i&#39;m on the side of western capitalism, and not islamic fascism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by FidelCastro+--> (FidelCastro)Al-Queada have the same goals as us with regards to the collapse of capitalism[/b]

The difference however is that Al-Queada want to take us back to feudalism.


Originally posted by James+--> (James)OIF: the main purpose was the overthrowing of a dictator who murdered many of his own people.[/b]

No it wasn&#39;t.

There was an official reason and that was "weapons of mass destruction" and sanctions violations. Regime change as you described above, is illegal under international war.


[email protected]
Generally speaking, the method was an attempted to minimize loss of human life.

That is somewhat disputable. Particularly considering the "blanket bombing" of Baghdad.

The main aim was to defeat the Iraqi Army (not very hard) and civilian safety was in all likelihood an afterthought.


James
I think to describe OIF as terrorism is foolish as well as inaccurate.

If we use your own definition of terrorism, "I think that the best definition of terrorism is that it is the deliberate targetting of civilians, primarily to cause fear."

Then certain events during "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can most definitely be described as terrorism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James
I think the burden of proof is more upon those who argue that the resistance is not religious.

I did find a piece on the BBC a while back which had the overwhelming majority of the "insurgency" listed as "nationalists" not "religious warriors."

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James
and not islamic fascism.

I see you are using the term coined by the "delightful" Mr. Hitchens, who receives a nice big pay cheque to write about the "wonderful" Mr. Bush.

Anyway, I do find this use of the term "fascism" very annoying. Fascism has a specific meaning, as in thirties fascism in Italy, Germany and Spain. Therefore labelling everything one doesn&#39;t like "fascist" actually ends up degrading the meaning of the term, making it into a silly insult.

It&#39;s not a silly insult, it is a very serious political system that should be properly understood and not dropped to the level of political insult.

[Global_Justice]

OIF: the main purpose was the overthrowing of a dictator who murdered many of his own people. Generally speaking, the method was an attempted to minimize loss of human life. A major element of the method and aim was to win the support of the population

whilst saddam did murder his own people, i seriously doubt that was the US main purpose. there are dictators in many countries, many of them backed by the US. The main reason was so that the US could get a puppet in charge and control there oil intrests. The US doesn&#39;t give a fuck about an iraqi civilian, they are there to protect there own interests.

[Bannockburn]

I&#39;ve never had such a long reply.




Whilst i agree that it seems some have used it as such, there is a danger of going too far down this road. There are numerous "real threat&#39;s".

Well I certainly don&#39;t ever recall saying there are no “real threats”. Even though I&#39;m not really sure what they are. Certainly terrorism acts as a motor in order to justify further domestic and foreign police action for control and obedience. Only a secure world can come through a process of action. It needs to be actively shaped, but nevertheless a justification needs to be made and manufactured like terrorism, the red scares, the cold war, immigrants, worker unions, etc, in order to act. I mean come on, if creating a war with terrorist is somehow going to stop terrorism, then the US is mistaken. They have had many examples to show that “fighting the war on terror” does not work. Take for example the IRA and Britain. The Israeli&#39;s and Palestinians.

Moreover, the US can not possibly know what those real threats are. If you read any book concerning how security works, both domestically and internationally, the US is a blind man who shoot bullets in the dark. The basic premises and I kid you not follows: You can only have security provided you know the threats. If you do not know the threats, then you can not actively engage in minimizing those threats. But the whole point to security is to be secure before the threat arises, insofar before they have been conceived. As a result the only “real threats” any state can possibly know are the one&#39;s they themselves create, and not the potential threats other individuals may, or may not conceive.

Lets take an example by Rumsfield: Rumsfield said, (since you think by using the Powell argument I somehow was using it out of context) “Our challenge in this new century is a difficult one: to defend our nation against the unknown, the uncertain, the unseen, and the unexpected”. This clearly shows a few things: they do not know what the threats are, and hence can not engage in “security measures” in order to stop those threats. Two: Since they do not know they threats, all must be considered a threat. Thus, we have the patriot act. We have shoot to kill policies of all who is “acting suspiciously”, which are in the eyes of the beholder of regular police forces who are not trained in such circumstances. Racial immigration policies, wire tapping, accusations of, if you are “soft” on terrorism, then you can be held personally responsible for, “the next wave of attacks” (attacks I mind you that they do not know, for they are, “unseen, and unexpected). Moreover, this is a logical fallacy. Its used all the time. Its called affirming the consequence. It follows thus:

Since there has been no terrorist attacks since the establishment of the patriot act, then obviously the patriot act has worked to throw off any potential attack and has stopped the terrorist attacking the US.

You hear this argument from Bush all the time. But the problem remains that he thinks that because the consequence of the “since/then” conditional sentence of “obviously the patriot act has worked to throw off....” then the antecedent of “Since there has been....” follows. Well no it doesn&#39;t. It simply means that other possibilities can cause not having a terrorist attack in the US. For example, the haven&#39;t decided to attack.

The real threats my friend has always been the same real threats as before. Any state, any state&#39;s primary threat, and enemy is its own population. That is the real threat. A population who might get out of their traditional apathy, and obedience and start controlling their own needs according to their own particular situations. So really as a result the state must use whatever technique, such as a new larger than life figure of “terrorism” to reduce them back down to a segment of a population who&#39;s only role in society is to be reduced to the furtherest measure of only having the ability to obey and consume.






Although i think Al Q offers an example of both cases.
firstly it starts off with a real terrorist group: they are actual terrorists whom plan and commit terrorism.
Then governments identify this group as the terrorist "enemy", as you described. After this it is reasonably easy for the image of the group to outgrow its actual ability etc.
However, then an interesting twist emerges, in that other terrorists "subscribe" themselves as part of this "enemy", that is, the ever increasingly common perceptions of an Al-Q "merchandise" which groups subscribe too.
Al - Q itself then changed its fundamental up down stepped structure, to a more "network centric" one, to enable it to adapot to this change in circumstance (i believe that attempts were/are made to establish contact/issue guidelines/ provide assistance), and of course, in reaction to losses of highup personel to military action.

etc etc


So it starts off as a real threat, then it is "developed" as a concept by authorities, which then in turn becomes a real, actual threat in itself.

Okay lets take Al-Q. They are a good example of a manufactured entity. Former CIA trained, armed, and financed individuals used as political pawns, in the Soviet wars, and Clinton used them during the Bosnian wars with the KLA. So really, they were only a “terrorist group” provided they were not working for the US. At that time they were called freedom fights (watch Rambo 3: typical propaganda via Hollywood) and the book “uncivil wars” all describe the links. So I&#39;m not sure if they are terrorist “groups” that governments either assemble, or discover.

Certainly, I described them as an “enemy”, but not because I think so. Its typical Machiavellian techniques being used. The Good vs. Bad, and we of course are always the good. This is as old as 15th century Italian politics. Still used to this day. They are evil, the enemy, bad, harmful, and we are the good, strong, brave, freedom lovers.

Anyway, I disagree with you, and I think you&#39;re wrong. You call it “twist”, I call it, “it was always that way, but governments are too stupid to figure it out till its too late”.

Let me start over:


However, then an interesting twist emerges, in that other terrorists "subscribe" themselves as part of this "enemy", that is, the ever increasingly common perceptions of an Al-Q "merchandise" which groups subscribe too.
Al - Q itself then changed its fundamental up down stepped structure, to a more "network centric" one, to enable it to adapot to this change in circumstance

So let me get this strait? Al-Q, decides to change “its fundamental up down stepped structure” to a more “network centric (contradiction in terms) in order to deal, or incorporate the changing circumstances of other terrorist groups subscribing to be apart of the group? Doesn&#39;t that sound a little weird to you, a little backwards, a little Bush?
Okay, let me begin. First, Al-Q never had a top-down structure. It was always a network. Top down structures are for traditional military and state forms, not for guerrilla warfare. Look at Che&#39;s Guerrilla warfare. Is there any top down hierarchical chain of command? No, of course not. Secondly, networks are not new, and the US has known the strategy for a long time now. Lets say from the 60&#39;s in Vietnam. Vietnam was a network war, and one of the main causes they lost. This is one of its lessons. The US actually adopted to a highly skilled, mobile, low men squad of personal. You see this all the time. You don&#39;t have the company charging the field anymore.

So in all honestly, Al-Q was never top down, but always a network of independent nexus that can operate on their own terms. Robert Fisk, the only western journalist has talked about this numerous of times. Besides, how could Al-Q possibly change its structure to a network, and somehow establish this network across the globe in a process of a few years?



This was after all in the days just following the death of the cold war. This was an opinion that was present throughout the 1990s. .

Actually, I agree with you. But isn&#39;t that strange to you, that the US needs enemies? I kids you not when I say the US actually creates enemies. It was an opinion throughout the 90&#39;s because the US had nothing to strangle hold its people, or the UN. So we create an enemy out of Saddam. I mean you can honestly believe for a moment the US cares about Iraq invading Kuwait? I mean the propaganda which you were obviously feed believed in the “humanitarian” motives of the US/UN, but anybody who had an ounce of critical thought would have laughed at such a joke.

The major public drooled over the reasons, such as the invasion without noting that other countries had been invaded without the US/UN showing any concern. East Timor/Indonesia, Iran by Iraq, Lebanon by Israel, Mozambique by South Africa, this goes without saying the countless US invasions itself, such as Grenada, Panama, etc.


This was an era of (to quote one of my lecturers) "problematising"; when different pressure groups/interest groups/concerns, tried to persuade the government/people to realise the importance of specific threats, with the hope that such a specific threat would recieve specific attention.

Problematising. Yeah, creating problems. Granted, I&#39;ll give you different specific groups, such as national corporate interests lobby the government to push for their special interests, and governments having a problem to make legit justification, they certainly have some “problematising”.


For example; terrorism, poverty, humanitarian disaster, the UN&#39;s role, global warming, a "clash of civilisations" etc etc

Terrorism: invented. Poverty, of no concern. Humanitarian aid? Where. The UN role is just a mouth piece for the US. Global warming: denied. “clash of civilizations” is a propaganda ploy of racism and to create inferiority among groups of people. I&#39;m telling you man, the Americans spreading west and creating genocide was a clash of civilizations. You can dress the terms up for whatever you want. This is just a new invention to create a stratified global order. Some civilizations are better than others. Obviously, again, like Machiavelli, our civilization is on the right side. Civilizations like ours, disciplined, capitalist, controlled is the right civilization, and are the “good guys”, and anybody else are the “bad guys”.


I don&#39;t think that it is a characteristic of "capitalist government", but just human behaviour in general.

Bullshit Is that what your lecturer told you too? That is part of our “human nature”? First of all, ask him/her if he ever knew of human nature in order to know what it is? Man has been around for a long as time, and like any other domestic animal who has been breed through centuries and centuries, there is a good chance we “lost” all that which was ever “natural”.


That is complete garbage boy, and I think you know that. To begin with, its not human nature to act, create, and pick out threats. Its not human nature to have a hyper mode of competition between the scarcity of material goods. Put it this way. If your brother was next to you, and you had only one plate of food, and you both were hungry, what would you do? You share it obviously. We do it for our friends, family. Its garbage to think otherwise

Moreover, if it was “part of human nature” then why would we feel empathy, compassion for other people? It wouldn&#39;t make any sense if competition, and hoarding was part of human nature. We feel compassion and empathy for a reason. Its not some kind of evolutionary by-product which we don&#39;t need anymore.



I don&#39;t agree with that.
Nearly all such percieved threats were/are in some way a threat to the US in some way or another.

How?


Well thats the changing nature of warfare in general: from a traditional geographical concentration of forces, to a more disperesed network centric form.
So again, whilst it has been exagerated, it is still a real threat. As 9/11 showed.

yeah, I think I&#39;ve already gone and said everything you just did. You missed the point. OBL gave the United States the justification to create a new enemy to advance its own self-interest in the name of “the war on terror”. Man, I&#39;m telling you they did they same bullshit theory in Vietnam.

9/11 didn&#39;t show shit. 9/11 was a small attack compared to anything the world had witnessed. In Bosnia you still have 26,000 missing Bosnians. 9/11 was an opportunity on American soil to to launch there new policy. Man look at the Project of the New American century. Its all there in black and white. In all rights, the United States, according to them have the same, “right” to attack as they did when the USS cole was hit, when the embassy in Africa was hit.


But i do think there is a difference between operation iraqi freedom and Al-Q action.

There is zero difference.


the main purpose was the overthrowing of a dictator who murdered many of his own people.

Garbage. The main purpose was that Iraq was a threat with WMD&#39;s. Saddam in power had nothing to do with anything. In fact, the US put Saddam in power if you recall. The US sold chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the Kurds. The US sold weapons to Iraq to fight with Iran. Saddam was a good friend until Bush the first need to a reason to boost his popularity at home, and since nobody is around to fight, we pick a minor tyrant that nobody is afraid of.


Generally speaking, the method was an attempted to minimize loss of human life. A major element of the method and aim was to win the support of the population.

Garbage. The method was to establish and force open new markets. Most of the time this is done without blood via the IMF and World bank. Sometimes through war. Yeah, can you explain to me how a cluster bomb is suppose to “minimize” the loss of human life. The second major element of the method is non of our concern. In a true republic or democracy the support begins and rise from the people. It can&#39;t be “given” from an outside source.


9/11: main purpose being debatable; some say the establishesment of a caliphate, some the overthrowing of capitalism.
The method was the targetting of the trade towers, which had symbolic as well as practical reasons. A major element of the method and aim however seems to have been pure and simple terror.

Can you explain to me how capitalism of going to be overthrown by knocking down two buildings? What makes you think capitalism is in a building? Its like saying shooting Bush is going to cause world peace. Obviously not. So that is not a reason

Symbolic reason. Yeah I can go with that. There was no practical reasons for it. Give me some.


I strongly disagree that all are terrorists, so none are.
I think to describe OIF as terrorism is foolish as well as inaccurate.

No, man listen to yourself. You&#39;ve really been indoctrinated haven&#39;t you? Bush calls OBL a terrorist. OBL calls Bush a terrorist. In a world were no violence can be legitimated, all violence can potentially be called terrorism. Since all are terrorist, nobody is a terrorist because everyone is acting like everyone else. It becomes not a group of distinct entities, but a bowl of homogeneity. All are the same.

And yes, “operation iraqi freedom is terrorism, as well as wise and accurate

[James]

armchair old chum,



No it wasn&#39;t.

There was an official reason and that was "weapons of mass destruction" and sanctions violations. Regime change as you described above, is illegal under international war.

Technically i suppose you are correct. However, in real terms i believe this translates into regieme change (which i think WMD is of course strongly linked to - the supposed threat "justified" such a course of action).

I should have said "one of the main aims".

Although of course, it should also be pointed out that we are both kind of wrong in assuming one reason/aim. There were several aims to OIF: please look at page 16 of,
www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_files/document_ 389_Final_Cleared_US_UK_Coalition_Combat_Ops_in_OI F.pdf

(i know; i could probably find a more accurate source, but this is fresh in my memory: it was one of the sources for one of those bastard essays. Which by the way i did manage to do&#33; hurrah&#33;).


Whether it was legal or not wasn&#39;t really my point. In a sense, it doesn&#39;t really relate to the point i was making.


