Thread: What makes terrorists?

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I'm all for removing embedded reporters and getting on with the business of war.

Whose interests are served by that?

^ even though I see what you mean SK and somehow agree, why would it be impossible to believe that most Iraqis were happy under Saddam ? it's not like he was advertising his murders on TV.

Would you wear a uniform and march with your also uniformed neighbour against an army of tanks and a battalion of soldiers, or would you perhaps wear ordinary clothes and masks, hide in houses, snipe and cause as much damage as you could, if your country was occupied or taken over by a totalitarian regime?
Or perhaps, you would prefer not to become such a cowardly terrorist and do nothing?

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by surasak

I asked the question already to someone else: if a foreign invader came into the United States and the U.S. military was too impotent to deal with the problem would you take up arms against the invader or would you fold?

Seems like a good analogy but it's weak. The specific example I hope you are referring to is Iraq. If I was in the same situation as the Iraqi people were then I would be happy that somebody thought enough to finally give me a chance at freedom. Especially the freedom to piss and moan about everything my government did to me.

And if I had a group like say the KKK or the Black Panthers telling me that the invaders were wrong to free me from the threat of murder, rape, torture then I would take up arms against those extremists. That's the difference between Americans and Iraqis though ... we don't sit around waiting for somebody else to free us or save us.

Ah, the tired "we're saving the Iraqis" argument.

I could support this position....if in fact it were true. Iraq was not the country with an I that had experienced democracy in the past and knew what it was like. If your position were true then why aren't they all lining up the streets of Baghdad and fighting for it?

Naw, the 'let's give them freedom under our terms' argument doesn't wash. They didn't want it and there's no proof any reasonable number of them want it now.

If it were about spreading democracy thenwhy have we ignored every other country where there's an oppressive goverment? Why do we support a seat on the UN for a Communist goverment over a democratic one?

It's because the other places don't have reserves of that mysterious Texas tea. This is what got us into trouble in Iran in the past, and, strangely is getting us into trouble again.

The people in this administration clearly have never read that book by that Chinese fellow

Originally Posted by stroller

Would you wear a uniform and march with your also uniformed neighbour against an army of tanks and a battalion of soldiers, or would you perhaps wear ordinary clothes and masks, hide in houses, snipe and cause as much damage as you could, if your country was occupied or taken over by a totalitarian regime?
Or perhaps, you would prefer not to become such a cowardly terrorist and do nothing?

If some country invaded the U.S. that's how I would fight, and, if it turned out a certain religious or ethnic group aided the invader's efforts I would fight them as well.

The fact that people are fighting the 'coalition' should be no surprise. But some people expect the inhabitants to just roll over, be cowards, and give up.

*coalition used lightly since the coalition is about finished.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I'm all for removing embedded reporters and getting on with the business of war.

Whose interests are served by that?

Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

Very truly yours,

Tom Cotton
Baghdad, Iraq

Power Line: A word from Lt. Cotton

Clamp down on the press? I guess that's the next step in destroying the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by surasak

Clamp down on the press? I guess that's the next step in destroying the Bill of Rights.

I don't advocate clamping down on them. I just want them out of their embedded positions.

So embedded reporters have discovered the classified anti-terrorist financing program? Is this why you want them removed?

And btw, none of this answers the quoted question.

Originally Posted by storekeeper

Seems like a good analogy but it's weak. The specific example I hope you are referring to is Iraq. If I was in the same situation as the Iraqi people were then I would be happy that somebody thought enough to finally give me a chance at freedom. Especially the freedom to piss and moan about everything my government did to me.

Storekeeper no grazing here please. What freedom are you talking about? Why don't you guys go all the way to Pakistan and free them from an army dictator? Why don't you guys go to Myanmar and free them too? Please don't give me "freedom" bullshit. I'm already having a lot of it from your leader, GW Bush. You'll only know the causes of terrorism if you, for a while, give up on Fox news and think neutral. Another way of knowing the causes of terrorism is to go through what those people have been through. I'm not in favour of terrorism whatsoever but I think there're certain factors that forces people to pick up arms. Iraqi terrorism, as you Americans call it, has it's own reason. Those people don't have enough arms to fight with the mighty Americans. Guriella tactics is the only way they can defeat the enemy. Now don't go telling me that you ain't believe in guriella wars because it's taught in the American army too.

Originally Posted by stroller

Sorry, I'm drunk, I'll log off now

Thank God your HUMAN !

Originally Posted by Mhz

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Sorry mate but Iran isn't an Arab country. You keep making basic factual errors. Please try reading a little before posting. I thought your Rabbinical traditon would aide your debating skills, but obviously not.

MD you seem to have a talent for splitting hairs.
When Iranians share the same proclaimed mission of the destruction and annihilation of Israel along with their Hamas and Hezbolah pals, distinctions of who's or what and Arab is seems to fade.
When a nation like Iran who has been subsidizing Arab terrorists for nearly 30 years the distinction of Persian or Arab is rather moot.
If you support Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and their current underwriting of middle east terrorism just say so.
Or perhaps your disingenuous demeanor is simply a result the common and popular european anti-americanism. Which in itself is banality to the extreme.

Thank you Mr Earl !

Talkin to yourself, eh??

I thought your going to some kind of University in Thailand?
I guess a diploma will leave you guessing like the rest of these bright fellows who think I'am a Troll !
It is O.K. Mhz....you are not the only fool(ed) !

And you think yourself to be so important that if I think you are a troll I can be referred to as a fool??

Originally Posted by stroller

If so, does it have to be state sponsored terror against Christians, or are Jews also included?

That's a funny question.
Does it make any difference to your argument which group the terrorism is directed at?

Being tediously argumentative for the sake of it as usual, but it's just as well your thicko skin lets little if anything through...if you bothered reading the post your selective and out of context quote was responding to, slowly, you, no, not you but a less shallow person might arrive at the conclusion it was not my argument that was suspect but that of the person who inferred the Iraqi invasion was wrong, but would have been justified if Iraq was the sponsor of state terror.

Go on, set your dog on attack.

To be tedious again: the quote was selective, not out of context. I selected the bit which didn't make sense to me.
I hope you can forgive me.

Originally Posted by stroller

I hope you can forgive me.

Oh boy...what's happened to you?

Appeasing the enemy often works for me...

Come now, let's cross swords as often as you or I or we both wish, but enemies? - that suggests you're taking the banter or yourself too seriously, and if that's what it has reached then I concede, you are right, always have been and always will be.

Not in the head, though.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, keda.

Originally Posted by stroller

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, keda.

That's right!
Our Headmaster has developed a good sense of humor of late.

So after almost two years do we have less terrorists?

Originally Posted by machangezi

So after almost two years do we have less terrorists?

Fewer. The word you're struggling for is fewer.

If you can count it, it's fewer.
For example: fewer terrorists.

If you can't count it, you use less.
For example less intelligence.

To sum: You might say less potassium perchlorate, but fewer kilograms of potassium perchlorate -- because you can't count potassium perchlorate but you can count the kilograms.

350 baht please.

What makes a terrorist?

The word itself.

Some would say 'Freedom Fighter'.