Why I Support the War in Iraq

[musik_man]

Prometheus, but what Kelly said was that democracy categorically could not be forced.  In this case Germany and Japan are good examples.  And I truly can't see what makes Japan more fertile than Iraq.  Japan was a land that sent bonzai charges and kamikaze fighters at America.  This is hardly the culture of a democracy.

And when I say 'Germany didn't exist', I'm refering to the fact that Germany was merely a set of small states with few ties until 1870.(although they did form some preliminary attachments in the 1850's)

[ada]

the point of the war is to save more lifes than it expends, right?

So not right and so naive.

I suggest you try reading a bit of Clausewitz.

War is about expending the maximum amount of force, killing the most people, inflicting the most damage on another nation, aka "the enemy", in order to impose your will for the purpose of domination, wealth, power.

Condoleeza Rice once used the quaint term "coercive diplomacy" to describe war. Clausewitz said it's diplomacy by another means.

Get real and forget about the phoney altruism. War isn't about doing good. Anyone who thinks so is buying the tiredest propaganda line in the book.

[anekdote]

look what I just found
https://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/16266/YAAFM_12_Muslims.html
... :O

Awesome. Hit the nail right on the head.

So not right and so naive.

I suggest you try reading a bit of Clausewitz.

War is about expending the maximum amount of force, killing the most people, inflicting the most damage on another nation, aka "the enemy", in order to impose your will for the purpose of domination, wealth, power.

Condoleeza Rice once used the quaint term "coercive diplomacy" to describe war. Clausewitz said it's diplomacy by another means.

Get real and forget about the phoney altruism. War isn't about doing good. Anyone who thinks so is buying the tiredest propaganda line in the book.

Expand and conquer or get expanded upon and conquered. It is not that difficult a concept to grasp. Sure, war is all about domination and all sorts of other "morally inacceptable" things, but such is life and such is humanity.

[mephisto]

Going to war again Iraq was a wrong thing to do.

[gorbee natcase]

Listening to Americans talk makes me feel they are very insular, with little care and respect to the rest of the planet. I don't dislike Americans Quite the opposite but you don't do yourselves any favours on the world stage by constantly forcing your oppinions on other cultures.

What do you know of Iraqi; culture/History/people

[stevie]

So not right and so naive.

I suggest you try reading a bit of Clausewitz.

War is about expending the maximum amount of force, killing the most people, inflicting the most damage on another nation, aka "the enemy", in order to impose your will for the purpose of domination, wealth, power.

Condoleeza Rice once used the quaint term "coercive diplomacy" to describe war. Clausewitz said it's diplomacy by another means.

Get real and forget about the phoney altruism. War isn't about doing good. Anyone who thinks so is buying the tiredest propaganda line in the book.

im aware of this idea, and if its true, its bad.

but still, whatever the motives, the result is more important-
if the war has saved more lives than it has expended, then it was a good thing.

[mephisto]

but still, whatever the motives, the result is more important-
if the war has saved more lives than it has expended, then it was a good thing.

How on earth has it saved lifes

[musik_man]

How on earth has it saved lifes

ummm, by removing a blood thirsty despot...

And ending the sanction regime that hurt Iraqis and left Saddam in control.

[Kassaa]

ummm, by removing a blood thirsty despot...

And ending the sanction regime that hurt Iraqis and left Saddam in control.

I'm starting to believe that the Americans hurt more Iraqis than Saddam :\ .

[johnny-boy]

I'm starting to believe that the Americans hurt more Iraqis than Saddam :\ .

Latest Iraqi civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq is estimated between 40-50,000. Also civilians are 2.5 times more likely to be killed today than before the military intervention (IBC).

John

[rivaldo]

"Without European colonialism much of the world would be much poorer."

"Those Arabs couldn't take care of their own country under Saddam so we had to go and clean up the place for them."

"People are dying, sure, but they're mostly TERRORISTS"

"FACT: Islam is a religion rooted in rape, pillage, and murder. People who deny this are ignoring history. "

"If the US profits from the oil it's simply a just reward for the great service we're doing in the Middle East. "

"God bless the U-S-A. Down with Arab terrorism. Long live Israel."

I would quote all those things and say that it's too racist to be replied, and in many internet forums this guy could be banned for saying things like this.