That is somewhat disputable. Particularly considering the "blanket bombing" of Baghdad.

The main aim was to defeat the Iraqi Army (not very hard) and civilian safety was in all likelihood an afterthought.


Perhaps it is, in the sense that everything is in some way or another "disputable".

Blanket bombing? Are you refering to the opening "shock and awe" of the operation?
In which case, i disagree that this was intentional blanket bombing. A term which, to me anyway, suggests carpet bombing. I have seen no evidence for this. Indeed, if this had happened, many of the reporters who filmed it would have been hit. (i&#39;m not of course saying that everything went where they wanted, and that there were not any civilian deaths: i&#39;m arguing that blanket bombing did not happen in this specific example).

With respect, civilian safety was not in any sense an afterthought. To suggest such, is again, foolish and inacurate. It suggests a complete lack of understanding of mondern warfare.

Are you aware of the "CNN factor"?
Of course i&#39;m not suggesting that this was a factor because the western militaries are "nice and humanitarian": i&#39;m merely pointing out that it was in their interest to reduce to a minimum all loss of life (except saddam of course, who was being tracked early on by his mobile: and whom they did try to blow up with a missile). It wasn&#39;t a set of principles that restricted them (although to suggest that all coalition soldiers are blood thirsty mad men is pure propaganda&#33;); but an "outside" restriction (which can crudely be summarised as the CNN factor).

If, and this was my point, the method used to reach their ends had been the same as AL-Q&#39;s method, then there would have been much more death and targetting of civilians.

The american&#39;s would have a much easier time if they simply bombed to death the sunni&#39;s? Indeed a convincing argument could be made that if that ethnic group had been removed, the occupation could now be over (as the sunni&#39;s have been the chief source of "insurgency" and general discontent. They do afterall generally feel to be the ones who should be rulling). Indeed, this is what elements of the Al-Q in iraq leadership have proposed (only, that the shiite&#39;s be destroyed, and not the sunni).



If we use your own definition of terrorism, "I think that the best definition of terrorism is that it is the deliberate targetting of civilians, primarily to cause fear."

Then certain events during "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can most definitely be described as terrorism.


Please list the "certain events" when the coalition purposely targetted the iraqi civilian population, with the aim of causing fear, OIF.

I&#39;m interested to see this list. Not only will it go against the mission aims (of protecting/securing the population - thats not the exact wording), the CNN factor, but would also go against common sense, because;
1) the coalition were removing the regieme. Targetting the population would most likely increase support for said regieme (thus make the operation harder).
2) they knew they wouldn&#39;t just be flying out of the country afterwards. Why would they make the population hate them? Take the brits, why would they purposely cause the population to hate them: only to then go on patrols purposely with a lack of body armour on?

So not only does it go against the mission aims and the outside restraining factors, but also sense.
But please, do list them.


So no. I think describing OIF as terrorism is foolish and inaccurate. Indeed i think it is to devalue the word (i know how such a thing makes you "very annoyed").

the sanctions however.... now i believe a case can be made that THEY were an act of terrorism.



I did find a piece on the BBC a while back which had the overwhelming majority of the "insurgency" listed as "nationalists" not "religious warriors."


Could you try and find the link?

It seems to go against the national make up.
Which would only seem to make sense immediately after the war, when the resistance was chiefly ba&#39;athist (a terribly nationalistic group).



I see you are using the term coined by the "delightful" Mr. Hitchens, who receives a nice big pay cheque to write about the "wonderful" Mr. Bush.

Which of course means he is wrong&#33;
why not also point out that it is very similar to what Cameron said a few months back: when he compared such groups to the nazis.

In fact i might as well admit that i get paid by Bush, and am linked to the tory party leadership
:P



Anyway, I do find this use of the term "fascism" very annoying. Fascism has a specific meaning, as in thirties fascism in Italy, Germany and Spain.

Oh please don&#39;t find it very annoying. There is no point in getting very annoyed on a message board. It is of very little real importance, so will only have a negative effect on you.

True, its specific meaning is chiefly ITALIEN; describing the italian name of mussolini&#39;s movement; fascismo. Indeed, this is derive from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” and also had links to the movement&#39;s symbol, the fasces, (bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head): which in turn was roman in origin. So it is terribly italien.

As dictionary.com points out, it now more generally means: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator... blah blah blah... suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship ... blah blah blah...political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control."

So it has come to mean total dictatorial control and rule.

Words have various origins. Alas however, they develop. As in this case. This is not however the only word to do this. Some words mean completely different things now than they did before&#33;
I think it is fruitless to get "very annoyed" at this simply fact of life.

Indeed, you stated that the germans were fascists. Well that is arguably doing what you yourself find very annoying, because technically the germans were, quite specifically, nazi&#39;s. And the italiens were fascists. It being what the italiens called themselves. Perhaps you should instead use the term axis?

who knows. it is all rather pointless. I can&#39;t think of a better descriptive word than fascist. can you? I&#39;m sure it gets my point across, and as i have shown, your definition is not strictly correct either.

But if you can think of another word, i&#39;l give it due consideration (i&#39;m not taking the piss).




Therefore labelling everything one doesn&#39;t like

Going a bit over board i fear. Think you may be overplaying my use of the word slightly.


"fascist" actually ends up degrading the meaning of the term, making it into a silly insult.

uhhu, ye that is a wee bit overboard. I&#39;m not using it as a silly insult. it is descriptive of such groups (and also some che-livers who do actually advocate fascism).

Have you seen this?
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=34
Why not use your local mod influence to get it changed?

It isn&#39;t a silly insult anyway. Bin laden is clearly not a hippie, who just happens to like having plane&#39;s flown into buildings full of people for no reason.

[James]

aye and it is a long reply too. I will answer as much as i can now. but might not have enough time to get all the way through. If not, i will finish off later.

Ok well first thing i notice is that you seem to misunderstand what i was saying. This is probably me not being clear enough. Although it is so easy, because we are not face to face, to misunderstand the others meaning.


Well I certainly don&#39;t ever recall saying there are no “real threats”.

Thats because you didn&#39;t. And that is why i did not say that you did. Read my post again.


Your general point is valid. I said that i, in part agree. It is hardly a new concept either. Our old pal Shakespear for example stated;


"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind…And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."



(since you think by using the Powell argument I somehow was using it out of context

Well it is true that you didn&#39;t explain the context, which i feel is important in understanding what he said, and why he said it.


Since there has been no terrorist attacks since the establishment of the patriot act, then obviously the patriot act has worked to throw off any potential attack and has stopped the terrorist attacking the US.

I agree. It is just like me going into my garden, digging a big hole, calling it an elephant trap, and thus using it to explain why there are no elephants in my garden.


For example, the haven&#39;t decided to attack.

Now you see this is what my point centred around. I stated that the danger is that the threat is under exagerated.
For example in the UK: blair got alot of flak for claiming that we were a target. Indeed, many used a form of the logic we both explained: there have been no attacks, i myself see no evidence of one being planned, this must mean we are not a target.
His decision to deploy tanks at heathrow were bashed as an attempt to "beat the drum", to scare the population into obedience.

However, then a ricen plot was discovered before it happened. Again there were theories that this wasn&#39;t a real attack, it had been planted, it was a one off etc etc
Then the london bombings came, and then a week later, ANOTHER attempt to do the very same attack again. mi5 stated that it was a case of when, not if. Again, bashed as being an attempt of a government using its agencies to scare a population.

This is what i meant by, "the danger with this road is...".


A population who might get out of their traditional apathy, and obedience and start controlling their own needs according to their own particular situations

True each society and its governments has its norms, its boundaries. I don&#39;t know any society or government that does not. Do you?
I would strongly argue however that western liberalism has a greater degree of freedom than other nations/socieites.
An aspect of liberalism is a strong degree of "self govenment" and individualism.


So whilst i agree. There is an extent to my agreement. And again, i think your opinion has a "danger" to it.



So I&#39;m not sure if they are terrorist “groups” that governments either assemble, or discover.

Does not change the fact that such groups pose a threat.

And yes i agreed with you; the problem was in many respects of several previous government&#39;s own doing.
But again, this suggests that it was a threat manufactured by the government, to use on itself. Which i strongly disagree with. Such orgs were used as tools, to combat other threats. Soviet invasion of afghanistan for example; or the iranian threat. So a new threat to the state which emerged from combating other threats.



Certainly, I described them as an “enemy”, but not because I think so. Its typical Machiavellian techniques being used. The Good vs. Bad, and we of course are always the good. This is as old as 15th century Italian politics.

Of course: i do not deny the "spin" element. I stated so in my reply.
Also, this is politics as it has been since way before the 15th century.
And by the way, The Prince was finished in 1513 (C16th).


Anyway, I disagree with you, and I think you&#39;re wrong. You call it “twist”, I call it, “it was always that way, but governments are too stupid to figure it out till its too late”.

Aye, well only if you were the government then we wouldn&#39;t be in this mess&#33;

No, it was the consequences of previous actions. Balancing the lesser of two evils.
Of course it is easy for us to look back and point out where they went wrong. But that&#39;s the beauty of hindsight.

Also i have not seen any evidence which links the US with actual support of Al-Q itself. All that i have seen are links between Bin laden and the US during the soviet invasion of afghanistan. And this generally amounts to the support that the US gave to all groups that resisted sovietism. I wasn&#39;t aware of direct US aid to them during bosnia either. I was aware that they had been operating in the area (for obvious reasons); but that was it to my knowledge.

But of course i may be, indeed am probably (all that i know is that i know nothing), wrong. So if you are aware of such evidence, please provide me with it.

just out of interest,
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/caruso121801.htm


So let me get this strait? Al-Q, decides to change “its fundamental up down stepped structure” to a more “network centric (contradiction in terms) in order to deal, or incorporate the changing circumstances of other terrorist groups subscribing to be apart of the group? Doesn&#39;t that sound a little weird to you, a little backwards, a little Bush?


It was not so much a decision, as an adaption to a new environment/situation.
No, it is not a contradiction in terms. NEtwork centric means "networks"; it increases the independence/ability of the different aspects of the network to operate independently.
Whereas before it was more of a rigid structure, with a clear command.

No not backwards. it was adapting to changes: different elements of the group required increased initiative, ability to operate: to survive. Most of the key leadership was also destroyed, and their means of communication made useless (for example satelite phones).

whilst my post, like everyones, was a "generlisation", i did recognise this by stating that it was a change from a fundamentally up down, to a more networkcentric.




Actually, I agree with you. But isn&#39;t that strange to you, that the US needs enemies?

Not really. Western socieites, indeed every society/gov, seem to always have a "flavour of the month", or special interest, or enemy.

Indeed, in the UK for example, membership of political parties have decreased whilst "cause groups"/pressure group membership has increased. This doesn&#39;t "prove" anything, but it certainly does add weight to the concept of a special focus.
All though i&#39;m not going to get into the whole "why do we need enemy&#39;s?" debate. It is beyond the scope of my post, and more importantly beyond my knowledge&#33; I can&#39;t see any state/group not having an enemy though. Especially when there are actual threats to a group.
I think it is futile to argue that there are not various threats to each state or NGO, including other states and NGOs.
Thus it could be argued that it is simply a case of prioritising of focus, of money, of labour.


I share what seems to be your hope, that eventually we shall all be fully enlightened individuals that don&#39;t feel a need to have a favourite thing, or worse thing. I hope one day we shall all be able to sit under trees and not have enemies. But i sadly can&#39;t see this happening.



Problematising. Yeah, creating problems. Granted, I&#39;ll give you different specific groups, such as national corporate interests lobby the government to push for their special interests, and governments having a problem to make legit justification, they certainly have some “problematising”.


Yes, i think i covered this. If not, i meant to (i think i said etc etc). It was sort of an open season for concepts, purpose, something to believe in and follow.


Terrorism: invented.

No not really.


Poverty, of no concern.

What?
poverty has been an issue pressed by numerous people for ages. From the UN (which saw poverty as a source of instability and missery) and the UK foreign office (Hilary Benn, "without development there can be no security, and without security there can be no development"), to more recent NGO pressure groups such as "make poverty history".

poverty has been an issue.

but my point was that it was a period whereby numerous different issues were "fighting" for attention.


Humanitarian aid? Where.

I said humanitarian disaster.
I was listing some of the many threats that different groups tried to get special attention/recognition for.



The UN role is just a mouth piece for the US.

That makes you sound like a 14 yearold who listens to RAGE. Grow up.


Global warming: denied.

Perhaps by some in the US government. But not in the mainstream today. Indeed it is even present in congress.
It is an issue.
The fact that it is being denied by the govenment demonstrates that it was seen as an issue which had to be delt with, one way or another. Kyoto, despite its achievements (or rather lack of), demonstrated that it was an issue being knocked around the corridors of power.

The environment became an issue. You can deny this if you wish. But again, it makes you seem like that 14yearold.


“clash of civilizations” is a propaganda ploy of racism and to create inferiority among groups of people.

Did you even read my post? Or did you skim through, see some words and phrases, and decide to react to each one in the first manor that poped into your head? If so, you are looking like that 14year old again.

I was merely pointing out the numerous issues that emerged in the 1990s. Samuel P. Huntington&#39;s theory was one of these issues.

You may not agree with it. It doesn&#39;t matter. I wasn&#39;t saying "these were the issues that were rightfully realised. at last&#33;"


Bullshit Is that what your lecturer told you too?


nope. He talked about problematising.



That is part of our “human nature”?

Again. ARe you a 14 yearold? You seem desperate to have a classic marxist debate&#33;
I did not say human nature, but behaviour. Behaviour being how people tend to act in a specific place at a specific time. Not in their nature; more in the "nurture" if you like.



First of all, ask him/her if he ever knew of human nature in order to know what it is?

Well he didn&#39;t say it.
And i didn&#39;t say it either&#33;


That is complete garbage boy, and I think you know that.

hence why i didn&#39;t say it maybe?


your brother was next to you, and you had only one plate of food, and you both were hungry, what would you do? You share it obviously. We do it for our friends, family. Its garbage to think otherwise

May i ask why you think that? Because i&#39;m sure there are cultures out there that do not have such a family relationship.



Moreover, if it was “part of human nature” then why would we feel empathy, compassion for other people? It wouldn&#39;t make any sense if competition, and hoarding was part of human nature. We feel compassion and empathy for a reason. Its not some kind of evolutionary by-product which we don&#39;t need anymore.

again, just out of interest, may i ask where you think these things are from? What are they if they are not human nature? In your opinion....



How?
terrorism: 9/11 is the blindingly obivous example.
poverty: one popular theory is that it is related to terrorism (which i&#39;m not convinced by); however it has implications for local areas within a state - generate crime, make an area look bad, black market blah blah blah. And such implications on an international level from within the state, and also from other states that have poverty issues.
humanitarian disaster: look at the recent hurricanes.
clash of civilisations: whilst a specific theory, does feed into other more general issues concerning culture and alienation. from such alienation rise threats (which some use to explain the paris rioting, and also to an extent the london bombings).
global warming: well for the US various threats which are now being discussed concerning the ocean currents and the effects that such temperatures and patterns have on the wind (thus hurricanes). For the UK, temperatures rising, and also, the threat of a plummit in temperature (if the melt caps melt, which will dilute the atlantic, which may "turn off" the gulf stream).



