If the bushistas are going to redefine haphazard bands of men who...

[Fridays Child]

...attempt to repel an invasion of their country as terrorists, what would that make the patriots of the American Revolution? Doesn't it seem cynical in the extreme to use that term in reference to the Iraqi resistors? And, during the Vietnam War, didn't we call such soldiers guerilla fighters?

(American Heritage Dictionary: guerilla - A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.)

And what about the media? In spite of the administration's efforts, the media didn't start calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers." Yet they have not hesitated a single second in signing on to the new definition of disorganized opposition forces.

[WindBreak]

1. Insurgents have popular support

Terrorists don't. That's why they are called terrorists. They terrorize the populace. They murder anyone. There is no focused attack.

FOX NEWS still calls them "homicide" bombers BTW. Sounds good to me.

If they were just suicide bombers they would go out somewhere away from other people and blow themselves up to make their "political statement".

[Dhalgren]

63. No. "Suicide bomber" is the correct term.

The Oklahoma City bomber was a "homicide bomber", if you intentionally blow youself up in the act of bombing, then "suicide bomber" is the correct term. It is silly and disreputible to try and "spin" the terminology so as to somehow make a "point" with your phrasing. Can't we get a break from the propaganda for even a minute?! Christttt!

[WindBreak]

75. Wrong

The monks in South Vietnam set themselves on fire to protest the govt policies. They were "suicide arsonists", if you will. They did not want to kill anyone else besides themselves.

The homicide bombers want to murder others. The propaganda comes from the use of the word suicide, putting the focus on the bomber/murderer and not the victims of the murderer where it belongs.

Nothing heroic about them, AT ALL.

Strange that you would think there is.

[larryepke]

2. Terrorists are...

revolutionaries who don't win. (History and dictionaries are written by the victors.)

[WindBreak]

4. Not true

Terrorists are those who indiscriminately "terrorize". It is not a legitimate form of resistance.

[Bandit]

6. Kind of like the Bush* Cabal right?

Indiscriminately terrorize. or Israel

[WindBreak]

10. What are you talikng about?

You may disagree, but it isn't terrorism.

[Dhalgren]

64. What utter bullshit!

The British referred to the colonial rebels as "terrorists" and terrorism is not "indiscriminate" - if so it is ill advised and will be ineffective. Terrorism is a type of warfare utlilized by an enemy who has no airforce or other means of "legitimate" terror to use. "Shock and awe" was nothing but a "terrorist" attack on the population of Iraq - for the expressed purpose of terrorizing the Iraqi people. If you want to have a debate on language and its useage, at least have a simple understanding of the subject.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

65. Dammit, Dahlgren, us two ignorant Alabama rednecks ain't

got no biznus disagreein' with the gargantuan logic expressed by Breaking Wind.
:toast:

[Dhalgren]

68. I hear ya, Bill!

Damn, that little dweeb actually pissed me off for a second there. Pheew!

[WindBreak]

69. Bullshit yourself

Targeting civilians is ALWAYS terrorism.

[Maple]

3. One man's terrorist

is another man's freedom fighter.

Indeed many of them have gone on to respected positions in the world.

The word 'terrorist' has been badly abused, and has apparently even come to mean 'anyone who disagrees with me'

[WindBreak]

5. Not true

Terrorists are definitely NOT "freedom fighters". They target indiscriminately.

Terrorism is not a legitimate form of resistence, freedom fighting is.

[Beetwasher]

7. The Iraqi's are not targeting indiscriminately

so by your definition they are not terrorists. All their targets are percieved occupying forces and their supporters. So, I'm sure you agree, they are not terrorists, but a resistance.

[WindBreak]

12. You are wrong

They targeted the Jordanian Embassy, the UN compound, a mosque and they indiscriminately kill civilians. Plus, they most likely were individuals from several different nations.

[Beetwasher]

33. No, you are wrong. Those are NOT indiscriminate targets

They were very specifically targeted. No one has any idea who is doing the bombing, however, it's probably not likely that they are individuals from several different nations. The similarity in the MO's of the bombings indicate that they probably were the work of a single organization. The US indiscriminately killed civilians too in it's bombing campaign. Are we terrorists?

[WindBreak]

37. No

Of course not. No one is indiscriminately attacking civilians except terrorists, that is why they are called terrorists.

[Beetwasher]

43. Wrong. We ARE going around indiscrimately killing civilians

There have been numerous examples where the US has targeted civilians, including massacring people who don't stop immediately at check points. For the most part, the attacks by the resistance have been against US troops and perceived collaborators. They are not TARGETING civilians like Hamas does.

[WindBreak]

48. Wrong

The military is not intentionally targeting civilians. No one on our side intentionally has set out to target civilians. Checkpoints are not set uyp to intentionally target civilians.

What you are talking about are the many tragedys of war. NOT intentional targeting of civilians. You may not agree with the war, you may not agree with the methods employed. BUT you do not have one scintilla of evidence that civilians are being intentionally targeted. You just don't have it.

[Beetwasher]

53. I didn't say we were targeting them

intentionally, but we are tergeting them and indicriminately killing them. The checkpoint massacres are an example of unarmed civilians who were targeted and killed. Deal with it. The resistance is not targeting them either though and you have not one scintilla of evidence that they are...In one breath you say "they" are terrorists targeting civilians and in the next you say "they" are various individuals from different countries. You don't have a clue who "they" are or what "their" targets are and the sad thing is, neither does the US military. War is dirty, civilians get killed, but the resistance didn't start this war and their only fighting back against a foreign invader the best way they can, and so far the vast majority of attacks have been against legitimate US military targets or perceived collaborators. Prove otherwise.

