What is expected of the terrorists and insurgants? Nothing? They are expected to win at all costs?
What is expected of the terrorists and insurgants? Nothing? They are expected to win at all costs?
The people in this forum and many others ... apparently expect the terrorists to hold out long enough to outlast GWBs Presidency so that we can tuck tail and run under a Democrat.
Should the world community expect some sort of minumn level of civil behavior from terrorists and insurgants? Is nothing expected of them? They are members of the world community. Would it provide any insight to have their actions evaluated by mental health workers? Maybe it would better help us to understand them and better help us to determine what motivates them to be so extreme. The conclusions from the analysis could then be conveyed to the world community so people could be better informed.
"Terrorists" are not a recognised state and haven't signed any treaties nor agreements, I believe.
Thanks for contributing a clarifying post. Terrorists by definition are excused because they make no promises? There should be something expected of them as members of the world community. Is anything expected of them?
I would think the same is expected of them as you would expect of your citizens, if your country was invaded because someone wanted your natural resources, but claimed it was for your own good and the good of the world.Originally Posted by attaboy
I wouldn't expect American citizens to plot and carryout the murder of American children or to chop off the heads of American civilians or the heads of foreign civilians who provide support to the occupiers.
I've heard the argument that at least they have the courage (conviction?) to take their victim's lives themselves up close with their own hands. I think the act warrants a mental evaluation. Perhaps the evaluation can distinguish if they take pleasure in the ultra violent act. It may be due to sexual repression.
And why would someone say murdering with bare hands is courageous in this day and age? When was murder of innocents and unarmed victims ever courageous?
Insurgents and insurgencies are not necesarrily terrorists all or most of the time.Originally Posted by attaboy
Some insurgencies throughout history have use methods that could be called "acts of terrorism."
You don't know that. Let's imagine this situation:Originally Posted by attaboy
The Chinese/Commie/Koreans invade your country. You lost. Your government (Kerry at the top) is cooperating with the ennemy as well as half the population. Only a minority don't want to give up, it's a lost cause. What do they do ? Will they send a message to the invader that those US patriots will not roll ? sure they do. How they do it ? through act of resistance of course aka terrorism here.
Now the question Attaboy:
1. Will you and SK rollover with the rest of the population and cooperate with the Chinese invaders ?
2. Or do you enroll as a resistant patriot and fight the ennemy until the end
This should get some interesting answer from our resident Patriots !!!
Boon Mee you can play too and answer honnestly.
You're saying, "You don't know that". The west is not used to seeing head choppings. It's not government sanctioned and broadcast on television in the west. We don't understand the tradition and where it arises from. Perhaps the general population of the west should study arab tradition and culture so we can empathize with people who come from a place where head chopping is traditional.
So who are the terrorists here?
The people trying to protect their country from foreign invaders or the invaders?
We could use Butterfly's definition to help determine: I will simply define terrorism here as the specific task of killing civilians in a suicide attack.
The majority of Iraqi people voted in a legitimate government. The terrrorists and insurgents are conducting a war against coalition troops and the Iraqi government.
The Americans are conducting terrorists acts, too.Originally Posted by attaboy
They just do it in a different way: technology, laser guided missles, napalm.
Apache helicopters, tanks, etc.
In Iraq, Occupied territories (via $2 billion in arms sales to Israel per year), Latin America, South America, and many other places.
The Americans are just more removed and more sophisticated in their acts of terrorism.
............
At this time in Iraq, the government has not established legitimacy.Originally Posted by attaboy
The Sunnis will be the big losers in this new federalist government. They know this. They have nothing to lose.
Only their lives, it seems. Oh yes, nothing.Originally Posted by Milkman
The Sunnis used to run the whole country, and enjoy the spoils of their rule. Oil revenue, running the secret police, military, government positions etc.Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog
Now they will be in the Al-Anbar province which is mostly a wasteland, devoid of oil.
The Kurds are doning well, and will be getting a lot of revenue if and when the oil supplies can be increased.
The Shiites will get a lot of oil revenue also. They are the statistical majority at 62% and will run government, security forces for the most part. They will give little gifts to the Sunnis for some political agreement. Sunni comprise about 31%, the Kurds the rest.
