Respect for terrorists. (10 Viewers)

[hiphophorray123]

ok not-so-bright i watched your clip and its bullshit, it says 'wrong' or 'false article' over all of mike moores claims, but it does not provide strong reasons WHY there wrong, what it just flashes a red WRONG in capital letters over statements....

my take is that there is some truth in that documentary but there is also some sensationalised truth...no lies

 

[SashatheMan]

You know, this is going to sound terrible, but I really have to have an enormous amount of respect for the terrorist organisations in Iraq. Capturing civillians, letting us get to know them on a personal level as they plead to Tony Blair on camera for their lives. When the conditions of the troops being taken are not met they are beheaded on film with the footage available on the internet. What a powerfully emotive method.

I respect this tactic immensely. They could walk onto a crowded London street and kill 100 people. yet they choose to kill just one... and draw it out. It's so much more powerful than any other method. While the US drops bombs on children's hospitals in Iraq (a "mistake", of course) the terrorists are striking at the heart of the globe. They are playing on all of our emotions and human dignity. If they put a suicide bomber in England and killed multiple people the public would blame and hate them, but by saying "Tony Blair, we'll kill this person if you don't do this by this date" they are shifting the blame for their actions onto the government. While this does not cause them to be seen as blameless it turns public opinion towards those in government who could have stopped it and did nothing.

As I said, enormous respect. Not for their murder, actions or cause, but for their brilliant methods.

Opinions?

i was just looking for some thread, and came across this. Its ironic to read, because it dates before the London bombings.
Little did the thread starter know, what would happen in london. He probably still has respect though, SOB

 

[Pubert]

I don't agree with capturing civilians or taking them hostage at all. I agree with capturing American soldiers but not killing them after being captured. I agree in the self defence of a nation against a foreign invasion which isn't at all justifiable.

I agree with the death of American soldiers in Iraq, but not after they have been captured and disarmed. This is a war and Iraqis have a right to defend against occupation.
The purpose of this war was for America to have a further stronghold in the middle east for future years to come, they did not care about Saddam, and Iraq had nothing to do with 11/9. They only entered the war because it was economically viable through the theft of oil from Iraq.

And finally, Sasha is stupid.

 

[davin]

the war in iraq is in NO WAY economically viable. Its destroyed the american gov't budget at this point, and i'll point out that killing american soldiers is perhaps the BEST WAY to ENSURE that american troops don't leave. The more violence in Iraq, the more american troops will be in iraq, and the best way to get american troops out of iraq is to have a lack of violence. every time there are predictions of increased violence, troop numbers go up, and when there's relative peace, troop numbers go down. The quicker the Iraqi military is trained, the quicker the Iraqi gov't is fully formed, the faster foreign troops are out. If Iraq was peaceful, and there were not groups attacking the Iraqi gov't and people so much, there wouldn't be a NEED for any outside troops in the country.
If this is just Iraqis defending themselves, why are they killing so many fellow Iraqis? why are they killing aid worksers? It is plain and simple terorism.

Oil isn't an issue in this in the slightest. If anything, it was an american show of force that countries couldn't keep pushing the U.S., or ignoring the U.N. and being a threat to other countries without punishment. It was against a climate that is favourable to terrorism, not in regard to 9/11 itself. i think, if memory serves, it was Libya that came clean with a weapons program after Saddam was ousted. and some of the other countries in the region are allowing far more democracy and freedom than they had been prior.

 

[Pubert]

the war in iraq is in NO WAY economically viable. Its destroyed the american gov't budget at this point, and i'll point out that killing american soldiers is perhaps the BEST WAY to ENSURE that american troops don't leave. The more violence in Iraq, the more american troops will be in iraq, and the best way to get american troops out of iraq is to have a lack of violence. every time there are predictions of increased violence, troop numbers go up, and when there's relative peace, troop numbers go down. The quicker the Iraqi military is trained, the quicker the Iraqi gov't is fully formed, the faster foreign troops are out. If Iraq was peaceful, and there were not groups attacking the Iraqi gov't and people so much, there wouldn't be a NEED for any outside troops in the country.
If this is just Iraqis defending themselves, why are they killing so many fellow Iraqis? why are they killing aid worksers? It is plain and simple terorism.