But after reading:
"I'm too intelligent to serve in the military. "

I noticed that it's probably a joke... A quite disrespectful joke, once there are real people dying in those places.

[zheer]

  I predict, that this war will last 3 - 4 years, by 2009 - 2010 American troops will continue to rape murde torcher civilians. By 2012 British troops will be out of IRAQ.
By 2030 American troops will have little control over IRAQ and the nation will gain some independane and normality. By 2036 America will be in Grave danger thats the price they will pay for Oil money and power. Just wait and see.

[prometheus]

The US will withdraw before the next presidential elections.

[zheer]

The US will withdraw before the next presidential elections.

  When is that ?

[cfortunato]

ummm, by removing a blood thirsty despot...

And ending the sanction regime that hurt Iraqis and left Saddam in control.

The problem is, we didn't just "remove" him.  One of the fallacies of the Bush administration is the illusion that you can just "remove" somebody, and there are no consequences.  They DID think that they would remove Hussein, replace him somebody else, and things would just continue as though nothing had happened.  Which, frankly, is one of the STUPIDEST and most delusional foreign policy moves EVER in the History of the United States.  Everyone but THEM knew that deposing Saddam Hussein would have serious consequences.  EVERYONE.

We didn't "remove" him.  It isn't like you had Saddam, and now you have NO Saddam and nothing else changes.  We REPLACED Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, with Terrorists flooding the country, with Suicide Bombings, and with an oppressive theocracy and with incipient civil war.  We also removed the ONLY check on Iran in the Middle East, and Iran was ALWAYS a bigger problem than Iraq.  And now they have nuclear capability.  And that is DIRECTLY related to the fact that Iraq - their enemy - has been completely destabilized.

Saddam Hussein was an evil brutal dictator.  But you could walk the streets in Iraq, bombs weren't going off right and left, and you didn't have fundamentalist Islam enforced by law.

What does it say about OUR incompetence to say that Iraqis now appear to be WORSE off under US than they were under Saddam Hussein?

I mean, how bad is THAT?

[cfortunato]

The US will withdraw before the next presidential elections.

No, I don't think that they will.  Bush's "plan" is to stay there until it's someone else's problem.  And to declare that his political opponents have no plan.

[zheer]

  The thing about Al Qaeda, and i must say i knew nothing about them prior to 9/11, is that they are able to do the most horrific thing possibly when-ever and haw ever they like. They are also going to be around for a very very long time.

[musik_man]

Zheer, America doesn't rape and torture civilians.

Prometheus, I have no idea why you think Bush will leave Iraq.  I'd eat my shoe if Bush takes our troops out.

The problem is, we didn't just "remove" him.  One of the fallacies of the Bush administration is the illusion that you can just "remove" somebody, and there are no consequences.  They DID think that they would remove Hussein, replace him somebody else, and things would just continue as though nothing had happened.  Which, frankly, is one of the STUPIDEST and most delusional foreign policy moves EVER in the History of the United States.  Everyone but THEM knew that deposing Saddam Hussein would have serious consequences.  EVERYONE.

We didn't "remove" him.  It isn't like you had Saddam, and now you have NO Saddam and nothing else changes.  We REPLACED Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, with Terrorists flooding the country, with Suicide Bombings, and with an oppressive theocracy and with incipient civil war.  We also removed the ONLY check on Iran in the Middle East, and Iran was ALWAYS a bigger problem than Iraq.  And now they have nuclear capability.  And that is DIRECTLY related to the fact that Iraq - their enemy - has been completely destabilized.

Saddam Hussein was an evil brutal dictator.  But you could walk the streets in Iraq, bombs weren't going off right and left, and you didn't have fundamentalist Islam enforced by law.

What does it say about OUR incompetence to say that Iraqis now appear to be WORSE off under US than they were under Saddam Hussein?

I mean, how bad is THAT?

Iraqis now have a democracy.  Just because it isn't up to Western standards doesn't mean that it's worthless.  I'd say that the fact that political opponents don't have to worry about having their wives and daughters being raped in front of them or worry about being fed through an industrial plastic shredder, is a good sign of improvement.  In a decade the insurgency will only be a memory and Iraq will be a much better place for all the hardships they've endured.  I doubt that any theocracy or civil war will happen.