Everything as implications for a specific nation. There is no such thing as total isolatation from the world and its problems.
There was a general train of thought, perhaps summed up and symbolised by the "Blair doctrine".
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html)


9/11 didn&#39;t show shit. 9/11 was a small attack compared to anything the world had witnessed

yeah i guess you are right. terrorism doesn&#39;t really exist. its all been made up....

Perhaps you would feel differently if canada was succesfully targetted by a terrorist group. As i stated before, your opinion was classic of UK opinion, untill the london bombs.

I think that your statement is actually rather revolting. It didn&#39;t show shit?
Do you think that could happen, and the US public just forget about it?
They still go on about pearl harbour&#33;&#33;


Garbage. The main purpose was that Iraq was a threat with WMD&#39;s. Saddam in power had nothing to do with anything. In fact, the US put Saddam in power if you recall. The US sold chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the Kurds. The US sold weapons to Iraq to fight with Iran. Saddam was a good friend until Bush the first need to a reason to boost his popularity at home, and since nobody is around to fight, we pick a minor tyrant that nobody is afraid of.


Go and read the link i posted for armchair.
Do you really think that if saddam and handed over WMD then they would have let him stay in power?
IT seems that they only went down the UN route because of Blair.

And that it is a really good point: that a previous US government had put him in power, to combat iran. Well of course, this means he should therefore be ignored for the rest of time.

I really don&#39;t see the point though. Comparing 911 with OIF requires some interesting "train of thought"; don&#39;t get me wrong, i find this "interesting", but not terribly convincing or even relevent.


The method was to establish and force open new markets

Yes, you do seem like a 14 year old.
I was talking about OIF. A specific military operation.
You just seem like a retard now.


Can you explain to me how capitalism of going to be overthrown by knocking down two buildings? What makes you think capitalism is in a building? Its like saying shooting Bush is going to cause world peace. Obviously not. So that is not a reason

Symbolic reason. Yeah I can go with that. There was no practical reasons for it. Give me some.


You seem to be a 14 year old who has some learning difficulties.
I said: "main purpose being debatable", then i gave some basic examples such as "establishesment of a caliphate", and i then stated that "some the overthrowing of capitalism". As was exemplified earlier on in this debate by another poster who thought that Al-Q sought the overthrowing of capitalism.

So that were the main debatable aims. I then MOVED on: to method. 911.
So you assume 9/11 was a direct attempt to do either aim? I don&#39;t. Sorry if i gave that impression. I don&#39;t see how you got that impression though.
Indeed i state that i think they are terrorists. The aim of this particular method was thereby to cause fear. I don&#39;t think even you need me to explain what is scary about 911.

It wasn&#39;t the statue of liberty targeted. It was not a "wasted" attack. It was a series of attacks which attempted to do as much as possible. Alot went on in the WTT. They wern&#39;t just hollow you know?

But of course this wasn&#39;t the main purpose in my opinion. The pratical implications of the WTT were secondary to the symbolism, and the fear/terror that would be caused (alot of people, big buildings, dominate the sky line etc).



No, man listen to yourself. You&#39;ve really been indoctrinated haven&#39;t you?

Arguably all have in some way.
Or do you think that you havn&#39;t?
Are you falling victim to that C16th italien politics of us and them: i&#39;m superior to you: i know the truth, you don&#39;t. You are indoctinated, i&#39;m not.


Bush calls OBL a terrorist. OBL calls Bush a terrorist.

This is not what my statement translates into though.
OIF was not terrorism.
911 was.

If you think otherwise, you have clearly been indoctrinated.


In a world were no violence can be legitimated, all violence can potentially be called terrorism.

Well terrorism, as i stated, is the targetting of civilians to cause terror.
OIF attempted to keep civilian deaths down to a minimum; as i stated, mainly because of the CNN factor, and also for common sense reasons.

[Guerrilla22]

I don&#39;t support al-Qaeda simply for the fact that they are a fundamentalist based movement. As leftist we should empathize with groups such as al-
qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, but not share their ideology.

[James]

Why? On what grounds? Which groups do you not think should be empathised with?

[Bannockburn]

I have a feeling that if we reply to one another word for word, statement by statement, our replies will soon become books and interviews. So I&#39;m going to try to **** through your rhetoric of Shakespeare, etc, and try to legitimately try to get a decent conversation going.



Then the london bombings came, and then a week later, ANOTHER attempt to do the very same attack again. mi5 stated that it was a case of when, not if. Again, bashed as being an attempt of a government using its agencies to scare a population.

Well the London bombings while horrific certainly doesn&#39;t negate the reasons for it. The citizens of Britain certainly didn&#39;t deserve this kind of attack, and no innocent individual apart from their government should be held accountable for what their government does. Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that the bombings, and subsequently every other bombing attempt post London was, to quote Al-Q “Rejoice, for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

So its very possible, according to the individuals who are claiming responsibility that London would have never happened if Britain did not invade Iraq/Afghanistan. So really as a result, the only real threat is caused by the government. This only reaffirms my previous statements that governments can only know, and be secure in that which they know, and thus defend themselves from. They create their own threats and then plea ignorance and innocence when something happens. I think perhaps you need to reread what I said.


True each society and its governments has its norms, its boundaries. I don&#39;t know any society or government that does not. Do you?
I would strongly argue however that western liberalism has a greater degree of freedom than other nations/societies.
An aspect of liberalism is a strong degree of "self govenment" and individualism.

Well no, not really. Society is not uniform, and in fact there is no one society. So I don&#39;t see where there is any correlation between societies within one state, and the state norms and boundaries. You can argue all you want that western liberalism has a greater degree of freedom than other states. You would be wrong. All states use methods of control to try to reduce people whatever their societal-structure of having only the ability to consume and produce. Anything outside of working (producing) and consuming (commodities which are produced) is outside the capacity of their role. Now, some states use different methods than others. Some may use harsh and brutal tactics openly and overtly like that of the Soviet Union, and some other states use subtler forms of coercion of propaganda, nationalism, symbolism, citizenry, discipline, docility, etc for coercion. This would be your “western liberalism” Sometimes however, those western liberal republic mirror the very thing they once claimed to stand against. Currently the US would be a good example. You are probably too young to remember the Cold war, or anything outside of the current geo-political situation, but The US is the current Soviet Union. Concentration camps, torture, secret detention centers, suspensions of liberties. The best is the “anti-Americanism” which relates to Anti Soviet agitation laws.



Does not change the fact that such groups pose a threat.

Because of the very governments who sponsored them. Its very easy logic here. Since governments created the threats, and those threats then react. You get rid of the source or cause which created the threat. The only logical conclusion then is that the threat would likewise disperse. It has before.

Your response is this:


But again, this suggests that it was a threat manufactured by the government, to use on itself. Which i strongly disagree with. Such orgs were used as tools, to combat other threats. Soviet invasion of afghanistan for example; or the iranian threat. So a new threat to the state which emerged from combating other threats.

Yes, they were manufactured by various governments to use as tools to combat other threats. When this threat then returns to the original cause, its called “blowback” This is a term the CIA uses for groups such as AL-Q and others. So really you can argue all you want and disagree: you&#39;re wrong.


Also, this is politics as it has been since way before the 15th century.
And by the way, The Prince was finished in 1513 (C16th).

Yawn. You know if your going to correct my dates, at least be right about it. Or at least quote me correctly. To begin with, what makes you think I was talking about the Prince? Machiavelli had a long career before he wrote the Prince, ie, being a diplomat, and we can assume that the advice he gives to Princes would only be that which he would himself have used, ie when he was in office in the beginning which stated around 1494, thus the 15th C. This is just pointless...


No, it was the consequences of previous actions. Balancing the lesser of two evils.

Previous actions by governments. You can&#39;t get around it mate.


Of course it is easy for us to look back and point out where they went wrong.

Actually we can see it currently. Even before Bush and company decided to create their terrorist wars, there was huge protests, and individuals who are saying what is currently going on right now. So honestly we don&#39;t need to look at history to see where our errors are.



Also i have not seen any evidence which links the US with actual support of Al-Q itself. All that i have seen are links between Bin laden and the US during the soviet invasion of afghanistan. And this generally amounts to the support that the US gave to all groups that resisted sovietism. I wasn&#39;t aware of direct US aid to them during bosnia either. I was aware that they had been operating in the area (for obvious reasons); but that was it to my knowledge.

Well concerning Bosnia: Diary of an uncivil war: The violent aftermath of the Kosovo conflict by Scott Taylor.

Concerning US-Al-Q connections, well it depends who you listen to, and the evidence. The documentary (I think) is “The Power of Nightmares” where they actually claim that “Al-Q” is the response of OBL and company after they found out that is what the US was referring to when they were talking about OBL and company. That in fact they never had a name until they figured out “Al-Q” meant OBL and company. I never head of that before, and I don&#39;t know if I buy it.

From what I gather the US gather money, arms, blah blah to any individual willing to fight against the Soviets. I agree with you there.

That link you gave, I think isn&#39;t accurate to what OBL says. OBL didn&#39;t start calling a jihad against the US until the first gulf war when Saudi Arabia allowed “non Muslims” in the holy land. I don&#39;t know of any direct links (depending what it meant by direct), If you call training, arms, supporting through multi-missions and wars not direct links, than I don&#39;t know.


Not really. Western socieites, indeed every society/gov, seem to always have a "flavour of the month", or special interest, or enemy.

Yes certainly, and why is that? Well lets look at history. We start a war with Panama. We want Granada. We start something in Granada. We want expansion to the west, we kill Indians. We have economic interests in Indo-China, well we start a war with them. American history has a huge interventionalist policy when it comes to furthering their interests. But the thing is, if there is no “external threat” that can take away our “liberties” of choosing between corporate coke or corporate pepsi, then people will realize, “hey we don&#39;t need government”. So we need some big boggie man, or goblin that will eat us up.

I like your Socratic statement: irony is however, if you know you know nothing, then you know that you don&#39;t know anything, so as a result you do know something.


No not really.

No, it is. Look at any definition. Its like: violence against civilians, coercion of governments for political, etc, to use fear. Shit like that. Well isn&#39;t that what governments do, or just about everyone? Anybody can be called a terrorist, and as a result it has no meaning. Its just an invented wordWhat?
that new and catchy.





What?

Yeah. Honestly here. We have make believe forums all the time concerning poverty. In fact, we may even throw some scraps to them. Yet, honestly do you really think the political-capital structure wants to abolish poverty? Kinda like how Lincoln really wanted to abolish slavery right? Come on mate, I&#39;m not saying poverty is not an issue for people like us, people on the ground level, but the thugs up above who make laws are the ones deciding how to burn the distinct in the ground. If you read the same UN documents, if we are going to stick within the UN, there has been countless concerns about the widening gap between rich and poor and how there is a assault on the middle class which as being pushed in polar classes. The hollowing out of the middle class actually. So, granted poverty gets some attention around x-mas time, and we may even have public looking performances, but if any state, take for example the US wanted to rid themselves of poverty they take that military budget and put it towards the social conditions of poverty.


I said humanitarian disaster.

Which is the antecedent to humanitarian aid obviously. Again, since there is very little aid, and the aid that does go generally helps businesses, governments hardly think the deaths of say 200,000 people are a problem. In fact, it rids themselves of surplus population. Kinda like New Orleans.


That makes you sound like a 14 yearold who listens to RAGE. Grow up.

How? Do you mean rage against the machine? Its funny that you would say that considering I don&#39;t even listen to them. Actually, this is a critique of the UN. Even John Bolton has said publicly that the UN plays no role. It only exist because the US, and if we so choose to go the route of the UN we will, and if we don&#39;t – well it doesn&#39;t matter. Its called American exceptionalism. The US is except from abiding to international laws, peace agreements, the UN charter, environmental norms, etc. I don&#39;t see where you get, “sounds like a 14 year old” I guess people like Norm Chomsky, and Howard Zinn are 14 year olds.


Perhaps by some in the US government. But not in the mainstream today. Indeed it is even present in congress.

Dude they can claim its an issue in Congress. Its just rhetoric. Listen, you&#39;re a congressmen in some given state that has a car factory that employs 3,000 workers. You start mouthing off about car pollution, and the industry is going to bolt. Its happening in Canada, via St. Catherines with GM. Happens all over North America. So now you got 3,000 people out of work, and 3,000 less votes. Yeah, in front of TV you&#39;ll say, “pollution bad”, but behind class doors man they are wheeling and dealing. Its kinda like military contracts. The B-1 Bomber (I think its that) has a piece manufactured in every US state. If some congressmen starts *****ing about the defense contract, the pentagon will just pull it, and you got workers out of worker looking to you to find new jobs, and there is a good chance you&#39;ll lose your next election.



So, really they keep their mouths shut.



The environment became an issue. You can deny this if you wish. But again, it makes you seem like that 14yearold.

How? Dude this isn&#39;t some blind rant like a kid in high school how just picked up an anarchist book or something. In fact there are tons of books out there concerning the business of war. Check out the documentary “why we fight”.


I was merely pointing out the numerous issues that emerged in the 1990s. Samuel P. Huntington&#39;s theory was one of these issues.

Of course I know what you mean. Yet, Huntington is a racist, propagandist, etc. He also talked about the “crisis of Democracy” and there is too much involvement of workers, minorities, students, teachers, environmentalist in the democratic process. In short too much involvement of the population. Using Huntington as an example is like using Hitler to promote Judaism.


nope. He talked about problematising.

And you&#39;re talking about it right now. Obviously it must have made some kind of impression to bring it up.


Again. ARe you a 14 yearold? You seem desperate to have a classic marxist debate&#33;
I did not say human nature, but behaviour. Behaviour being how people tend to act in a specific place at a specific time. Not in their nature; more in the "nurture" if you like.

Buddy, behavior implies nature. It doesn&#39;t matter how to stretch it Just like nature implies behavior. Generally speaking, most biologist assumes an influence of both “arguments”.
.

terrorism: 9/11 is the blindingly obivous example.
Blow back by previous US intervention.


poverty

Which needs to be there. The poor and oppressed must always exist. There always have to be an element of marginalization of groups to establish the hierarchical order. They traditionally speaking aren&#39;t much of a threat because they can be locked up easily enough.


clash of civilisations:

Racist theory to reinforce a global order or hierarchies, with white western countries on top, and other nations in successive order. Hate to tell you mate there is a global order out there and your previous “clash of civilizations” is just a theory to reinforce that global order.



humanitarian disaster: look at the recent hurricanes.

Yeah? And what did you see?


yeah i guess you are right. terrorism doesn&#39;t really exist. its all been made up....

Well certainly terrorism as a concept has no meaning. There is no such thing as a “terrorist” That doesn&#39;t mean violence doesn&#39;t occur. Two different things.


Perhaps you would feel differently if canada was succesfully targetted by a terrorist group.

Well actually Canada has been. Al-Q actually mentions them. Yet, I&#39;m not too worried about it. In fact, I have said many times that I hope it happens in Canada. Besides, you assume because I live in Canada, that I&#39;m Canadian. In fact, I&#39;m an American, so I know all about, the “horrors of 9/11”. Man, if you look at what the US is doing it can&#39;t be because 9/11. Look at there past history. Excuse after excuse of intervention.


As i stated before, your opinion was classic of UK opinion, untill the london bombs.