In the future, there may be reprisals on an institutional level direct by the Shiites towards the Sunnis.
The Sectarian killings are going both ways: Shiites killing Sunnis; Sunnis killing Shiites.
The neighborhoods are being reorganized right now.
Last edited by barbaro; 23-06-2006 at 02:18 PM.
I still can't understand what difference it makes what religion someone has, especially within the main ones. They are all supposed to worship the same god aren't they?
I think you are underestimating our ability to torture. Under the right circumstance we could accomplish much more than chopping heads off. It's not about Arab culture. You are showing above a deep misunderstanding of the problem. You are trying to blame a subgroup but you ignore the facts surrounding the circumstances to those acts. Maybe instead of chopping heads off, we would crush them. See it's not different at the end.Originally Posted by attaboy
The French resistance did act of terrorism against the French to help Americans and the allies in their invasion. Shouldn't they have done it ? even if it meant saving American and allies lives ?
see it's all relative, not black and white.
I notice you conveniently failed to answer my questions above about your involvment if you were to be invaded.
Last edited by Butterfly; 23-06-2006 at 02:22 PM.
Me, too.Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog
I think this just reinforces my belief that religion is tribalism.
I think religion was created by humans to provide some kind of social order 2,000 years ago (and before in Greek and Roman, and other cultures). There was no nation-state in most of the world. Relgions created allegiance, some social order, and the "morality" on what behaviour is right and wrong.
In Iraq Shiites and Sunnis inter-married, and lived in the same neigborhoods, before the removal of Saddam.
My question has been: how do you tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?
They are both Arabic, ethnically.
Apparently on Iraqi I.D. cards a person's sect on actually on the I.D. card.
I just read an article about an Iraqi Shiite that had a fake I.D. card that stated he was a Sunni. When Sunni insurgents stopped a bus and lined up all of the Shiites and shot them, they let him, go.
Ain't being religious, great?
Violent acts in war are terrible even with a just cause. To profit from war is terrible too but people do it and it's the present state of the world. Terrorism is not the calculatated policy of the US military. The fire bombings of WWII were though.
I'd say the government is legitimate. Time will more accurately tell. The members of the government were elected by the people and they are authorized by the people to carry out the laws of their country. Whether it is a just government I can't say. It has popular acceptance.
edited : removed sentece typed twice
Last edited by attaboy; 23-06-2006 at 02:37 PM.
BF did the French target children and others who were not involved in the struggle?
And why should I get involved in your scenario? I going to sleep.
They target everybody and I am sure there were children as collateral damages, at least German children.Originally Posted by attaboy
As expected, you cowardly avoid to answer that scenario because you know it will conflict with your anti-terrorism rants above. Typical.
Sorry to come back quite late to this, but as has been pointed out, first we need to distinguish: "terrorists" is not the same as "insurgents", though the terms do overlap, as MM said: some insurgents use terrorist tactics, some legitimate states also use terrorist tactics.Originally Posted by attaboy
Some terrorists are not insurgents.
Noone is "excused".
But I find the question of what to expect a bit strange, it makes as much sense as expecting thieves and rapists to keep the law of the country. Time to remember why such extreme measures are used to go after them: because they are terrorists - or criminals, if you like.
Last edited by stroller; 23-06-2006 at 06:30 PM.
I don't think the current Iraqi government has proved legitimacy - yet.Originally Posted by attaboy
Whether they do or not, remains to be seen.
Elections don't mean much because the parameters for these elections were set - once again - by foreigners.
Remember Napoleon going into Egypt 200 years ago?
A single nation state set up by the British around WWI does not seem much different than the current nation-state attempting to be set-up by the United States: divide and conquer.
Divide and Conquer.
It's worked throughout history.
Will it work in a single nation-state in Iraq?
Wait at least 5 years.
^^I've taken even longer to get back to this. Ok so the question goes to Hamas and Hezbollah militias is anything expected of them? They can't be excused if they are extensions of legal political parties and in the case of Hamas represetative of the government of Palestinian terrritories. If they want to be treated as legitimate there has got to be a minimun level of civility expected of them. If they can parade in uniform why can't they fight in uniform? And the shouldn't use child soldiers either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)