[prometheus]

No, I don't think that they will.  Bush's "plan" is to stay there until it's someone else's problem.  And to declare that his political opponents have no plan.

Bush will not run for another election. So Bush will be irrelevant. Yes, the plan will be to get other countries to clean up the mess. Look what they have done in Afghanistan. Soon NATO will have taken over almost everything. Then they can focus on withdrawing from Iraq.

[zheer]

Zheer, America doesn't rape and torture civilians.
 

    Come on dont turn a blind eye, unless you find it too disturbing to deal with.

[musik_man]

    Come on dont turn a blind eye, unless you find it too disturbing to deal with.

Or because I haven't seen any good evidence of widespread abuses.

[instromp]

Or because I haven't seen any good evidence of widespread abuses.

Hmmm, i remember from a while back,this was on the news, that some iraqi detainees's were being "abused" by some americans troops.They were stripped nude then piled the iraqi men on top of eachother and then took pictures of it,quite disturbing.Also i remember they were put on leashes naked like dogs,and they took pics of that too.There was more stuff but i can't remember it.

[cfortunato]

I'd say that the fact that political opponents don't have to worry about having their wives and daughters being raped in front of them or worry about being fed through an industrial plastic shredder, is a good sign of improvement.

They have to worry about watching their wife and daughter get blown up in front of them, or beheaded.

You had Saddam Hussein.  Now you have Al Qaeda.  Keep in mind that Zarqawi was NOT IN IRAQ before we invaded.  We opened the borders, we left them unguarded, and the biggest scum on the planet came flooding in.  Now Al Qauda has a beachhead in the Middle East that they didn't have before; they have a terrorist training ground that they didn't have before; they have a recruiting tool that they didn't have before.  Bush has take the scum that caused 9/11 and made them stronger than ever.

And really - democracy?  They can sometimes cast a ballot.  It makes no difference.  It's lipstick on a pig.  "Look - we voted" and things keep blowing up.  No matter who they vote for, things keep blowing up.

[prometheus]

Actually, the democracy in Iraq isn't due to the US but in spite of the US. al-Sistani criticised the US plans for the Iraqi government, the constitution, not being democratic enough. Then, though peaceful protest and activism they forced the US to their knees.

When Bremmer proposed to have indirect elections al_sistani opposed this, calling for direct elections. He refused to meet Bremmer and he even pronounced a a fatwa and there were tenthousands of people demostrating in Najaf, Basra and Karballa and hundred thousands in Baghdad. A very strange thing to happen in the middle east to get so many people on the street.

In the end the US went on the knees.

[musik_man]

They have to worry about watching their wife and daughter get blown up in front of them, or beheaded.

You had Saddam Hussein.  Now you have Al Qaeda.  Keep in mind that Zarqawi was NOT IN IRAQ before we invaded.  We opened the borders, we left them unguarded, and the biggest scum on the planet came flooding in.  Now Al Qauda has a beachhead in the Middle East that they didn't have before; they have a terrorist training ground that they didn't have before; they have a recruiting tool that they didn't have before.  Bush has take the scum that caused 9/11 and made them stronger than ever.

And really - democracy?  They can sometimes cast a ballot.  It makes no difference.  It's lipstick on a pig.  "Look - we voted" and things keep blowing up.  No matter who they vote for, things keep blowing up.

Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war.  He received medical treatment in Baghdad.  Al Qaida has grounds to suffer utter defeat.  They have taken terrible losses since the US responded to 9/11, and blowing up mosques in Iraq is killing their support among the public.

In general, I'd also like to add, that it seems some people think that if everything isn't perfect, someone must have screwed up.  The US could take the best course of action at every opportunity and still have serious trouble.

Hmmm, i remember from a while back,this was on the news, that some iraqi detainees's were being "abused" by some americans troops.They were stripped nude then piled the iraqi men on top of eachother and then took pictures of it,quite disturbing.Also i remember they were put on leashes naked like dogs,and they took pics of that too.There was more stuff but i can't remember it.

That would be Abu Graib, but noe that I said widespread abuse.  A couple squads of bored soldiers humiliating prisoners(humiliating not torturing) is not the same as saying that Americans are raping and torturing Iraqis.