Yeah and what did they do? The British being the idiots that they are, like the whole IRA deal went running to mommy government for protection. Even though, if you look at the reasons of every attack is in response to that very government. Likewise with OBL.


I think that your statement is actually rather revolting. It didn&#39;t show shit?
Do you think that could happen, and the US public just forget about it?
They still go on about pearl harbour&#33;&#33;

Dude, you can find it revolting if you want. Look past the propaganda and rhetoric, and perhaps you&#39;ll see your government is the enemy. All governments, all forms of hierarchical power. Yeah, my friend it didn&#39;t show shit. 9/11 was a blowback event where the people could have said something like, “what are the reasons for this?”, but instead they rather call them, “evil doers”, and start war.

Yeah pearl harbour, you want the event or movie? Movie was for propaganda purposes to promote nationalism, symbolism and national unity. Its a propaganda flick. The event, well actually the US government knew of a potential attack but did nothing...kinda like 9/11. There opportunistic my friend and will take it for reasons to make war. Honestly, lets take another example – the a-bomb. Japan wanted negotiations FDR wouldn&#39;t allow it, and they dropped the bomb to scare Stalin insofar saying we have nuclear abilities. Then the US decided to carve the world up in locations for their interests.



Do you really think that if saddam and handed over WMD then they would have let him stay in power?

Well your question doesn&#39;t make sense. First, they didn&#39;t have any WMD to have any reason to get him out of power. WMD was an excuse to get him out of power. Besides, back in the day ole Saddam was an ally during the Iran/Iraq conflict, Actually ole Donald himself made arm deals with him.


Comparing 911 with OIF requires

How? Honestly how? Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, just like innocent workers who died on 9/11 have nothing to do with government policy. The US bomb and kills innocents in OIF, just like OBL did on 9/11. why is it when one person kills another person its murder, but when a state does it its called “freedom and democracy”?


I was talking about OIF. A specific military operation.

Which was only a part of the larger invasion of Iraq. Doesn&#39;t matter man how you try to be an apologist. I know OIF is separate from shock and awe, which is all separate from the actual invasion? Come on now.

I would further talk about your errors, but once I see ad hominem attacks I generally see what kind of intellectual ability I see and stop.


OIF was not terrorism.
911 was.

Explain the difference?


If you think otherwise, you have clearly been indoctrinated.

Well, generally I look at the evidence and I see what&#39;s up. Hey planes flying into buildings: bad violence. People dropping bombs on people: bad violence. This is simple. If you can&#39;t see past that, then you might as well sew a flag onto your shoulder and get a tattoo.


Well terrorism, as i stated, is the targetting of civilians to cause terror.

Well one. You can&#39;t not use the same words to describe the very thing which you are defining. Its circular and its a tautology. It doesn&#39;t say anything. You might as well say, “all dogs are dogs”. If you look at any government definition, they do exactly what is defined as terrorism. Besides, those nice lazer guided bombs aren&#39;t that accurate. They would like you to believe it is, but its not. In 5 years or so, you&#39;ll see reports saying something like only 1 out or 4 missiles hit there targets. They did it in Gulf 1, and they&#39;ll do it again this time. In fact, in Dora Iraq (look it up) the missiles missed and 90% of the murders were civilians.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by "Che &#045; Guerilla Warfare"
. . .
Acts of sabotage are very important. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing forces well known for his cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings on an increase of reprisals, including deaths.

There is one point very much in controversy in opinions about terrorism. Many consider that its use, by provoking police oppression, hinders all more or less legal or semiclandestine contact with the masses and makes impossible unification for actions that will be necessary at a critical moment. This is correct; but it also happens that in a civil war the repression by the governmental power in certain towns is already so great that, in fact, every type of legal action is suppressed already, and any action of the masses that is not supported by arms is impossible. It is therefore necessary to be circumspect in adopting methods of this type and to consider the consequences that they may bring for the revolution. At any rate, well-managed sabotage is always a very effective arm, though it should not be employed to put means of production out of action, leaving a sector of the population paralyzed (and thus without work) unless this paralysis affects the normal life of the society. It is ridiculous to carry out sabotage against a soft-drink factory, but it is absolutely correct and advisable to carry out sabotage against a power plant. In the first case, a certain number of workers are put out of a job but nothing is done to modify the rhythm of industrial life; in the second case, there will again be displaced workers, but this is entirely justified by the paralysis of the life of the region.
. . .

[Body Count]

I haven&#39;t read the entire topic as some of you seem to be going at it.

All I can say is that I don&#39;t like terrorism or terrorist, as at heart, it would appear that they want Islam to rule all.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:13 AM
- black banner black gun;
"The resistance isn&#39;t all Islamists."

Whilst this is most likely true, one must bare in mind that even in the elections secularist parties do significantly worse than their religious counterparts (according to the guardian). True, this is not conclusive evidence, but does suggets rather alot. Iraq is far more religious, and less diverse, than western society in general.
All I said was that the resistance isn&#39;t all Islamists. This is true. I didn&#39;t say that religious groups will not come to power or have any influence. I was merely pointing out that to paint the resistance with one brush is flawed.


You live in "Occupied North America": the rest of the world though is VERY different (not having a go: its merely a point. It is easy to think that the rest of the world is and thinks like one does).

Oh, no shit? :rolleyes: Please don&#39;t talk down to me, I&#39;m perfectly aware that the rest of the world is quite different from where I live.

[James]

Clearly we believe in different things. I say believe, because everything is to an extent a matter of faith. For example, a fundamental faith in rationality.
We both believe that we have opinions based on evidence. Evidence that has been of a broad range. Evidence which we have examined and balanced and blah blah blah.

Therefore i don&#39;t think there is much point in debating our different stances that are the consequences of our two conflicting core ideologies.

I think you recognise this as well, hence your opening sentences. But of course, if you want to, i will debate these periphery issues. I can&#39;t right this minute though, because i simply don&#39;t have the time.


However, I&#39;m interested in what your ideology; and therefore alternative; is.

To you, western liberalism only gives freedom for "production and consumption".
Forgive my negative attitude to this opinion, i have found that this is a tired line which too many people hold/voice, and don&#39;t justify. It seems to be a cliche. However, i expect, and am glad at the prospect, that you will give your justification.


What exactly do you want to "do", that you can&#39;t?



"All states use methods of control to try to reduce people whatever their societal-structure of having only the ability to consume and produce."

What are the other "abilities" that are destroyed?
What is it that you want, that you don&#39;t/can&#39;t get/be, under liberalism?


your government is the enemy. All governments, all forms of hierarchical power.

What is your alternative?

I have not been convinced by any arguments to achieve/maintain such an end.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James+--> (James)armchair old chum[/b]

James old buddy. ;)


Originally posted by James+--> (James)I should have said "one of the main aims".[/b]

Technically again, this was not even "one of the main aims." Besides WMD, the primary reason (in America at least) was that Saddam Hussein had been supportive of Al-Queda. Something rubbished by most middle eastern analysts.

There was very little public talk of "regime change" because it was illegal and therefore impossible. Technically of course.

Unfortunately I can&#39;t open that link you posted, it has an error message. Perhaps you could re-link it?


Originally posted by James
Whether it was legal or not wasn&#39;t really my point.

I think if you&#39;re making the case for regime change, the legality of such a position has to be questioned. Not only that, but the choice of regime.


Originally posted by James
Blanket bombing? Are you refering to the opening "shock and awe" of the operation?

That I am. I distinctly remember coming home from a night out and turning on the news to see the bombing. Obviously after certain substances the "flashes" took on a slightly hallucinogenic quality.

However having re-watched the bombing and my recollections of the first time I saw the bombing, it is not hard to say that from those pictures alone the bombing of Iraq (which lasted 28 days) was not "precision bombing." It was pretty indiscriminate, not meaning that there weren&#39;t targets just that the targets weren&#39;t hit that often and when they were large sections around them were destroyed too.

Against a more competent enemy, I doubt such shoddiness would be tolerated, but the Iraqi army was useless and therefore the "coalition forces" didn&#39;t need to be "on the top of their game."


Originally posted by James
Are you aware of the "CNN factor"?

Yes I am. However you should consider that the "factor" reported by CNN is very different from the "factor" reported on say Al-Jazeera.

I also suspect that the German and French press show a far more "grizzlier" side of the war, it would "vindicate" the French and German ruling classes in the eyes of their subjects.

Generally the "CNN factor" applies mainly to the loss of life to the country that the news agency is reporting too. So lost Iraqi lives aren&#39;t really relevant in America or Britain, which is shown by how little attention the subject gets. The amount of dead soldiers is mentioned frequently, the amount of dead Iraqi&#39;s (despite being hard to determine) is very rarely mentioned.


Originally posted by James
If, and this was my point, the method used to reach their ends had been the same as AL-Q&#39;s method, then there would have been much more death and targetting of civilians.

Indeed it would have been. However the reason for this was not an abstract concept like the "CNN factor." Rather it is that the object of the invasion, to occupy Iraq, had to be done as efficiently as possible.

It would have made no sense to use "Al-Queda" methods in Iraq when modern warfare would be far more efficient.


Originally posted by James
Indeed a convincing argument could be made that if that ethnic group had been removed, the occupation could now be over (as the sunni&#39;s have been the chief source of "insurgency" and general discontent. They do afterall generally feel to be the ones who should be rulling).

The Shite population makes up a large portion of the "insurgency."


Originally posted by BBC [email protected] Wednesday, 11 August, 2004
Fighting has spread beyond the Shia Iraqi holy city of Najaf where US forces have been battling insurgents for the past week.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3554316.stm).

These people are part of "The Mehdi Army" a Shia group. There is also the "Ansar al-Islam" which draws recruits from the Kurds.


Originally posted by James
Please list the "certain events" when the coalition purposely targetted the iraqi civilian population, with the aim of causing fear, OIF.

Well I&#39;d say the message sent to the people of Fallujah was pretty clear. "It&#39;s the American way or the highway."


Originally posted by James
1) the coalition were removing the regieme. Targetting the population would most likely increase support for said regieme (thus make the operation harder).

Well the people of Fallujah were not supportive of "the regime." However they weren&#39;t supportive of American policy either.

Add to that that it is a universally understood principle that a terrorised population will possibly be passive. "Insurgents" aren&#39;t super-human, if they think that their family, friends and community will be destroyed they&#39;ll re-consider.

It is also interesting to note that certain Iraqi Communist groups which are not part of the insurgency and have actually been very critical of it. Have taken to creating "local militias" to defend communities from American and British forces.

The Iraqi Communists are actually an interesting and relatively un-biased source of information because they hate both the Americans and the "insurgency." They also do a reasonable job of documenting un-reported atrocities.

Here is the site of the ICP -- The Iraqi Communist Party (http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/) -- I think the Iraqi Worker Communists are far better myself and you can find an article from them here -- The “Iraqi Resistance” and Worker-communists (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42439) -- and their website is here -- Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (http://www.wpiraq.net/english/) -- needless to say that both the ICP and WCPI are mainly annoyed with both America and the "insurgency" suppressing Unions.


Originally posted by James
Take the brits, why would they purposely cause the population to hate them

The same reason they had their colonies hating them, money.


Originally posted by James
only to then go on patrols purposely with a lack of body armour on?

In any war the "grunts" don&#39;t matter.


Originally posted by James
So not only does it go against the mission aims

Well I think what you consider the "missions aims" are completely different from what I think are the missions aims. Personally I think the evidence backs up the Marxist viewpoint.

The "coalition" have privatised certain important industries, have secured most of the oil supply, have suppressed Unions and have created a flat rate of tax. Where as they haven&#39;t basic sanitation, electricity, health-care etc.

Indeed it looks very much like they are preparing to "cut and run" after sending Iraq to the brink of feudalism. Indeed I wouldn&#39;t be all that surprised if Iraq had some small scale slavery in twenty years time.


Originally posted by James
the sanctions however.... now i believe a case can be made that THEY were an act of terrorism.

Yes, the sanctions too did their bit in pushing Iraq towards feudalism.


Originally posted by James
Could you try and find the link?

I can&#39;t quite remember if this was the piece -- Who are the insurgents in Iraq? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm) -- I don&#39;t think it is.

However....


Originally posted by the link
The incentives driving individual insurgents are equally disparate - from religious zeal to economic gain, nationalist fervour and anger at the loss of income or loved ones to the conflict.

Plus I wouldn&#39;t consider "Ansar al-Islam" a religious group, mainly because they have Kurdish recruits.

The resistance rather than being "Iraqi nationalistic" is "ethnic nationalistic." Not surprising as Iraq is an artificial country with massive ethnic tensions.


Originally posted by James
Which of course means he is wrong&#33;

Well I do wonder what a young Hitchens would have made of the present Hitchens. I doubt his response would involve "moderate" language. :lol:


Originally posted by James
why not also point out that it is very similar to what Cameron said a few months back: when he compared such groups to the nazis.

Well I think any comparison between the Nazi&#39;s and Al-Queda is pure folly. Al-Queda is a "back to feudalism" group, while the Nazi&#39;s despite some rhetoric, were mainly interested in an advanced society. Particularly one that had good methods for extermination.

However, I don&#39;t expect Cameron to say anything remotely intelligent or insightful. He&#39;s a prettier Bush.


Originally posted by James
So it has come to mean total dictatorial control and rule.

Which degrades the meaning of the term.


Originally posted by James
Well that is arguably doing what you yourself find very annoying, because technically the germans were, quite specifically, nazi&#39;s.

I&#39;ve seen this answered before. Basically the Nazi&#39;s were fascists who wanted to exterminate a whole group of people. The differences between "National Socialism" and "Italian fascism" are mainly superficial.


Originally posted by James
But if you can think of another word, i&#39;l give it due consideration (i&#39;m not taking the piss).

The best description I&#39;ve probably heard is that Saddam Hussein and the Ba&#39;ath Party were sort of "Peron like." Nationalistic and populist. Perhaps the term "proto-fascist" could be used, but that would be a stretch.

However I just noticed you weren&#39;t talking about, rather Al-Queda. Perhaps "clerical fascism" could be used for them, however I think "Monarchists" or something is far better. Robert Fisk (after meeting Usama bin Laden) has said that he thinks he would be happy if he was allowed to rule "Saudi" Arabia. I don&#39;t really doubt that conclusion.


Originally posted by James
(and also some che-livers who do actually advocate fascism).

Who? .....anyone advocating fascism gets banned immediately. After all, the boards owner is German and would get into a heap of shit for having them here, plus no one wants to listen to them.


[email protected]
Why not use your local mod influence to get it changed?

Get what changed? ....the link goes directly to the Anti-Fascism forum, something which I have no powers over being the mod of Events and Propaganda.


James
Bin laden is clearly not a hippie, who just happens to like having plane&#39;s flown into buildings full of people for no reason.

The body of evidence suggested that Bin Laden may not have even known about the attacks and if he did, he had no control over them. The name escapes me but the planner of the attacks was someone else and his only link to Bin Laden was some funding which is not directly linked to the attacks.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Bannockburn
The documentary (I think) is “The Power of Nightmares” where they actually claim that “Al-Q” is the response of OBL and company after they found out that is what the US was referring to when they were talking about OBL and company. That in fact they never had a name until they figured out “Al-Q” meant OBL and company. I never head of that before, and I don&#39;t know if I buy it.