Oil isn't an issue in this in the slightest. If anything, it was an american show of force that countries couldn't keep pushing the U.S., or ignoring the U.N. and being a threat to other countries without punishment. It was against a climate that is favourable to terrorism, not in regard to 9/11 itself. i think, if memory serves, it was Libya that came clean with a weapons program after Saddam was ousted. and some of the other countries in the region are allowing far more democracy and freedom than they had been prior.

Firstly American soldiers will never leave until they are defeated. They may hand over power and leave the cities but they will always have a strong presence in iraq as it is in their best interests to do so to maintain control over the region.

True democracy will never hapen in Iraq as long as America is in control, as the Iraqi people hate America for what they have done to their nation and if they had the option of proper democracy then they would elect a government totally against America in every way. But, how could America let this hapen? So the only government thats going to be in power is going to be a pupet government like many of those in the middle east.

And of course oil isn't an issue, Iraq doesen't have THAT much of it, they only have the second largest amount in the world. It couldn't have anything to do with the purpose of Iraq being invaded *SARCASM* *SARCASM*.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the other reason for invading Iraq, the big nukes that they were developing which no evidence was found to prove.
We just haven't found it yet thats all, and we know Saddam was hiding something because he never let the UN into Iraq!

America will never let middle eastern countries have freedom as it isn't in their interests to do so. Have you ever thought why middle eastern people hate American and allied governments?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they have been oppressed for many years by the pupet governments which the west puts into power. I don't know im just popping ideas out of my head now, how about the massacres in palestine?

Reasons why America went into Iraq:
- To have a powerful stronghold in the region.
- To put a pupet government in power in Iraq.
- Oil.

Fake reasons why American went into Iraq:
- Liberate Iraq from Saddam.
- Iraq were developing big bombs which blow up stuff.
- To give Iraqi people democracy and freedom.
- 11/9 which had nothing to do with Iraq in any way.

 

[davin]

america wants out, but america wants out of a country that is on the road to recovery, not in turmoil from people that are killing iraqis at random.

you, of course, in no way addressed that the economics of getting oil via invasion ignores the high cost of the invasion and that it would've been far cheaper to do as russia and france did and start dealing under the table with saddam more.

of course, there's also that the main group that has issues with saddam no longer being in power is the minoiry sunni population, and thats because after decades of being in charge, this minority (20%) is no longer the ruling group. Shiites (60%) are more a mixed group, and the Kurds (20%) have been very supportive of American actions. Of course, none of these groups want their country to have an ongoing struggle, but thats common sense. However, there is an increased opportunity.

sanctions lasted as long as they did directly because of Saddam's refusal to comply. there IS evidence that saddam had weapons he wasn't allowed, and that he was ready to start rebuilding his weapons stock as soon as he could. Of course, I'm more a fan of a quote I'd heard from one Iraqi: "Saddam WAS a weapon of mass destruction". He had had WMDs, and if he had his way, he'd have them again. What I don't get is that you're going beyond questioning the priorities of why Iraq was invaded to seemingly defending Saddam as well.

Of course, if we want to talk hate, we should also keep in mind that gov'ts like Saudi Arabia focus hate elsewhere so that their own rule isn't challenged.

As for your "real" and "fake" reasons....
There are already American "strongholds" in the region, in so much as there are bases in Saudi Arabia, and some countries, such as Kuwait, that have remained relativly good relations with. Also Israel, in that sense.
How you argue that its a puppet gov't even though it is NOT the sort of gov't america would ideally want as religion has been a key factor, or how you see a democraticly elected gov't as a step down from a dictator that would kill any opposition I can in no way see, and from your viewpoint, its clear that under no circumstances would you accept any gov't the Iraqi people would ever elect.
Oil, like I said before is foolishly achieved this way. The best way to have gotten oil would have been to not pressure Saddam to get rid of weapons, or have arranged deals with Saddam, ala france and russia.