[instromp]

That would be Abu Graib, but noe that I said widespread abuse.  A couple squads of bored soldiers humiliating prisoners(humiliating not torturing) is not the same as saying that Americans are raping and torturing Iraqis.

Yes, not widespread, but i would have to disagree about the torture part.It may not be physical torture but i'd say mental torture.I say that because:your put on aleash with a bag over our head,what could going thru his mind,am i going to be strangled? And the part with being naked and piled with other men,thats very indescribable on how a person would feel. They will have those memories of what has been done to them forever,scared for life as to say.I think that is torture

[prometheus]

Weren't there a few people that died in american prisons? And didn't american soldiers kill people on purpose out of revenge? Including woman and children?

It's not that this is strange. When you deploy soldiers there will be atrocities. It is just that the US, as the aggressor, is responsible for all crimes that are the result of this act of aggression. At least according to the principles of Nuremberg.

You cannot prevent these incidents. There will be more as long as the US occupies Iraq.
Plus, the US does deploy abuse as a way of interrogation. They don't call it torture but people more concerned with human rights do. Actually, I think the US only considers something torture when it causes permanent physical damage.

As for how much incidents there are, this is and will remain unknown. At least for quite a while. These incidents are always covered up.

[musik_man]

Yes, not widespread, but i would have to disagree about the torture part.It may not be physical torture but i'd say mental torture.I say that because:your put on aleash with a bag over our head,what could going thru his mind,am i going to be strangled? And the part with being naked and piled with other men,thats very indescribable on how a person would feel. They will have those memories of what has been done to them forever,scared for life as to say.I think that is torture

Unfortunately, that level of torture regularly occurs in frat hous initiations.

[prometheus]

Mental torture is just as destructive as physical torture. Maybe even more so.

[musik_man]

Mental torture is just as destructive as physical torture. Maybe even more so.

Putting men in a naked pyramid is not mental torture.

[instromp]

Putting men in a naked pyramid is not mental torture.

 

[musik_man]

Why is that a shocking opinion?  It's humiliating and wrong, but in an entirely different class then attaching a car battery to someone's genitals.

[prometheus]

You don't understand how it works. It is about systhematical humiliation, dehumanisation. A human is a social animal and the position it has in a group is very important. If the position and the role of a person is to be a prisoner that is to be humiliated then the person will be mentally destoyed.

Also, those reservists have been told by people knowledgable in arabic culture what to do to them to humiliate them. Like you say, what's so bad about being a naked pyramid? Normal american people, or maybe rather the average reservist, wouldn't come up with the idea to humiliate people in such a way.
But to an arab this is actually very humiliating; different culture. Normal people don't know this. Interrogation experts do.

[instromp]

You don't understand how it works. It is about systhematical humiliation, dehumanisation. A human is a social animal and the position it has in a group is very important. If the position and the role of a person is to be a prisoner that is to be humiliated then the person will be mentally destoyed.

Also, those reservists have been told by people knowledgable in arabic culture what to do to them to humiliate them. Like you say, what's so bad about being a naked pyramid? Normal american people, or maybe rather the average reservist, wouldn't come up with the idea to humiliate people in such a way.
But to an arab this is actually very humiliating; different culture. Normal people don't know this. Interrogation experts do.

Indeed

[musik_man]

Indeed

Humiliation=/=torture

It's fun to watch all you guys point out the specks in the US's eyes and ignore all the logs in the eyes of despots.

[musik_man]

but still, whatever the motives, the result is more important-
if the war has saved more lives than it has expended, then it was a good thing.

It's not as simple as this.  There are things in life (such as freedom) that are worth dying for.

[cfortunato]

Humiliation=/=torture

It's fun to watch all you guys point out the specks in the US's eyes and ignore all the logs in the eyes of despots.

It's sickening to watch you indulge in the same old smear tactics where you claim that pointing out the wrongs done in the name of the United States is somehow "ignoring" the stuff done by by other people.  That's transparent garbage and it fools nobody.  Nobody is ignoring anything.  But Al Qaeda is not claiming to act in my name or on my behalf.  They don't represent ME.  The United States DOES.  And the actions of the United States reflect on ME.  And I never thought I would see the day when THIS COUNTRY would defend the torture of prisoners, and when our ATTORNEY GENERAL publicly tried to claim that that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint."  