It&#39;s a good documentary. If I remember correctly the name "Al-Queda" was invented so that Usama bin Laden could be tried under Mafia Laws for the bombings of USS Cole (I think).

The young bald guy in the documentary has written about, though I&#39;ve never seen the book anywhere. Anyway basically the name was never used by anyone other than the American government before September 11th and afterwards Usama bin Laden accepted the term because it made him "famous."

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:30 PM
Why? On what grounds? Which groups do you not think should be empathised with?
al-Qaeda is more a movement based on hate than anyhting else. True they are anti-US, but so was nazi Germany. I support any movement based on a leftist ideology, from the EZLN to Shining Path.

[rikaguilera]

It is funny how when speaking of terrorism, the first word on everybodies lips is IRAQ. I have not read all the postings on this thread, but I still wanted to share my opinion, which was probably shared by others.. Terrorism is a term that has been thrown around too much these days. As the saying goes, "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". So it is a matter of opinion or side when using that label. I say that the U.S. has acted in a terroristic way with their/our (I say our because I do live in the U.S. and am ashamed by the actions of our govt.) invasion of Iraq. The killing and injuring of innocent people is a terroristic action. The actions that the U.S. has taken in central and south america are terroristic. The propaganda that they spread to all of the "sheeple" of the southern united states is terroristic, and resembles the propaganda that Hitler used to gain his peoples support. The monitoring of citezens without probable cause is terroristic. So the evening news may call the people fighting in Iraq terrorist, or insurgents, but they are not the real terrorist in my opinion. Sadly, the real ones are wearing an american flag on their uniform. And my opinion, as the thread asked, is that I do not like nor support such actions..

[Storming Heaven]

As far as the Iraqi insurgency is an anti-imperalist one, I give them my unconditional, although critical, support. There are some who say that the war in Iraq is justified, or at least has had positive outcomes in that it has destroyed an oppressive, authoritarian reigeme. I would suggest that this supposed justification is in error. I would even call this attitude racist, for it suggests that without the Americans, the Iraqi people are incapable of democracy. If establishing &#39;democracy&#39; in Iraq was the real reason for going to war, than the US should have sponsored a grass-roots revolution rather than an Imperalist aggression.

As is no doubt obvious, the picture of the insurgents received through mainstream media is severly skewed. Even here in far-afield New Zealand there is usually one or two reports each day of insugent attacks on civilians. In light of this information most Westerners consider the insurgents to be terrorists hell-bent on establishing an &#39;Islamic Republic of Iraq&#39;. What the media don&#39;t usually tell you is that 90% of all insurgent attacks are committed against &#39;occupying forces&#39;: foriegn armies and the police and armed forces of the new government that is supported by these forces.

The papers also paint the insurgency as a Islamic fundamentalist movement of the Sunni minority, aiming to implement hash Shariah law in Iraq. This, I think, is mistaken. Whilst it is true that the insurgency is Sunni dominated, and perhaps not particularly friendly to the Shia or the Kurds, Sunni fundamentalism is not it&#39;s main element. It is predomenently a Sunni nationalist movement. The Shia dominated government is more likely to build an &#39;Islamic Republic of Iraq&#39; similar to Iran than the insurgency.

This is also where I would be critical of the insurgency - it is a nationalist rather than a leftist movement. This perhaps can explain their occasional targeting of civilians - they seek to build a national reigeme that operates from the top down rather than one that operates from the bottom up. They may be about &#39;freeing&#39; Iraq and resisting imperalism, but they are not about to secure peoples control.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:31 PM
The monitoring of citezens without probable cause is terroristic.
How the hell do you figure that?

[James]

Armchair.
My appologies. AOL keeps on cutting me off. This is my forth attempt to reply.

I believe that mainly due to various misunderstandings (or at least I hope this is the reason), you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying and have proceeded to diverge slightly from what I actually said.



Technically again, this was not even "one of the main aims." Besides WMD, the primary reason (in America at least) was that Saddam Hussein had been supportive of Al-Queda. Something rubbished by most middle eastern analysts.

There was very little public talk of "regime change" because it was illegal and therefore impossible. Technically of course.

Unfortunately I can&#39;t open that link you posted, it has an error message. Perhaps you could re-link it?

No you are quite wrong. It was one of the main aims.
Remember, I’m talking about OIF: and not the invasion in general, and the various background factors. And no, this is not "dodging the issue". Read back over my posts...

Let me state this again, because it seems to be an issue that you have been confused by. My argument is that the military operation, OIF, was not terrorism.
Simily, I think it is worth restating what I said before;
“Whether it was legal or not wasn&#39;t really my point. In a sense, it doesn&#39;t really relate to the point i was making.”
It doesn&#39;t matter, because I wasn’t arguing that OIF was legal. I wasn’t even “making the case for regime change” (as you stated) I was arguing that it was not terrorism (not legal, or right, or justified or blah blah blah).


If you are confused by this difference then you must have mental issues. Sorry to be harsh. But it is an obvious and massive difference.
I WILL NOT allow you to depict me as a supporter of the invasion (which I wasn’t: I took action to try and prevent it).
Please DROP this assumption of yours.

For the link, try typing into google “operation Iraqi freedom coalition network centric abilities”. If that does not work let me know.

However, the same aims are also listed on http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm

But the original source is really good for understanding OIF a little better. I used it extensively in one of those essays I had to do the other week. I can highly recommend it.




+ + +

I asked you if you meant that “blanket bombing” took part during OIF.
You replied “That I am.”
You cited Baghdad as an example.
Firstly, I suggest that you consult a dictionary, and then come back to me.
Secondly (if you still havn’t changed your mind after that), then please provide actual proof of it. That is, proof beyond your own personal experiences from sitting in front of the TV.


Yes I am. However you should consider that the "factor" reported by CNN is very different from the "factor" reported on say Al-Jazeera.

True; but the point still stands.
Especially when you consider how journalists were with many units. Indeed, many were in Baghdad when your supposed blanket bombing accured (which has obvious problematic issues…)

I think that your assumption that the coalition during OIF didn’t care about civilian life is not only unsubstantial (I require some actual proof my boy), but is also stupid.
You sound just as subjective and crazy as those nutters who think brit foreign policy is “anti muslim” (again, a claim not supported. They seem to ignore the kosvo war. If their claim was correct, then surly “we” would have joined in with the serbs?).



Indeed it would have been. However the reason for this was not an abstract concept like the "CNN factor." Rather it is that the object of the invasion, to occupy Iraq, had to be done as efficiently as possible.


Well hello I said this in my post&#33;
So am I right in thinking that you are now arguing here that OIF wasn’t terrorism? (due to practical reasons)

Make your mind up.


Well I&#39;d say the message sent to the people of Fallujah was pretty clear. "It&#39;s the American way or the highway."

An operation which came after OIF…
Please TRY and to remain focused on the issue of debate.


It is also interesting to note that certain Iraqi Communist groups which are not part of the insurgency and have actually been very critical of it. Have taken to creating "local militias" to defend communities from American and British forces.

Could you please provide a link to this? I have tried to find such information, but have been unsuccesful.


The same reason they had their colonies hating them, money.

May I remind you that the question that I actually asked was:
“why would they purposely cause the population to hate them”

You clearly did not answer the question. They had no say on whether they invaded or not. Remember, I’m talking about OIF: not the decision to plan such an invasion.
Why would the coalition purposely cause a population to hate them?

It makes no sense (as it goes against the aims of OIF); and is also, unsurprisingly, not backed up with evidence.

Simily, you then stated

[b]In any war the "grunts" don&#39;t matter.

Well it does actually. You are now being rather moronic.
I’m talking about OIF. It was a "grunt thing"&#33;

Stop avoiding my questions.
If you can’t give reasons to example how OIF was “terrorism”, then I suggest you question your assumption (as that is what it is because you have yet to provide actual evidence) that it was.

+ + +

On OIF in general. Perhaps you would benefit from consulting a source such as http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm

You seem to be confused as to what OIF was, and what its aims were. Hence your rather silly statement “Well I think what you consider the "missions aims" are completely different from what I think are the missions aims.”

Well if this is the case (and I think you are right. It evidently is the case&#33;); then I think it is YOU that have the problem, as your perceptions regarding what OIF’s aims are “completely different” to what they actually were. OIF was a specific military operation.
The aims are stated&#33;
They are easy to find online.

I’m hoping that this is all a big misunderstanding, and that you assume that i am “defending” the decision to go to war. If this is the case, then I’m glad. Because we can now move on, as it is quite clear that this is not the case at all (as I’m actually arguing that OIF was not terrorism).
If, however, I’m wrong; and that this isn’t a misunderstanding; then I’m rather sad as it means I have misjudged you: by thinking that you were more intelligent and objective than you actually are.

But hopefully it is simply a case of a misunderstanding.


Indeed it looks very much like they are preparing to "cut and run"

Well hardly.
As they have done a certain amount of work. i.e. the sort of thing that I supported. For example ensuring that elections took place, the training of a police force, the training of an army from scratch, and quite significantly, establishing an officer training camp based on merit and not blood (the names of candidates are not known, they are simply given colours and numers). Whereas before, it had been a case of who you know and related to, that determined how well you did in the training facility.

But ANYWAY; surely this is what you wanted? Lets face facts. The invasion happened. Its gone. Its in the past. It can not be “undone” (due to various, obvious, reasons). You and others seemed to demand that the coalition did exactly that; “cut and run”. It is exactly what you wanted (although as I pointed out; it isn’t what you wanted, as certain important rebuilding work has happened: you wanted them to "cut and run" without doing any work benificial to the common iraqi).

BUT this is not the issue that we are debating. I was arguing whether OIF was terrorism.

If you want to debate this, start another thread.


after sending Iraq to the brink of feudalism

Please tell me how it was “less feudal” before the invasion.
Explain how it is now on the “brink of feudalism”.
I find the officer camp an interesting example… it couldn’t get any more “feudal” before the invasion. It has now been based on merit. Also, how is privatization “feudal”?

And then after you have done that, please defend your use of that word. The word is of little use as it is a general description of the social and economic system of medieval Europe.
http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/images/feudal-system.gif
It is in this sense, like “fascism”.
However, it cannot be “transferred” like fascism, as it is a word that has been invented by historians. It is a generalisation. A rather unhelpful one at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism


Well I think any comparison between the Nazi&#39;s and Al-Queda is pure folly


Really? He is a conservative: but that does not make him a nutter. Nor does it automatically mean he is wrong. To suggest otherwise is highly partisan and prejudice. Lets all grow up and move beyond the “us” versus “them” mentality.


During the last century a strain of Islamist thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazi-ism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence.

He also offers various reasons and for the growth of this strain, and some of its sources.


Taking up arms against that society becomes not just a cleansing exercise, it also confers on the young terrorist a sense of mission and superiority.

Just like the Nazis of 1930s Germany they want to purge corrupt cosmopolitan influences.

The parallels with the rise of Nazi-ism go further. Just as there were figures in the nineteen-thirties who misunderstood the totalitarian wickedness of Nazi-ism and argued that Hitler had a rational set of limited political demands, so there are people today who try to explain Jihadist violence with reference to a limited set of political goals.

If only, some argue, we withdrew from Iraq, or Israel made massive concessions, then we would assuage Jihadist anger.

That argument, while often advanced by well-meaning people, is as limited as the belief in the Thirties that, by allowing Germany to remilitarise the Rhineland or take over the Sudetenland, we would satisfy Nazi ambitions.

As we discovered in the nineteen-thirties, a willingness to cede ground and duck confrontation is interpreted as fatal weakness. It can provide an incentive to escalate the struggle against a foe who clearly lacks the stomach for the fight.
Indeed, in the 1990s the inaction of the West fed the belief among Osama bin Laden and his allies that we lacked the strength to defend ourselves.

The ignominious US withdrawal from Somalia. The weakness of the response to the bombings of embassies in Africa - and to the attack on the USS Cole.

All these factors signalled weakness, especially in the face of a determined and fanatical foe.

How is this “pure folly”?
I’m looking forward to comparing your argument with the one you provide justifying your claim regarding feudalism.


He also makes the interesting point that, As Bin Laden&#39;s principal lieutenant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has explained, the greatest threat to their project comes from liberal democracy.

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=n...4485&speeches=1 (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=124485&speeches=1)

I will try and find a certain quote by a german socialist who said a very similar thing about hitler (liberalism being the one thing he hated).


However, I don&#39;t expect Cameron to say anything remotely intelligent or insightful. He&#39;s a prettier Bush


I think this link: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=n...e&obj_id=127055 (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=127055)
… demonstrates that that statement of yours was not anything “remotely intelligent of insightful”.


Which degrades the meaning of the term

Oh please stop being an arse. So you don’t agree with the dictionary, my young feudal boy?


I&#39;ve seen this answered before

Thanks for letting me know cupcake&#33;


The best description I&#39;ve probably heard is that Saddam Hussein and the Ba&#39;ath Party were sort of "Peron like." Nationalistic and populist. Perhaps the term "proto-fascist" could be used, but that would be a stretch.

However I just noticed you weren&#39;t talking about, rather Al-Queda. Perhaps "clerical fascism" could be used for them, however I think "Monarchists" or something is far better. Robert Fisk (after meeting Usama bin Laden) has said that he thinks he would be happy if he was allowed to rule "Saudi" Arabia. I don&#39;t really doubt that conclusion

Well I think the most important thing that one can get from your answer, is that I will save just under 100 words by using one word: fascist. A word which the use to which I put it, is supported by the dictionary.
Proto fascist? Why not just use the word fascism, like how you simply used feudalism
(despite the fact that it is a word that hardly anyone agrees upon, and is used to describe a system of systems which varied greatly, and descirbes a European system blah blah blah).

Monarchism… hmm well that assumes the loose network of groups would allow him to take charge. Consider the fact that recent intelligence has demonstrated a disagreement between Al-Q leadership and Iraqi groups (regarding the targeting of innocent civilians, based on ethnicity); a disagreement that has not resulted in the wishes of central Al-Q being implemented in the localities.

Clerical fascism… Well yes, one could argue that. But as many muslims will point out to you, their interpretation is by no means unchallengable. Nor based on scripture in some cases.

Perhaps fascism is just fine and dandy? I’m sure you know what I mean when I use the term. Indeed, one could say that your objection is rather petty. Indeed, the existence of a forum dedicated to “fighting fascism” strongly suggests that your view is not only petty, but is also a minority view.


The body of evidence suggested that Bin Laden may not have even known about the attacks and if he did, he had no control over them. The name escapes me but the planner of the attacks was someone else and his only link to Bin Laden was some funding which is not directly linked to the attacks

I’m sure that if you read my post again, and the specific part in which the above is in reply to, you shall agree that your comment isn’t really terribly relevant.



OKAY, so sadly there have been misunderstandings (or possibly idiocy).

My argument is that OIF was not terrorism, as OIF did not consciously targeted civilians to cause fear, to help achieve a specific end or purpose.
On the other hand, 9/11/London bombings/bali bombs etc etc, CLEARLY WERE.

I’m going to be honest with you Armchair. You reply and accusations have been terribly disappointing. They tend to go off on a tangent, chronically lack evidence and also tend to be insulting.

I suggest that we get back on topic.
If you disagree with my argument regarding OIF, please reply considerately, and support your statements with evidence.

