CSM
Senior Member
Harmageddon said:To answer your last question:
For clarification, I do not support terrorism unquestioningly. But you do support it.First of all, I would like to point out that a lot of the problems nowadays are because of the Orwellian double-speak in politics: democracy holds no true meaning anymore in the media (since it refers to Iraq as being close to a democracy, whereas the Palestinians or Hezbollah, which are both elected into government, are referred to as terrorist groups). Granted...of course I have absolutely no respect for the media anyway.
The same goes for terrorism - the calculated use of violence to obtain goals that are either religious, political or ideological in nature: it is only called terrorism when the enemy of the one calling the shots is doing it. Not exactly true; it is terrorism when one deliberately targets innocent civilians IMO.If the one calling the shots is committing the same sort of atrocities, it is called liberation, or even promotion of democracy. Everybody does this. I disagree that "everybody does this"; that is deliberately target civilians although I agree that most entities have done that or are currently doing that.
When a people are condemned to live their lives under oppression of a foreign occupation, and fighting erupts, I tend to be in favor of those that are occupied: they are fighting for the basic right for self-determination, a fight I can sympathize with. I have no problem with that philosophy BUT I do have a problem when the "occupied" became that way because they want to occupy someone else!The occupier that wishes to impose its rule on the occupied, I cannot sympathize with, because I regard the right for self-determination as a very crucial measure of freedom. (This is also why I am opposed to religion dictated from above, such as the Catholic church - it quenches free thinking). I prefer not to discuss religion, thanks anyway.The people fighting for the right of self-determination are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries (by the population they represent) and they are called terrorists by the occupier. Not always, though 'rebels', 'insurgents' and other like terms are certainly apt.Take Vietnam or Iraq. Both were invaded by the United States to topple regimes deemed unfavorable to the United States one communist, the other a dictatorial stooge that went against his masters biddings. In both cases, we see that the population resists the foreign occupation with all their might even though it seems insignificant compared to the occupation army. Love bashing the US don't you. I get your drift and while the analogy of Viet Nam/Iraq may or may not be valid, the resistance offered to any occupying army is legitimate...as long as they are not blowing up their own people to do it!
As people said about Vietnam the Vietnamese will not stop fighting until every last one of them is dead. Which people said that? The Vietnamese perceived the Americans to be occupiers rather than liberators, and people fighting for their freedom will not stop it took Europeans (I say European, but I mean Dutch, French, Germans and whatnot) over 1,000 years of vicious fighting before we got to the level of personal freedom where we are now. The European level of freedom is not exactly an ideal...at least not in my mind...but I guess it suits you ok.
And if you stop keeping watch, those freedoms will gradually erode once again, because leaders can lead a restrained population more efficiently. Take Nazi Germany some engine of efficiency that was personal freedoms were few and in between. Already agreed to that. Don't get redundant on me!
No one likes to feel like they are occupied, or as George Walker Bush said it, referring to the escalating situation in Iraq:
Of course theyre not happy being occupied, I wouldnt be happy if I were occupied either.
The Iraqis will not stop fighting the American forces all the mumbo jumbo about a liberation army that is only there to bring freedom and democracy has gone down the drain; the Iraqi's feel theyre being occupied, and rightly so. Yeah, yeah, more US/Bush bashing...got that...we already agreed to disagree. Saying it over and over won't get me to change my mind. Everyone has been lied to: for example the bands of South African mercenaries in Iraq, that obey no rule but money - those are the guys responsible for most of the atrocities committed by the invading forces, would be my guess. They destroy any effort on American marine's side to display some sort of liberation movement. You truly believe that South African troops are committing the worst atrocities???? Again, you ignore or even support the terrorist activities and philosophy...I guess the daily explosions killing Iraqis is excusable as are the kidnappings of Iraqi civilians and the beheading of captives!Same goes for the Palestinians, in their Gaza prison. And Hezbollah sympathizes with them, since they know what it is like to be under Israeli occupation. Theyve tasted the sweetness of victory they will therefore keep on fighting. I agree they think they have tasted victory, which is why they must be crushed. Crushing them will remove all doubt! In a sense, Israel has already lost this battle: military, diplomatically and politically. Only from your POV. Of course, we already know that your solution to all this is for Israel to surrender so they can be sent off to the 'final solution'. I sincerely believe that most of Europe secretly wishes the Nazis had succeeded in eradicating the Jews.. Although economically Lebanon has lost.
That is my answer.
Got it. You support terrorism (freedom fighters from your perspective). The US is evil most of the time though you like our money. Israel should surrender and be punished for being evil along with the US. Europe is great and morally/democartically superior.
Just some sarcasm there but not really.