 I don't what YOU were taught, but I was taught that that sort of heinous crap was done by our ENEMIES, and that was WHY they were our enemies.

I don't "IGNORE" atrocities done by others.

Why are YOU ignoring atrocities, whitewashing atrocities and DEFENDING atrocities?

And PROJECTING your behavior onto others?

[cfortunato]

There are things in life (such as freedom) that are worth dying for.

And stuffing the pockets of war profiteers and Bush's cronies isn't one of them.

[musik_man]

And stuffing the pockets of war profiteers and Bush's cronies isn't one of them.

I'm sorry, but this is by far the stupidest anti-war arguement on the books.  Ever since Marx's wonderful ideas became public, every war is for 'war profiteers.'  Guess what.  War seriously hurts businesses outside of the arms industry.  If you truly believe that corporations control government, then you should acknowledge that they don't benefit from war.  Take the Jr. High Marxist analysis elsewhere.

Seriously, the majority of Americans supported going into Iraq, and still supported it after no WMD's were found(although some were actually found this week.)  Is it that hard to imagine that the Bush administration genuinely believes the arguements that people like I believe? 

I'm not defending atrocities.  I'm pointing out that a naked human pyramid is not an atrocity.  I believe the technical term for this sort of argumentation is called 'common sense.'

[stevie]

It's not as simple as this.  There are things in life (such as freedom) that are worth dying for.

i wouldnt die for someone's freedom, because i wouldnt be around to feel the gratitude of those ive freed.

[bflatminor24]

Quite right. Japan and Germany are nothing alike. My point was that the argument is made that one cannot force democracy in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. And that this argument is countered with the cases of Germany and Japan.
Just like Germany and Japan are nothing alike. So are Japan and Afghanistan/Iraq not alike. Actually even Iraq and Afghanistan differ.

The japanese people, at least most of them, were willing to absorb western culture. Why this is exactly is still a mystery to me. But the attitude from the people in the middle east is way way different.

As for Germany, I guess it only came to exist as it is now when Germany was united in 1990. What is now germany has existed in different countries and different feudal areas if you go back even further.

I guess one can say the same thing about the US. First off, the US isn't a country like most countries. They are a unified group of states. The borders of the US have also changed. Part of Mexico has been annexed, Alaska has been bought. Hawai has been annexed. Philiphines has been annexed and given back. Oceania has been fought over against Japan. Etc etc. But all this is irrelevant for the point made, whoever made it I forgot. Surely Charlemange has his german empire, or rather holy roman empire , before the new world was officially discovered. But like Voltaire said: "The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire." So I guess you are right after all...

Yeah, this is true, but you're digressing. Whatever relevancy this has to our imperialist policy in Iraq  is mitigated by flaunting historical trivia. Case in point: Stevie, what the hell are you talking about? I can't find anything redeeming in your post. I thought you were cool because Panic said you were an Alkan fan (aka Comme_le_vent) but you lost my respect after that childish and asinine post about American policy. It wasn't an educated post nor was it an open-minded one, which invalidates your opinion. And don't pull that song and dance about how "opinions can't be wrong," because they simply can be, just as President Bush's opinion that WMDs existed in Iraq was wrong.

And since when is this about our troops' valor and intelligence? Who are you to put them on trial? Go ahead, assert your own intelligence, we're not convinced (I take the liberty of speaking for the group on this one) and certainly won't be if you continue to make specious statements about facts and ideas. If you have a bone to pick with someone or a group of people, at least make your case on facts OR educated opinion and analysis. Then you'll have ground to stand on.

And what the hell is this "liberal biased media" crap? How does the media's credibility justify government policy? It doesn't one way or another. Keep the issues separate, if you feel the media unfairly report facts or sensationalize war, fair enough, but don't use this as some kind of twisted apologia for Bush's policy. Not that I am an opponent of all of Bush's policy myself, but your logic isn't sound and your comment regarding the media and our policy was certainly a non sequitur.