[Ownthink]

^ No spaces between [quote] and your message.

[jaycee]

bin laden, iraqi resistance, bush, blair they are all capitalists and enemies of the working class. national liberation is impossable in capitalisms decedant period when all countries are already capitalist and &#39;national liberation&#39; only amounts to a fight between one bunch of imperialists against another on.

Bin laden as a fighter against capitalism? your having a fuking laugh mate.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:27 PM
bin laden, iraqi resistance, bush, blair they are all capitalists and enemies of the working class. national liberation is impossable in capitalisms decedant period when all countries are already capitalist and &#39;national liberation&#39; only amounts to a fight between one bunch of imperialists against another on.

Bin laden as a fighter against capitalism? your having a fuking laugh mate.
Actually, Bin Laden does fight to end Western Capitalism. Though he would like to replace it with something far worse (Islamic Theocracy), but that doesn&#39;t change the fact he still fights it.

I don&#39;t support most of his actions, but things like Yemen & the USS Cole I do support, as it was fighting a military presence in the ME.

[James]

thanks for the pointer regarding quotes; i think the problem emerged because i wrote my reply in word first then copied and posted it. I&#39;ll go over he post and try and sort it out.

Also i agree. Attacks on military targets are "justified". They are not acts of terrorism.

[James]

Al-Queda is a "back to feudalism" group, while the Nazi&#39;s despite some rhetoric, were mainly interested in an advanced society. Particularly one that had good methods for extermination.


I strongly disagree.

Both groups sought/seek totalitarian systems based on one specific dogmatic ideal. Both based on certain "scriptures": one the koran, and the other "mein kampf" (and other such racist literature).

Both sought/seek an "advanced society". Both supressed findings, ideas and ideals that were contrary to their line of thought.


Man, i can&#39;t believe you wrote that&#33;

[Ol' Dirty]

My definition of a terrorist is one who commits an act of intentional terror upon another livng thing, especialy upon anpther human. This, of course, is always bad. But then there is the mix up of the derrogitory word "terrorist" and the uplifting word "freedom fighter". If you mean Islamic extremists, in a way, they are both good and bad; on the one hand, they are fighting the (in my opinion, even though you all agree) imperialist United States, but are also killing their Muslim brothers and sisters. But... the united states uses its vast nuclear arsenal and millitary might to keep the rest of the world down. In itself, is that not terrorism?

Then there is the ethical debate... while terroists kill innocents and keep their women hidden under masks of cloth to hide their beauty, the States oppresses the world with its extreme policies...

All in all, I think that neither side is right... well... they are, if you catch my meaning :lol:. I think they should both stop to think abou what they&#39;re doing, and stop this stupid war.

[rikaguilera]

QUOTE (rikaguilera @ Dec 28 2005, 11:31 PM)
The monitoring of citezens without probable cause is terroristic.


How the hell do you figure that?

I figure it like this.. It is against federal law to use the military to spy on the citezens of the United States. When a president goes to such lengths to tap phones, intercept mail, etc.. without court approval, he is thus acting in an imperialistic way, and thus causing a sense of fear (or terror) amongst the people of the U.S. The arrogance and acts of this president are like that of what a terrorist is defined as. After the latest claims of illegal monitoring came out, people were and still are truly scared. The Patriot act is a doctorine that he hides behind and is truly a terror inciting document. Anybody here can be considered a suspicious threat, then just be picked up with no charges assigned, and throw in jail in-definatley. All this by illegal monitoring of your actions. That strikes me as terroristic. That is my connection on how I figure it.

[jaycee]

islamic theocracy is another form of capitalism and workers should not value either the western model or the islamic model over one another they are equally reactionary.

[James]

I&#39;m still waiting armchair.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by James+--> (James)No you are quite wrong. It was one of the main aims.[/b]

I am not aware of one public statement before the war that said "one of the aims is to remove Saddam Hussein." I actually (vaguely) remember Tony Blair saying something along the lines of "if the weapons inspectors are allowed in then there will be no war and Saddam Hussein will stay in power."

It may have been a private reason, but in the public domain it was a reason that was not given.


Originally posted by James+--> (James)Remember, I’m talking about OIF: and not the invasion in general[/b]

What specifically was "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? ....from my recollection it was the "invasion in general" and was just a nice sounding name given to the invasion, sort of like that military base called "Camp Freedom".


Originally posted by James
My argument is that the military operation, OIF, was not terrorism.

Again if you could list some of the specific actions of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then I could discuss the question of "terrorism" more accurately.

You see "GlobalSecurity.org" seems to consider "operation Iraqi Freedom" the whole invasion....


Originally posted by Operation Iraqi Freedom
The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq&#39;s weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq&#39;s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.

Links (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm).

Indeed both of these sites -- http://www.operationiraqifreedom.com/ and Fallen Heroes of Operation Iraqi Freedom (http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/oif/chronlist.php) -- which have the death lists, seem to consider "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as the whole invasion.

Are these sources wrong? ....because if they&#39;re right, then terrorism did occur during the invasion, and therefore if the invasion was "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Then terrorist acts were committed during "Operation Iraqi Freedom".


Originally posted by James
I was arguing that it was not terrorism

No acts of terrorism were committed? ....I read the CIA definition of terrorism (on this site) a while back, and there certainly seem to be some acts of terrorism committed by the "coalition forces".

Perhaps you have a different definition of terrorism?

I actually just found the FBI&#39;s definition....


Originally posted by Defining Terrorism
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Link (http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Phil110/terrorism.html).

It&#39;s an interesting article that, and said some things about Colombia that I didn&#39;t know. However are you disputing that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the invasion) did some of the things (or all of them) that the FBI defines as terrorist acts?


Originally posted by James
However, the same aims are also listed on http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm

Isn&#39;t it strange, that was the link I just found and what they listed as the "military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom" seem to me to be the objectives of the whole invasion. What else is there that isn&#39;t covered there.


Originally posted by James
Secondly (if you still havn’t changed your mind after that), then please provide actual proof of it.

I very rarely use terms that I haven&#39;t heard (lots of times) before....


Originally posted by Baghdad and Guernica: Blanket Bombing Civilians
The Pentagon has disclosed its plan to maintain peace by carrying out an opening blitzkrieg on Iraq of more than 3,000 bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours. This plan is titled "Shock and Awe" by the administration. 300 to 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles will rip through Iraq on the first day of a U.S. assault, which is more than the number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War. On the second day, another 300 to 400 cruise missiles will be sent. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before." One of the authors of the Shock and Awe plan stated the intent is, "So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes." (CBS News January 27, 2003, New York Times, February 2, 2003)

Link (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Hook_Baghdad-Guernica.htm).

There&#39;s more "out there" if you wish to search for it.


Originally posted by James
Especially when you consider how journalists were with many units.

And they tend to make a "big issue" of the death of one of those soldiers, that&#39;s what the "CNN factor" is. Not the deaths of Iraqi&#39;s.


Originally posted by James
many were in Baghdad when your supposed blanket bombing accured

They were probably on the outskirts of Iraq, I doubt they were in "downtown" Iraq. Mainly because you need to be high up to film the bombing of the whole city.


Originally posted by James
I think that your assumption that the coalition during OIF didn’t care about civilian life is not only unsubstantial (I require some actual proof my boy), but is also stupid.

Well, they didn&#39;t count the bodies now did they? ....I think most people would agree that a serial killer that had no recollection of how many people he killed, didn&#39;t give a rats ass about the people he killed. A body count, suggests you care at least a little bit.

Quite frankly, if the "Coalition" cared about civilian life, they wouldn&#39;t have gone to war in the first place. Armies do on occasions, refuse to kill and the soldiers who "cared" were the ones who deserted.

Plus the whole point of military training is to train people to become efficient killers. Killers, as a general rule of thumb, can&#39;t "care" about their victims otherwise they wouldn&#39;t kill.


Originally posted by James
You sound just as subjective and crazy as those nutters who think brit foreign policy is “anti muslim” (again, a claim not supported.

Well I can&#39;t talk for others (I presume you are referring to George Galloway?) however I do have a pretty clear picture of what I think are the aims of British foreign policy, an opinion which I share with Gordon Brown....


Originally posted by BBC News(Emphasis added)
Mr Brown said the Iraq debate had now gone on for more than two years.

"We believe we were making the right decisions in the British national economic interest.

"Of course we have lessons to learn... about the way things were done, like the dossier.

"But at the end of the day we wanted the security of Britain and the British national interest to be advanced.

"Iraq of course being a democracy means the Middle East is a safer place now."

Link (http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jdc41/rants/4507485-old.stm.html).

If anyone knows about the "British national economic interest" then it&#39;s the Chancellor.


Originally posted by James
So am I right in thinking that you are now arguing here that OIF wasn’t terrorism? (due to practical reasons)

Well, terrorism was used when it was practical. The Nazi&#39;s during World War Two terrorised the populations of Eastern countries, whilst being (relatively) nice in (most of) the Western countries.

Armies generally act on the principle of "realism". If method X is a more realistic way to reach a goal than method Y, then method X will be used. They really don&#39;t care what the method is, just what it will achieve.


Originally posted by James
An operation which came after OIF…

Doesn&#39;t this operation fit under either the goal "to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country" or "help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government"???


Originally posted by James
Could you please provide a link to this? I have tried to find such information, but have been unsuccesful.

Well you probably be best creating a thread on this, however....


Originally posted by CommunistLeague
Both are true, and both have been done. The Federation of Workers&#39; Councils and Unions of Iraq has already had two national conferences, and includes WCs from Kirkuk to Basra. Every large- and most medium-sized cities in Iraq have active WCs; cities like Baghdad have WCs operating at a neighborhood level. As well, the WCs have also established armed workers&#39; militia in both workplaces and neighborhoods, and have been relatively successful in driving out both occupation soldiers and "resistance" guerrillas.

Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42439).

Others will know more about this.


Originally posted by James
May I remind you that the question that I actually asked was:
“why would they [brit soliders] purposely cause the population to hate them”

No you asked "Take the brits, why would they purposely cause the population to hate them: only to then go on patrols purposely with a lack of body armour on?"

I don&#39;t know if they planned on making the population hate them (I rather doubt it) but they still made the population hate them all the same. And why they don&#39;t wear body armour is beyond me, you should really ask the British Army about these things, I can only speculate.


Originally posted by James
They had no say on whether they invaded or not.

They could have refused. It has happened before and it&#39;ll happen again.


Originally posted by James
Why would the coalition purposely cause a population to hate them?

As I said, I don&#39;t know if they "did it on purpose" (though you&#39;d have to be rather dull to think that bombing people isn&#39;t going to piss them off).


Originally posted by James
(as it goes against the aims of OIF)

You mean the aims promoted in press releases? ....because funnily enough, I don&#39;t think that many Iraqi&#39;s think the "terrorists" have been driven out, that basic supplies and needs are being met, or that they have "representative self-government."

The average Iraqi probably has more gripes too.


Originally posted by James
I’m talking about OIF. It was a "grunt thing"&#33;

Not totally....


Originally posted by Operation Iraqi Freedom
At 9:34 PM EST on March 19, 2003 (5:34 AM local time in Baghdad on March 20), United States and United Kingdom forces consisting of 40 cruise missiles and strikes led by 2 F-117s from the 8th Fighter Squadron (supported by Navy EA-6B Prowlers) and other aircraft began conducting military operations against the state of Iraq designed to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and to remove the Iraqi Regime from power.

Link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm).


Originally posted by James
If you can’t give reasons to example how OIF was “terrorism”

Well again, I&#39;ll wait till you outline what specifically you consider "Operation Iraqi Freedom".


Originally posted by James
The aims are stated&#33;

Yes....


Originally posted by Operation Iraqi Freedom
Seventh, to secure Iraq&#39;s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people.

Link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm).

That&#39;s the aim (bar the first two) which they&#39;ve had the most success doing. Funny that.


Originally posted by James
(as I’m actually arguing that OIF was not terrorism).

Well from your link, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" seems to be a big umbrella, in fact it seems to encompass most of the invasion. Therefore been as there were acts of terrorism (as defined by the FBI) during the invasion (which is true of every invasion). Then I fail to see how "Operation Iraqi Freedom" can&#39;t have committed some acts of terrorism.

However, I have a feeling you are "painting with a narrower brush."


Originally posted by James
Well hardly.

I doubt a barely adequate police force and army and a President, make up for not having electricity or water.


Originally posted by James
If you want to debate this, start another thread.

Well said.

What should happen in Iraq, is a very complicated question, and any answer is a gamble, because Iraq is a mess and whatever happens, it will likely take decades to fix the mess.


Originally posted by James
Please tell me how it was “less feudal” before the invasion.

Up until the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was (by far) the most advanced Arab state, it was knocking on the door of the modern world. Since then (and the subsequent events) it has gone backward, and the invasion certainly didn&#39;t advance Iraq.


Originally posted by James
Also, how is privatization “feudal”?

It isn&#39;t. That&#39;s why I said Iraq was on the "brink of feudalism".

However, if the country degenerated even further (civil wars etc.) then I suspect certain areas would end up ruled by a "religious lord" and some form of slavery would be re-instated.

The privatisation wouldn&#39;t last long then.


Originally posted by James
The word is of little use as it is a general description of the social and economic system of medieval Europe.

Perhaps I should have said "pre-Capitalist". However, I generally use feudalism for this purpose and the class structure of feudalism (in my opinion) could occur on Iraq. That matters more than whether the word is (traditionally) used to describe European societies.

For instance, in my opinion, serious investigation would show that native American tribes were feudal in structure, or at least very similar. The only differences would be cosmetic.


Originally posted by James
He is a conservative: but that does not make him a nutter. Nor does it automatically mean he is wrong.

There was a good article on Mr. Cameron in todays Independent -- David Cameron&#39;s &#39;environmentalism&#39; (http://www.johannhari.com/index.php) -- in my opinion, the man is nothing special.


Originally posted by James
He also offers various reasons and for the growth of this strain, and some of its sources.

Well lets have a look (though it should be noted, Mr. Cameron doesn&#39;t write his speeches)....


Originally posted by David Cameron
Just like the Nazis of 1930s Germany they want to purge corrupt cosmopolitan influences.

Islamists probably do want that, the Nazi&#39;s didn&#39;t. Unless of course you consider Jews, Communists and homosexuals "cosmopolitan forces." Technically they could be considered "cosmopolitan", but in my opinion the Nazi&#39;s had no problem with sophistication, Islamists do.


Originally posted by David Cameron
Just as there were figures in the nineteen-thirties who misunderstood the totalitarian wickedness of Nazi-ism

Yes, his lot "misunderstood" Hitler, the Communists fought the bastard.


Originally posted by David Cameron
If only, some argue, we withdrew from Iraq, or Israel made massive concessions, then we would assuage Jihadist anger.

Well we probably reduce most of the anger.

The Islamists want a return of the Arab Empire, that has to come first before they can think of grand schemes of "ruling the world". And taking over "Saudi" Arabia, Syria, etc. will be virtually impossible.

However those aren&#39;t even realistic goals until "we" get out of there, if we do, they won&#39;t bother "us". All Usama bin Laden wants is to be King of "Saudi" Arabia.

Plus it should be noted that some of the more visionary Israeli&#39;s envisage an Empire just as big, in more or less the same countries. They actually have a state and these "visionaries" sometimes have both wealth and power.