As for how you deem fake reasons....
there was significant information that suggested Iraq did have weapons...the information was wrong in some cases, and others are still questionable, but it was not created information. I'll have to dig it up, but there were foreign leaders also saying Saddam had weapons, even though some, like Chirac, opposed any military action.
the fact that the iraqi people now have a democracy where 80% of the people that no longer had a voice now get one, apparently, is a trivial point to you.
and finally where did you get the view that 9/11 was one of the main reasons given behind it? that was never a large arguement. TERRORISM was, but Saddam does have a history of working with terrorist groups, or supporting terrorism. For example, Saddam has given money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. That there is support of terrorism. There was no claim of "well, Saddam is responcible for 9/11, lets overthrow him"

 

[SashatheMan]

I don't agree with capturing civilians or taking them hostage at all. I agree with capturing American soldiers but not killing them after being captured. I agree in the self defence of a nation against a foreign invasion which isn't at all justifiable.

I agree with the death of American soldiers in Iraq, but not after they have been captured and disarmed. This is a war and Iraqis have a right to defend against occupation.
The purpose of this war was for America to have a further stronghold in the middle east for future years to come, they did not care about Saddam, and Iraq had nothing to do with 11/9. They only entered the war because it was economically viable through the theft of oil from Iraq.

And finally, Sasha is stupid.

oi listen up motherfucker, dotn call me stupid.

 

[AsyLum]

You know, this is going to sound terrible, but I really have to have an enormous amount of respect for the terrorist organisations in Iraq. Capturing civillians, letting us get to know them on a personal level as they plead to Tony Blair on camera for their lives. When the conditions of the troops being taken are not met they are beheaded on film with the footage available on the internet. What a powerfully emotive method.

I respect this tactic immensely. They could walk onto a crowded London street and kill 100 people. yet they choose to kill just one... and draw it out. It's so much more powerful than any other method. While the US drops bombs on children's hospitals in Iraq (a "mistake", of course) the terrorists are striking at the heart of the globe. They are playing on all of our emotions and human dignity. If they put a suicide bomber in England and killed multiple people the public would blame and hate them, but by saying "Tony Blair, we'll kill this person if you don't do this by this date" they are shifting the blame for their actions onto the government. While this does not cause them to be seen as blameless it turns public opinion towards those in government who could have stopped it and did nothing.

As I said, enormous respect. Not for their murder, actions or cause, but for their brilliant methods.

Opinions?

I don't agree that the Iraqi terrorists are morally/ethically acceptable in their attacks. That isn't to say there are those who may have some justification to commit the terrorist acts, but it really comes down to your definition of terrorism and the context in which they are placed.

 

[Pubert]

america wants out, but america wants out of a country that is on the road to recovery, not in turmoil from people that are killing iraqis at random.

you, of course, in no way addressed that the economics of getting oil via invasion ignores the high cost of the invasion and that it would've been far cheaper to do as russia and france did and start dealing under the table with saddam more.

of course, there's also that the main group that has issues with saddam no longer being in power is the minoiry sunni population, and thats because after decades of being in charge, this minority (20%) is no longer the ruling group. Shiites (60%) are more a mixed group, and the Kurds (20%) have been very supportive of American actions. Of course, none of these groups want their country to have an ongoing struggle, but thats common sense. However, there is an increased opportunity.

sanctions lasted as long as they did directly because of Saddam's refusal to comply. there IS evidence that saddam had weapons he wasn't allowed, and that he was ready to start rebuilding his weapons stock as soon as he could. Of course, I'm more a fan of a quote I'd heard from one Iraqi: "Saddam WAS a weapon of mass destruction". He had had WMDs, and if he had his way, he'd have them again. What I don't get is that you're going beyond questioning the priorities of why Iraq was invaded to seemingly defending Saddam as well.

Of course, if we want to talk hate, we should also keep in mind that gov'ts like Saudi Arabia focus hate elsewhere so that their own rule isn't challenged.

As for your "real" and "fake" reasons....
There are already American "strongholds" in the region, in so much as there are bases in Saudi Arabia, and some countries, such as Kuwait, that have remained relativly good relations with. Also Israel, in that sense.
How you argue that its a puppet gov't even though it is NOT the sort of gov't america would ideally want as religion has been a key factor, or how you see a democraticly elected gov't as a step down from a dictator that would kill any opposition I can in no way see, and from your viewpoint, its clear that under no circumstances would you accept any gov't the Iraqi people would ever elect.
Oil, like I said before is foolishly achieved this way. The best way to have gotten oil would have been to not pressure Saddam to get rid of weapons, or have arranged deals with Saddam, ala france and russia.