Personally I think this war is, in the long run, a means to a greater end, if you will. Skeptics use the past four years as an example from which to extrapolate the outcome. But this is inane logic, four years isn't nearly enough to predict any outcome. Rebuilding a country takes decades. And I definitely think we're speeding up the process of reform, seeing as how Mr. Hussein wasn't exactly a Nelson Mandela in his own country; why should we expect any altruism on his part internationally either? He was a rotten seed and frankly I'm glad to dispose of a rotten seed rather than wait for a rotten apple.

[bflatminor24]

i wouldnt die for someone's freedom, because i wouldnt be around to feel the gratitude of those ive freed.

Well, aren't you a selfish one. That's not a very ethical opinion, now is it? Have you no regard for greater common good? And thank God this wasn't an agenda harbored by the movers and shakers, because I'll be damned if Wells, Anthony, King, and some would argue Christ himself ever reaped the fruits of their labor. People struggle for a just cause and if they're lucky, generations later, others will reap what they sewed. Altruism is dead isn't it(?)...

[bflatminor24]

It's sickening to watch you indulge in the same old smear tactics where you claim that pointing out the wrongs done in the name of the United States is somehow "ignoring" the stuff done by by other people.  That's transparent garbage and it fools nobody.  Nobody is ignoring anything.  But Al Qaeda is not claiming to act in my name or on my behalf.  They don't represent ME.  The United States DOES.  And the actions of the United States reflect on ME.  And I never thought I would see the day when THIS COUNTRY would defend the torture of prisoners, and when our ATTORNEY GENERAL publicly tried to claim that that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint."  

 I don't what YOU were taught, but I was taught that that sort of heinous crap was done by our ENEMIES, and that was WHY they were our enemies.

I don't "IGNORE" atrocities done by others.

Why are YOU ignoring atrocities, whitewashing atrocities and DEFENDING atrocities?

And PROJECTING your behavior onto others?

Good point. I agree in principle, but get your facts straight. Our government never publicy condoned torture methods, and unless I'm mistaken those responsible for the atrocious acts of humiliation and sodomy in Iraq (Mai Lai massacre ring a bell?) were severely repremanded under martial law. 10 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge is no picnic, and I certainly have no problem with how our country deals with irresponsible soldiers. They are punished accordingly.

However I do have a problem with our government and media's hypocritical antics we witnessed in response to those Danish cartoons. Since when is mocking spiritual leaders so taboo? And I could understand if a MUSLIM cartoon mocked Muhammed, maybe then these people would have an axe to grind. But for Christ's sake, it's in Denmark. And let's not forget, since when do the Danes stand for violence and oppression? They should be exalted, not ridiculed by our pussy media. So we want to appease these radicals? Since when has appeasement ever proven efficacious. Oh, that's right, it was when Czechoslovakia appeased the Germans in 1938 for annexing the Sudetenland? Yeah, that taught those Germans a lesson. Thank God they didn't take that and run with it, and start a bloody World War, now THAT would be atrocious...

[prometheus]

Yeah, this is true, but you're digressing. Whatever relevancy this has to our imperialist policy in Iraq is mitigated by flaunting historical trivia.

Maybe. But I was refuting a point made by someone.

seeing as how Mr. Hussein wasn't exactly a Nelson Mandela in his own country.

Do you know who Nelson Mandela was? He wasn't some male South African mother Theresa. He was a terrorist leader. The ANC fought an armed conflict against the South African apartheid government. He wasn't put in jail for nothing. So yes, he is unlike Saddam Hussain. But I guess not in the way you meant.

Nelson Mandela was the first representative democratic elected SA president.

[bflatminor24]

Maybe. But I was refuting a point made by someone.

Do you know who Nelson Mandela was? He wasn't some male South African mother Theresa. He was a terrorist leader. The ANC fought an armed conflict against the South African apartheid government. He wasn't put in jail for nothing. So yes, he is unlike Saddam Hussain. But I guess not in the way you meant.

Nelson Mandela was the first representative democratic elected SA president.

Nelson Mandela was not a terrorist leader. This moniker could be applied to anyone fighting against a cruel regime. The South African apartheid government was responsible for heinous injustices and crimes against humanity. This travesty was the impetus behind Amnesty International, responsible for granting amnestry to those individuals who came forth and confessed to war crimes and acts committed against both the Geneva Convention and the Helsinki Accords, marking 50 years and 23 years, respectively, of encroachment on human rights. Modern historians would sooner refer to Nelson Mandela as a "freedom fighter" than a "terrorist leader," so I'm not sure where you're getting your information nor how you derived your opinion.