Originally posted by David Cameron
That argument, while often advanced by well-meaning people, is as limited as the belief in the Thirties that, by allowing Germany to remilitarise the Rhineland or take over the Sudetenland, we would satisfy Nazi ambitions.

Well it was their land. "We" didn&#39;t really have any business being there and "we" have even less business being in the Middle East.

However, what he (interestingly) declines to point out, is that "we" were funding the Nazi&#39;s, along with the German ruling class. The Islamic groups by comparison, have (far) less backing from the rich and powerful.


Originally posted by David Cameron
As we discovered in the nineteen-thirties, a willingness to cede ground and duck confrontation is interpreted as fatal weakness.

"We" didn&#39;t "cede ground", "we" supported the bastards.

They obviously don&#39;t teach history in Eton. :lol:


Originally posted by David Cameron
Indeed, in the 1990s the inaction of the West fed the belief among Osama bin Laden and his allies that we lacked the strength to defend ourselves.

No.

That all the Islamists failed miserably in their own countries (and concluded rightly that western capital was what was stopping them). They decided to "change tactics".

There was plenty of action by "us" in the 90s&#39;. After all, "we" happily helped train the forces that suppressed them (and a whole load of other people) and "we" also propped up the governments they were fighting.


Originally posted by David Cameron
The ignominious US withdrawal from Somalia.

I don&#39;t know the history of the "Somalia affair" but the US likely had no fucking business being there.


Originally posted by David Cameron
and to the attack on the USS Cole.

Well if the USS Cole hadn&#39;t been there, it couldn&#39;t have been bombed. Are other countries warships allowed to operate in America?


Originally posted by David Cameron
All these factors signalled weakness, especially in the face of a determined and fanatical foe.

I doubt they think "we are weak". They think we are sinners and that&#39;s why they don&#39;t like us. Plus of course, "our" constant "meddling".


Originally posted by James
As Bin Laden&#39;s principal lieutenant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has explained, the greatest threat to their project comes from liberal democracy.

I&#39;d imagine he&#39;s more pissed of that "liberal democracy" creates atheism. That&#39;s what they don&#39;t like, not the concept itself.


Originally posted by James
I will try and find a certain quote by a german socialist who said a very similar thing about hitler (liberalism being the one thing he hated).

Leo Strauss (the ideological founder of neo-Conservatism) believed the same thing as well. Small world aye.


Originally posted by James
I think this link: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=n...e&obj_id=127055 (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=127055)
… demonstrates that that statement of yours was not anything “remotely intelligent of insightful”.

I rather doubt that he&#39;ll "live up" to the rhetoric. Blair said similar things when he was vote grabbing.


Originally posted by James
Well I think the most important thing that one can get from your answer, is that I will save just under 100 words by using one word: fascist.

I suppose, but the reason for using it (by Hitchens and his ilk) is not that simple. They are trying to invoke "the ghost of Nazism" to justify bombing the shit out of two countries. Dubious at best.


[email protected]
Monarchism… hmm well that assumes the loose network of groups would allow him to take charge.

They probably would.


James
Clerical fascism… Well yes, one could argue that. But as many muslims will point out to you, their interpretation is by no means unchallengable. Nor based on scripture in some cases.

They&#39;re "better" Muslims than most Muslims. They certainly take the nasty parts of the Qu&#39;ran seriously.

[Re-visionist 05]

Terrorsim is merely an unfortunate and nasty evolutionary step in warfare(if there ever was anything pleasent involved with it.) over the last 50 years, the ways wars are fought have changed significantly. There is only one nation in the present day world, that can be defined as a "superpower" and that would be the United States. With the fall of the soviet union, the subjugation of Europeon and the rest of the worlds post-industrial nations, the U.S has had complete hegamony over the political, military, and economic spheres of power in the world. Its military, the worlds best trained, and technologically advanced, cannot be fought by any direct conflict ( as we&#39;ve seen in the Persian Gulf, Korea, Panama, and Libya to name a few). Our Economic strength allows us unlimited funding towards further research and development of tools of death. Most inportanly though, is its massive arsenal of Nuculer weapons. Since no nation can possibly face a force like this through direct combat, warfare has had to adapt for those in the third world.

Terrorism a cheap, effective, way to fight. It requires no large arsenal, no real plan of attack, thus eliminating any need for offices, it can easily be carried out with the small caches that many factions and groups have attained from the massive amounts of soviet and america equipment, that was left over from the cold war.

or put a lot simpler, warfare has become completly asymmetrical, its like david Vs. goliath, david cant win through brute strength, so he has had to inprovise.

Its terrible that the world has come to this, and it will be a while until theres a massive change in the ways of the world.

[James]

Forgive me, aol is causing me problems again.


I am not aware of one public statement before the war that said "one of the aims is to remove Saddam Hussein." I actually (vaguely) remember Tony Blair saying something along the lines of "if the weapons inspectors are allowed in then there will be no war and Saddam Hussein will stay in power."

It may have been a private reason, but in the public domain it was a reason that was not given.


Clearly we are arguing about different things.
It was never a secrete that OIF/Telic saught to end the regieme. It was their first aim.

Please remember, I am talking about the military operation. I’m not arguing that it was legal, justified, the right thing to do etc etc. Nor am I arguing about the politics about the military operation.
I’m talking about OIF and the way it was conducted, plain and simple.


What specifically was "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? ....from my recollection it was the "invasion in general" and was just a nice sounding name given to the invasion, sort of like that military base called "Camp Freedom".

My mistake. I was not at all clear.
I meant I was not talking about the decision to invade.
I was talking about the invasion itself.

I’m talking about OIF – not the reasons for it.


Again if you could list some of the specific actions of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then I could discuss the question of "terrorism" more accurately.

You see "GlobalSecurity.org" seems to consider "operation Iraqi Freedom" the whole invasion....

The military operation that lasted from March 18 till May 1, 2003. This is what I’m talking about. If you want to discuss events after may 1st then feel free. But that’s not what I’m arguing about.


However are you disputing that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the invasion) did some of the things (or all of them) that the FBI defines as terrorist acts?

I’m certainly arguing that OIF did not purposely target the civilian population to cause fear and terror, for some political purpose.


On blanket bombing:
“I very rarely use terms that I haven&#39;t heard (lots of times) before....”

Okay. Now that isn’t proof sunshine. Indeed, the Link that you provided is dates from before (February 12) the invasion even begun. It predicts blanket bombing comparable to Guernica. Now please provide the follow up evidence. Please show me credible evidence that the US destroyed “Seventy per cent” of Baghdad. Also, I require you to prove that the intent of this bombing was to “demoralize the enemy”.
I think you shall struggle, as the whole military point of the opening bombing seems to have been the removal of the Iraqi military and political infrastructure. Look at the first gulf war: they did the SAME thing then. They call it removing the head of the beast. Because the Iraqi army was not Network-centric. It was a more traditional heirachical structure. Removing the head and the main forms of communication effectively disabled the Iraqi army.

Nor is it comparable to spain in respect to the type of bombing. Spain was an example of blanket bombing. It was the mass dropping (that is important: they were simply dropped over the area) of bombs from planes. OIF used “smart weapons”, i.e. each weapon had a specific target. Sure they were not always successful, there was “collateral damage”. I’m not arguing that that is “ok”, but I am arguing that such civilian deaths were not intended. They were accidents. Terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians. An example is flying a plane full of civilians, into two buildings, full of civilians.

Can you “get - the - difference” honey?

So no. That was not evidence of blanket bombing of Baghdad. So I require you to back up your argument with more credible evidence.


There&#39;s more "out there" if you wish to search for it.

Pardon?
LOL
So I am the one that now has to “go out there” and support your argument? An argument which I think is FALSE and is not grounded in credible evidence?

Don’t be silly cupcake…


I suggest that if you want your point to stand, then you are going to have to go back “out there”, and go fish a little.




I&#39;ve ran out of time now. But please feel free to reply to the above. Also, i feel that alot of your post was caused my mistake in my previous post regarding what is OIF, and when it lasted.
But i will get around to finishing a reply later.

[James]

On fascism and liberalism. No, we are thinking of a different chap.

Prof. Eduard Heimann


“Hitlerism proclaims itself as both true democracy and true socialism, and the terrible truth is that there is a grain of truth for such claims… but one fact stands out with perfect clarity in all the fog: Hitler has never claimed to represent true liberalism. Liberalism then has the distinction of being the doctrine most hated by Hitler”.

As quoted in Road to Serfdom, page. 35.

[Jim]

Armchair is certainly taking his time replying. On blanket bombing though:


I asked you if you meant that “blanket bombing” took part during OIF.
You replied “That I am.”
You cited Baghdad as an example.
Firstly, I suggest that you consult a dictionary, and then come back to me.


Blanket bombing is, according to cambridge,
"when a lot of bombs are dropped over a large area such as a city, without aiming for any particular buildings"
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7950&dict=CALD)



Secondly (if you still havn’t changed your mind after that), then please provide actual proof of it. That is, proof beyond your own personal experiences from sitting in front of the TV.

I would say that a decent set of examples would be various WW2 flight operations - such as the blitz, and retaliation bombing of germany. And then the later allied bombing raids over germany etc. An argument could be made that vietnam witnessed blanket bombing too.

Is it coincidence that the first thing you get when you type "baghdad blanket bombing" in to google is the link armchair provided?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=IS...t+bombing&meta= (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=baghdad+blanket+bombing&meta=)

Indeed, the search results do not provide the evidence which would justify armchair&#39;s claim that there is "lots out there".

The lack of reply suggests that Armchair is struggling to provide supporting evidence for his claim.
Perhaps he was wrong.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Jim+--> (Jim)Armchair is certainly taking his time replying.[/b]

Unfortunately I don&#39;t have an abundance of time this week. Anyway, a little searching has turned up a few individual cases....


Originally posted by Warplanes resume bombing in Iraq+--> (Warplanes resume bombing in Iraq)F-16 fighter-bombers swooped over Tikrit, dropping bombs near the crash site. Troops backed by armour and attack helicopters destroyed several abandoned houses that the US military believed had been used by insurgents. Dropping bombs on an empty landscape as a pure demonstration of power is an unusual tactic, underscoring the military&#39;s fury at the downing of three helicopters in a two-week period. In addition to the Fallujah and Tikrit crashes, a helicopter was brought down near Tikrit on October 25 without fatalities.[/b]

Source (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/09/1068329418990.html?from=storyrhs).

Does a "pure demonstration of power" fit under the "Cambridge definition"?


Originally posted by Bush’s war plunges Iraq deeper into crisis
In a renewed effort to clamp down, perhaps to help Bush’s reelection prospects, U.S. forces have bombed Fallujah almost daily for the past two weeks, according to the Washington Post. Military spokespersons are now citing “body counts” of supposed terrorist suspects killed in these attacks, but they leave out the scores of ordinary people killed. The airstrikes don’t discriminate — old people, children, houses, shops are mangled and destroyed, leaving a festering bitterness and despair.

Source (http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/0040929news.htm).

If you read their site, it&#39;s pretty clear that they don&#39;t really take sides.

Plus this....


Originally posted by Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage
If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml).

Doesn&#39;t sound like the bombing is going to be precise. Note the article goes on to say....


Originally posted by Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage
In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.

That&#39;s 20% "imprecise" bombing.

There&#39;s also this little poll....


Originally posted by Is the US Recruiting for the Insurgency?
The level of insurgent activity in Iraq today is four or five times higher than it was in early summer 2003 when there were 10-13 attacks per day. Currently, there are approximately 50 per day. A report released by the Project for Defense Alternatives explains why the resistance to U.S. occupation is expanding – the root cause is the U.S. occupation itself. In a March-April 2004 poll sponsored by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup, 58 percent of Iraqis said US forces have behaved very or fairly badly. Indeed, nearly one in four Iraqis – 22 percent – have been "directly affected by violence in terms of death, handicap, or significant monetary loss" during the occupation according to a survey by the International Republican Institute.

Source (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zeese.php?articleid=6030).

"Precision bombing" (surely) wouldn&#39;t have affected so many people.

I also found this piece on Afghanistan....


"These casualties aren’t mistakes"@
What really startled me was the relatively high number of civilian casualties given the relatively low intensity of the war. This really flew in the face of all the nonsense coming out of the Pentagon about "precision-guided weaponry" and all the rest.

I’m not denying that the weaponry being used nowadays is a lot more precise than during Vietnam or during earlier wars. But that argument misses the point.

It’s one thing to hit a Taliban tank out in a field or on a mountain road. It’s another thing to decide to bomb a building in Kabul or to carpet bomb front lines in the Shomali plain or around Kunduz or Khanabad.

The civilian casualties result from a decision of U.S. military planners to carry out a certain kind of bombing campaign. They bear the responsibility for these casualties. What I’m arguing is that these civilian casualties were necessary consequences of the U.S. campaign. These aren’t mistakes.

Source (http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/393/393_08_MarcHerold.shtml).

Do you think they&#39;d vary their tactics in Iraq that much?

Plus you should look into the meaning of the term "Shock and Awe". From wikipedia....


Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare that attempts to destroy an adversary&#39;s will to fight through spectacular displays of power. Its authors label it a subset of Rapid dominance, a doctrine that advocates defeating an adversary by swift action against all aspects of their ability to resist, rather than by strictly military forces. It is a product of the National Defense University of the United States, and has been notably applied in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_Awe).

How do you think "spectacular displays of power" are achieved?

[Jim]

First evidence
First line states that your example is "first time since ... May 1". So it doesn&#39;t qualify. Even though i&#39;m confused how this "Dropping bombs on an empty landscape", is the targetting of civilians (terrorism). Nor does it really constitute the blanket bombing of baghdad. Which is what i believe we were talking about.

Second Evidence
Again, is outside the dates. Also, i think you would have been better giving the washington post link, which is where this site got their information from. Don&#39;t know where they got the actual information from, that they have just been dropping bombs willy nilly; washinton post? Or somewhere else. I&#39;m surprised this link doesn&#39;t link straight to the story actually. But either way, again out of the dates.


Third Evidence.
Again this is predictive, coming from before the affair. It is hardly "evidence". "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," does not mean, "because we are going to be sending lots of shit over there, and who knows where its going to land&#33; man no where in that area is safe&#33;": it is more a case of there will be no where, that the coalition can not target and destroy. Also did you notice that the article itself states that its information is not even that accurate/precise/reliable/indepth in predicting what it thought was going to happen: "this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military.". The predicted percent of prescision munitions is speculative, and does not relate to the issue in hand. It does not say so much is going to be dropped on baghdad, of which so and so percent will be guided: the rest being simply dropped.


That&#39;s 20% "imprecise" bombing.

Well it is a prediction of what sort of % would not be precision guided.
Are you aware of what all these terms mean? The DOD defines this a "weapon that uses a seeker to detect electromagnetic energy reflected from a target or reference point and, through processing, provides guidance commands to a control system that guides the weapon to the target. Also called PGM". So this predictive statistics simply means that the operation planned to make up the bombing, 20% with non-precision weaponary. This of course does not constitutes blanket bombing. For one, it is not clear where this 20% would be used, and in what context, and for what sort of targets.