As for how you deem fake reasons....
there was significant information that suggested Iraq did have weapons...the information was wrong in some cases, and others are still questionable, but it was not created information. I'll have to dig it up, but there were foreign leaders also saying Saddam had weapons, even though some, like Chirac, opposed any military action.
the fact that the iraqi people now have a democracy where 80% of the people that no longer had a voice now get one, apparently, is a trivial point to you.
and finally where did you get the view that 9/11 was one of the main reasons given behind it? that was never a large arguement. TERRORISM was, but Saddam does have a history of working with terrorist groups, or supporting terrorism. For example, Saddam has given money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. That there is support of terrorism. There was no claim of "well, Saddam is responcible for 9/11, lets overthrow him"

Saddam is a muderer but the Iraqi people were alot happier with him then the situation they have now.

Decomcracy is great. But, i have first hand experience that Iraqi people HATE America with a passion. So any government which they would elect would be outrageously against America moreso then perhaps Saddam.

Saying that America didn't know that they didn't have nuclear weapons, shows your knowledge of the issue.

There are many pupet governments in the middle east which totally go against what their people want to listen to America, some of which you named, which America have strongholds in. Many were placed into power by the British and the French (not knowing alot about the details i will stop here).

I cbf discussing this due to your ignorance and your unwillingness to come to the truth, so i shall stop here and let you think about the things i wrote in my other post.

 

[davin]

ignorance and unwillingness to come to the truth are two contradictory positions, so if you'd make up your mind on which i am, that'd be preferred.

now, i am rather curious as to what your first hand experience is with the Iraqi people, so feel free to share. I'll admit that my views on that is limited only to polling results that i've read through, things i've read written by iraqis living in iraq or soldiers serving in iraq, "Voices of Iraq" a documentary done by sending video cameras to iraqis and so has bits with iraqis of many viewpoints, and what i've heard from people i know who have been in iraq following the initial invasion.

now, i did say weapons of mass destruction. nuclear weapons are just one catagory of that. there was suspicions, and it wasn't good enough, because it was faulty information, but i disagree with your claim that it was fabricated somehow.

and you have yet to be clear on how you define the current iraqi parliament as a puppet government, given that there has been a substantial turnout for elections, and that in the last election, there was finally an increased participation from the sunni population.

 

[VanCarBus]

im sure the news channels carry lots of respect for terrorists, because the reporters have stuff to report about and not get the sack >.<

personally, terrorists are fuckers because they kidnap innocent peacekeepers and kill them because they are too pussy to kidnap an armed soldier.

 

[Pubert]

I have relatives in Iraq and know what it feels like to be in a country with a dictator.

Which i assure you is alot better then being invaded.

Why would the Iraqi people vote a government in power who are sympathetic to Americans after being invaded by them?

There are two possible reasons:

Their wasn't any party which was allowed to participate which represented their views.

OR:

The elections are corrupt.

In the eyes of Iraqis, America is ALOT worse then Saddam.

 

[davin]

ah yes, the iraqi elections, which had, 228 lists submitted, which i believe would mean 228 individual parties, and 21 coallitions involved, including groups that supported al-Sadr, but of course, they really kept all the parties out of the election.

And again, care to explain how you define Iraqis? I'm pretty sure you're ignoring the Kurds altogether, for one

and the third possibility is that with just family, you've heard only from one viewpoint or a few in Iraq, and that there is a lot more variety in opinion than you give them credit for.

 

[timobr0]

most of the terrorists in Iraq are not iraqis anyway....they come from neighbouring countries to kill the "infidels" so they cant be defending "their" country

 

[SashatheMan]

most of the terrorists in Iraq are not iraqis anyway....they come from neighbouring countries to kill the "infidels" so they cant be defending "their" country

yes, ive also heard that muslim terrorists are not really muslim , but just saying to to give other muslims a bad name . great excuse

 

[davin]

i'd be careful to say most. However, that is a part of it, and there have been a number of battles along the syrian border, both between american/iraqi forces and foreign terrorists crossing the boarder and, apparently, also between iraiqi insurgents and the same foreign groups crossing over into iraq