And yes, he spent 27 years in jail based largely on spurious charges and as retribution for the Sharpeville massacre. The government's vindictive sentence does not rationalize his imprisonment. Many would argue the ANC's violent tactics were justified after years of peaceful (albeit unsuccessful) resistance against apartheid. And let's not forget the real victims in this debacle...

Before I am accused of hypocrisy on the grounds of digression, I'll stop, but I do consider any opinion of Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist leader" an unacademic one.

[prometheus]

Nelson Mandela was not a terrorist leader. This moniker could be applied to anyone fighting against a cruel regime.

Isn't that the point?

Modern historians would sooner refer to Nelson Mandela as a "freedom fighter" than a "terrorist leader,"

Isn't the difference just in sly use of language?

You assume that the fact that I call him a terrorist leader mean I don't think it was justified what he has done. You are wrong. Terrorism can be justified.

This just shows the meaning the word 'terrorist' has been given. It is quite Orwellian.


Just look up some definitions used to define 'terrorism'. What Mandela did would fit the definition. What I would have done, hopefully, if I lived 66 years earlier would also fit that definition.
If you fight for freedom using violence you are a terrorist by definition.

Terrorist isn't synonym to 'bad guy'.

[bflatminor24]

Isn't that the point?

Isn't the difference just in sly use of language?

You assume that the fact that I call him a terrorist leader mean I don't think it was justified what he has done. You are wrong. Terrorism can be justified.

This just shows the meaning the word 'terrorist' has been given. It is quite Orwellian.


Just look up some definitions used to define 'terrorism'. What Mandela did would fit the definition. What I would have done, hopefully, if I lived 66 years earlier would also fit that definition.
If you fight for freedom using violence you are a terrorist by definition.

Terrorist isn't synonym to 'bad guy'.

This is completely untrue. Terrorists DO NOT fight for freedom, they fight to impose their will, be it social, cultural, political, and what not. You argue the "fine line" distinction here, but the degree of separation is more salient than that. It isn't as simple as which side you are on. That is a tactic used to create ambiguity out of nothing, and it is a spurious argument.

The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter is a strong, clear distinction, despite attempts by political pundits and the like to cloud the distinction. Freedom fighters fight against oppression, like the Underground Resistance in France against the Nazis in World War II. Terrorists are not oppressed, they want to impose their will, and they use violence in the way that we have witnessed fascists in Italy, Germany, Romania, Russia, and other countries behave.

How can you argue that these fascists are being "oppressed?" Was Stalin oppressed? Or was he an OPPRESSOR against the Kulaks in Russia? I would define Stalin as being a terrorist because he used violence to impose his will. This is against the very basic tenets of democracy and freedom that I believe our country stands for.

I do, however, resent the words "democracy" and "freedom" being tossed around like I see in our government. This does contribute to trivializing the meaning. But let us not lose sight of what these things really are, however Orwellian you assume them to be. Terrorists fight to impose their will, while Freedom fighters fight to protect it. Do you not see a difference? Stop trying to subjectify these words to make your point. A semantic argument is not convincing.

-Max

[prometheus]

This is completely untrue. Terrorists DO NOT fight for freedom, they fight to impose their will, be it social, cultural, political, and what not.

Not per definition. But freedom is both a social and a political goal. So if you fight for freedom you use violence to achive goals of social and political nature.

[bflatminor24]

Not per definition. But freedom is both a social and a political goal. So if you fight for freedom you use violence to achive goals of social and political nature.

You are equating defending a political agenda with imposing a political agenda. Still don't understand? Let's take the practice of religion.

Fighting for the right to PROTECT practicing your own religion is freedom fighting.

Fighting so that others are FORCED to practice your religion is terrorism. Plain and simple. Clear distinction, no ambiguity.

[prometheus]

Then you aren't using the definition of terrorism I use, and for example the Pentagon claims to use.

I would be interested in why you make this distinction and how you make it because this definition is new to me.


Also, the definition will get into practical problems, but we can ignore those if you want.