Fourth Evidence
Well your source is antiwar.com.. so perhaps not the most unbiased source. They do have an agenda&#33; :lol:
Again, after the dates.
"58 percent of Iraqis said US forces have behaved very or fairly badly."

"Indeed, nearly one in four Iraqis – 22 percent – have been "directly affected by violence in terms of death, handicap, or significant monetary loss" during the occupation

That means a quater have been, in some way (including financial loss&#33;) "directly affected by violence" during the occupation.
Firstly, again your dates are wrong.
Secondly, this doesn&#39;t automatically mean the coalition caused the violence (no doubt many refer to the loss of order following saddam&#39;s fall, including the ever increasing number of non-coalition bombs aimed at the coalition but usually also hurt civilians too, and also those bombs/attacks aimed specifically at the iraqi civilian population&#33;)
Thirdly; even if these were caused by the coalition (which it wasn&#39;t), you don&#39;t think alot would also be made up from the patrols that your article then goes on to discuss?


http://www.iri.org/pdfs/IraqSept-OctPublic...pt#315,11,Q1a-b (http://www.iri.org/pdfs/IraqSept-OctPublicOpinion.ppt#315,11,Q1a-b). Why do you think Iraq is heading in the right/wrong direction?
Especially Question 1ab, Question 3, Question 7

... "I also found this piece on Afghanistan...." - so what? You are giving evidence of the blanket bombing of baghdad during oif&#33; Either way, socialist worker (again, hardly unbiased&#33;) fails to give an explanation as to why the coalition would purposely target the civilian population.

Fith
"defeating an adversary by swift action against all aspects of their ability to resist, rather than by strictly military forces" - this does not mean: by bombing citizens to death. It means targetting the enemy: the ba&#39;athist regieme and its means of maintaining power, issuing commands to its military; and especially Republican Guard targets in baghdad in general. How does it achieve it? Well you posted a link before that states how&#33; From your CBS article: "Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons". And the inability of the enemy to have a safe zone from the coalition&#39;s reach.


So again, you fail to prove it.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Jim+--> (Jim)First line states that your example is "first time since ... May 1".[/b]

Which suggests it happened before. Otherwise they would have said "for the first time since the start of the war".


Originally posted by Jim+--> (Jim)Even though i&#39;m confused how this "Dropping bombs on an empty landscape", is the targetting of civilians (terrorism).[/b]

Well, terrorism doesn&#39;t have to kill people, just terrorise them.


Originally posted by Jim
Nor does it really constitute the blanket bombing of baghdad.

Well if you take a look at this -- Operation Iraqi Freedom - Statistics (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom-numbers.htm) -- you&#39;ll see that most of the statistics for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" have not been released. In this environment, we must look at both obscure and (often) other events. If there was bombing type X in area A, why wouldn&#39;t it happen in area B.

We won&#39;t know the (accurate) answers until around 2033, if ever. However, what past experience from looking at de-classified files has shown us, is that the ruling class (often) lies and the media helps them.


Originally posted by Jim
Again, is outside the dates.

Well from the goals stated in GlobalSecurity.org, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is either ongoing or it was a complete failure.


Originally posted by Jim
Don&#39;t know where they got the actual information from

No we don&#39;t, but the fact they&#39;re in Iraq is a pretty decent indicator that they know what&#39;s going on.


Originally posted by Jim
Again this is predictive, coming from before the affair.

Did the Pentagon change their "plan"? ....I&#39;m not aware of them doing that.


Originally posted by Jim
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," does not mean, "because we are going to be sending lots of shit over there, and who knows where its going to land&#33; man no where in that area is safe&#33;": it is more a case of there will be no where, that the coalition can not target and destroy.

The lengths some people will go to to defend war criminals. He meant exactly what he said, they&#39;re going to be dropping so many bombs that nowhere will be safe.


Originally posted by Jim
"this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military."

Yeah, they won&#39;t tell us how many civilians they killed either. The reason for keeping such things out of the public domain is self evident.

Plus, even if the Iraqi military knew exactly what was going to happen, they wouldn&#39;t be able to stop it. The Iraqi military was a joke.


Originally posted by Jim
Well your source is antiwar.com

As opposed to your source.... National Convention of Bootlickers and Lackeys&#33; :P


Originally posted by Jim
Secondly, this doesn&#39;t automatically mean the coalition caused the violence

There was a BBC report I saw somewhere that said that 40% of deaths were caused by "coalition troops", 7% by the insurgency. I think we could therefore (fairly) attribute 40% (at least) of these statistics to the actions of the "coalition forces".


Originally posted by Jim
Thirdly; even if these were caused by the coalition (which it wasn&#39;t)

Why weren&#39;t they caused by the "coalition"? ....armies occupying countries have only ever acted in one way, violently. The "rape of Berlin" wasn&#39;t a mistake, it&#39;s what armies do.


Originally posted by Jim
you don&#39;t think alot would also be made up from the patrols that your article then goes on to discuss?

Aren&#39;t the patrols part of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?


Originally posted by Jim
Especially Question 1ab, Question 3, Question 7

I don&#39;t have "Power Point", can you post the question?


Originally posted by Jim
so what?

If someone has already raped two people, do you not think that it is important to bring this up a the trial of their third rape?


Originally posted by Jim
fails to give an explanation as to why the coalition would purposely target the civilian population.

Are you completely oblivious to the history of all occupying forces, wars and armies (including and especially modern armies)?


Originally posted by Jim
"defeating an adversary by swift action against all aspects of their ability to resist, rather than by strictly military forces" - this does not mean: by bombing citizens to death.

Oh, and do tell me who resists if it&#39;s not citizens? ....and their "ability to resist", I guess that explains why hospitals and other facilities were targeted.


[email protected]
So again, you fail to prove it.

If I remember correctly, early numbers of Iraqi deaths (just after the invasion) were 10,000. How do 10,000 civilians die through "precision bombing"???
______

Just looking over the GlobalSecurity.org site, the days and events are vaguely reported. Day 1....


Operation Iraqi Freedom &#045; March 19/20
The Washington Post went on to report that one of the initial targets was an anonymous home in Southern Baghdad and that the munitions were to penetrate the walls and roof of the home and to detonate at various levels including a basement.

Link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom_d1.htm).

There are probably other "tit-bits" there.

[Soheran]

I wholly oppose terrorism as a tactic, whoever performs it, because I hold it to be immoral and unjustifiable.

There are two major forms of terrorism at work in Iraq, and in Israel/Palestine as well. There is the imperialist terrorism of the occupying power and the reactionary rightist terrorism of the fundamentalist militias. To support one because it is opposed to the other is an error, not least because they tend to reinforce one another.

The rule of fundamentalist reaction will not be any more friendly to leftist tendencies than the rule of the imperial power. Iraqi trade unions are not only being repressed by the occupying forces, but also by the fundamentalist reactionaries.

This piece by the Iranian Marxist Mansoor Hekmat, written a few months after 9/11/01, is a good analysis:

The World After September 11 - Part One: The War of Terrorists (http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/Sep11_1.html)

[WUOrevolt]

The targeting of civilians by a group is wrong and should be considered terrorism.

[andrew_the_fox]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 21 2005, 06:22 PM
Inside jobs.
absolutely

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:32 PM
i would support iraqi resistance if it didn&#39;t affect civillians that direct, blowing up 2 policeman and 6 innocent is the wrong way, killing the two pigs with a sniperrifle would be a better one
The Pentagon&#39;s own statistics say that the immense majority of the resistance&#39;s targets are not civilians. That&#39;s just propaganda by the media & government. see the article at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7670

http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

[red_orchestra]

One mans terrorist is another mans hero. Always remember that... George Bush calls on US warplanes to drop 100&#39;s of bombs on a city filled with men, women, and children in Iraq. To the US, those men and women who dropped the bombs are heros, to the people on the ground in the path of the destruction call those "US heros" are terrorists. You have to think 2 sided here...
So in the case of those "barbaric" freedom fighters, ie. Iraq resistance... you have to understand their cause. They want foriegn occupiers to go home... thats not much to ask for. It would save a lot of lives, but instead Capitalist pigs are interesting in manipulating the country to suit their own needs. Bad stuff.
I know one thing is true:

Good, is but a point of view.

[James]

Which suggests it happened before. Otherwise they would have said "for the first time since the start of the war".
No, you are wrong.
I strongly suggest that you read your own posts, and the links that you post. It does not suggest that sort of bombing had happened before. It stated: "US warplanes bombed targets in Iraq at the weekend - the first time since"


Well, terrorism doesn&#39;t have to kill people, just terrorise them.

I agree. Although the display of power was linked to the downing of a helicopter. We can assume therefore that they display was for those people. True, this may be a form of terrorism. Although as i made clear, this example is not relevent.



you&#39;ll see that most of the statistics for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" have not been released.
Exactly, hence why i was confused as to how you were going to prove that it had happened&#33;


In this environment, we must look at both obscure and (often) other events. If there was bombing type X in area A, why wouldn&#39;t it happen in area B.

I quite agree with what you propose; your general logic; but i must disagree with your assumptions that your logic is based on. Your "system" ignores purpose. You were trying to prove that baghdad had been blanket bombed before may. This operation was concerned with fighting the ba&#39;athist regieme (thus the targets were government communications, palaces, repbulican guard institutions etc). The example that you have given, and base your assumptions and system on, came after the fall of the actual regieme and baghdad. Indeed, it was in response to the shooting down of a helicopter. Baghdad bombing was focused with "cutting the head off" saddam&#39;s regieme.


We won&#39;t know the (accurate) answers until around 2033

Which means, i&#39;m afraid, it won&#39;t be proven either way till then&#33;


Well from the goals stated in GlobalSecurity.org, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is either ongoing or it was a complete failure.

Aye, but we have gone over this&#33;


No we don&#39;t, but the fact they&#39;re in Iraq is a pretty decent indicator that they know what&#39;s going on.

Being in iraq doesn&#39;t mean that their information is reliable. Do you believe coalition reports from within iraq? As i stated, it didn&#39;t make it clear where they got their information from. Whether it was from the newspaper article that they stated they had got some information from (but they failed to link it); or whether it was from another source.


Did the Pentagon change their "plan"? ....I&#39;m not aware of them doing that.


Well the initial plan of shock and awe had to change, because it didn&#39;t work on its own (some source predicted the tactic would work; which just goes to show prediction is not evidence).
It was a newspaper article (not the best source), from before the event (thus not proof of action - merely a suggestion as to what might happen), which even states that their article is not that helpful in predicting what exactly is going to happen/how/when.
Predicting something is going to happen is not evidence.


The lengths some people will go to to defend war criminals.

Pardon?? You know, that is rather offensive. And, as shown, you have not been able to back it up. Just precitions. Arguably, such offensive/knowingly false remarks are against board policy. Especially considering your a mod.
There is no need to resort to this sort of name calling cupcake&#33; (and no, calling you a cupcake is not quite up there with accusing someone of defending a war ciminal&#33;)



He meant exactly what he said

Which is that they could hit anyway. Not that they will hit eveything&#33;


they&#39;re going to be dropping so many bombs that nowhere will be safe.

Prove that assumption.


As opposed to your source.... National Convention of Bootlickers and Lackeys&#33;

What source?? The only link i have posted is a survey, which is not related to my main point - but related to your tangent point regarding iraqi perceptions etc.

I think your tone is getting a bit crap now. Just because i disagree that the coalition blanket bombed baghdad, doesn&#39;t make me a supporter of imperialism. I&#39;ve had these accusations thrown at me before. If you are going to be like that; feel free. But why bother?


There was a BBC report I saw somewhere that said that 40% of deaths were caused by "coalition troops", 7% by the insurgency. I think we could therefore (fairly) attribute 40% (at least) of these statistics to the actions of the "coalition forces".


And armchair, i saw a report that said you are wrong&#33;
:lol:
Look, you can&#39;t say that and expect it to carry any weight what so ever. You don&#39;t provide proof of this statistic, and therefore can offer no relevent details (such as what are the dates). Let alone a break down of cause of death.


Why weren&#39;t they caused by the "coalition"?

Read my post again.


Aren&#39;t the patrols part of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

Please tell me how patrols relate to the blanket bombing.
Armchair, read my post again. Either i wasn&#39;t clear, or you are being petty. Read my argument again, read your previous post again, and see what i said regarding how it relates to your argument that baghdad was blanket bombed before may.

Then i&#39;m sure you&#39;ll agree, that the statistics don&#39;t prove your argument.


I don&#39;t have "Power Point", can you post the question?


It took ages to load on this beast of a computer. I&#39;ll load it up again later on and post it for you.


If someone has already raped two people, do you not think that it is important to bring this up a the trial of their third rape?

Armchair, this "breaking it down" tactic that you are using is simply not working&#33; You are trying to prove blanket bombing took place over baghdad&#33; I suggest that you focus on that, as opposed to getting distracted by other operations. OIF and enduring freedom (or whatever it is called) are completely different in their nature. If you want to talk about that operation, i suggest you open a new thread.

I&#39;m trying to keep this focused, because the discussion keeps diverging more and more and more. Just focus on baghdad please.


Are you completely oblivious to the history of all occupying forces, wars and armies (including and especially modern armies)?


This demonstrates your misunderstanding as to what was the purpose of the bombing. Baghdad: to behead the regieme. Afghanistan: they are not trying to destroy the ability for an regieme like the ba&#39;athist regieme to organise itself/send orders to its infranty etc etc.

Use some bloody common sense armchair.


Oh, and do tell me who resists if it&#39;s not citizens?
Later, of course citizens have resisted.
The target however was the regieme. This was quite clear.


I guess that explains why hospitals

Ah yes, the bastion of civilian militias&#33;


If I remember correctly, early numbers of Iraqi deaths (just after the invasion) were 10,000. How do 10,000 civilians die through "precision bombing"???

One, this is an estimate.
Two, you need to prove some actual dates for this estimate.
Three, what area is this?
Four, you assume that 10,000 civlians were targetted and bombed to death.

You are just getting silly now armchair.

On the house, you muppet&#33; the article states : " Early indications were that the strikes were on three targets of opportunity (based on perishable intelligence) on the outskirts of Baghdad and that target consisted of elements of the Iraqi leadership. "



Now either give some actual evidence of the blanket bombing of baghdad: or admit that you were wrong&#33;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:55 AM

We won&#39;t know the (accurate) answers until around 2033

Which means, i&#39;m afraid, it won&#39;t be proven either way till then&#33;

Indeed.

If you wish when I have more time, I&#39;ll respond to each individual point. However I feel this debate has come to somewhat of an end. Therefore, unless you have any objections, I&#39;m going to let this debate "die a slow death".

[commiecrusader]

Terrorism by definition is to create an atmosphere of terror in the public. As such, I would suggest that terrorism is wrong, and certainly not the correct way to win the hearts and minds of the people to a minority held view, or even a large view attempting to be heard. I have said before and will say again that the only way to promote a cause through violence, is to direct attacks against the real enemy themselves, not pawns or civilians, and to clearly justify and explain your actions by releasing tapes to the media. Hence, I would suggest that in Iraq the insurgency should target military convoys, infrastructure, installations and waypoints, and leave the Police and civilians out of it as best they can. They should also leak frequent videotapes to Al-Jazeera and other broadcasters, either radio or TV, explaining what progress they are making and what actions they have performed and why as best as they can without compromising their own security.