[WindBreak]

56. Reaaaallllyyyy?

1.
So when they set off a truck bomb in front of or within; a mosque, the Jordanian Embassy or the UN compound they are striking at someone who is attacking them?

2.
Or are they just trying to instill fear in everyone, even if some of them are on their side?

You decide, 1 or 2.

[Beetwasher]

58. False dichotomies don't work with me Chester

First of all, prove that the Mosque bombing was the work of the same people attacking the US military. Can you do that?

Personally, I think they probably are, but that's beside the point.

Second of all, those bombings, as I said could be viewed as attacks on perceived US collaborators by the resistance. Legitimate targets from the POV of a resistance movment. The innocent civilians killed in those attacks are no different than the innocent civilians killed by the US. Remember, YOU said civilian casualties are a part of war. The US has killed far more civilians than the resistance has so far.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

67. Yeah, no kidding.

This guy can't even keep his rhetoric straight. He handed me all the ammunition I needed to nail him to the wall...

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindBreak]

70. Remember

The terrorists choose to target civilians becasue they have no popular support. They are trying to force the civilians to side with them by force and through fear. Buy a clue.

[Maple]

8. Who the hell

goes around killing people at random for no reason?

[WindBreak]

14. No one is saying that they don't have a reason

Their methods are illegitimate.

[Maple]

19. They don't

play fair??

Up against a 'superpower' armed with everything on the planet and then some??

You figured they'd line up neatly and yell 'Charge!' so they'd be easy to beat??

Of course they don't 'play fair' and they don't give a rat's patoot about 'legitimate or illegitimate'

Kee-ripes....!

[WindBreak]

23. Sooooo....

It is okay with you to target innocent civilians? I am having a hard time following your presumed logic here.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindBreak]

39. The wrong site? LOL

Whas a matta? Too tough for you?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindBreak]

54. I am home boy

You haven't laid a glove on me. It's all breaking wind. LOL

Next!

[WindBreak]

26. Your use of the word "unfair"......

is weird. Nobody said or used the word fair.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

13. Yo, BreakingWind (sorry, it's the dyslexia)

In 1776 patriots fought a nation that occupied our land from its home across the ocean. Bin Laden is fighting to get us out of SA (which we are now out of) and Palestine and our support of Israel....

There is more to it, and I abhor the methods he uses, but in the ME, he's a freedom fighter trying to protect his land from the most powerful country on earth.

[WindBreak]

15. wrong again

Indiscriminate targeting of civilians is not a legitimate form of resistence, never has been. Your analogy to the revolutionary war period in America is wrong and disgusting.

[gratuitous]

17. Doesn't look like anybody's buying what you're selling

Perhaps you should alter your sales tactics, hmmmm?

[WindBreak]

24. Read the posts

Then respond. Don't buy. I don't care.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindBreak]

31. You do not know

Who the terrorists are or where they come from. Admit it.

[WindBreak]

34. Also....

You do not speak for the Iraqis. You speak only for yourself. Your perception is anything but unbiased and accurate.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindBreak]

40. Face it? LOL

This is kindergarten

[Fridays Child]

21. Truth is uncomfortable for you?

[WindBreak]

22. What truth is that dear?

Do tell.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

35. Our militia broke with the contemporary rules of war when they

did not march in a line against the Brits on a field of battle. Even worse, we sniped the officers first when we could. We were considered "terrorists" by the brits because we didn't fight by the same rules.

New rule, there are no rules in war. People die. We killed 3 civilians to every one Iraqi combatant we killed and say that we ran a compassionate war. WHAT FUCKING BULLSHIT.

[WindBreak]

41. No, no, no

Pay attention. Targeting military targets is not terrorism.

[WindBreak]

16. BTW

Your seeming sympathy for OBL and other terrorists is troubling to say the least.

To each their own, I guess.

[Fridays Child]

29. Love it. Re-framing the debate in an accurate manner...

...definitions has you all squirmy.

[WindBreak]

32. Anything but squirmy dear

You haven't reframed anything, in fact you are running away.

[Fridays Child]

36. Is that right? From what?

[WindBreak]

42. Someone calling you on...

your obvious anti-Americanism.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindBreak]

55. Gee..

I served four years to protect the Constitution. I'd say I put my money where my mouth is. Have you?

You just can't accept losing an argument to someone who disagrees with your narrow political agenda. So you resort to personal invective. That will take you a long way.

[Fridays Child]

61. Where does it say in the Constitution that only those who have served...

...in the military are entitled to express their views or be called Americans. By the way, I sent a father to WWII, a husband to Vietnam, and a son to the Gulf. I've served.

And don't look now, but you just can't accept losing an argument to someone who exposes your ominous political agenda. So you resort to neocon-mentality slander.

:eyes:

[WindBreak]

71. Slander?

Where? Point it out.

And BTW you did not serve. Those people you mentioned did. You get no credit for someone else's sacrifice.

Do you credit your husband with giving birth? Same thing then.

I haven't lost anything, you just can't stand being unable to force your narrow view on me.

[Fridays Child]

18. LOL! BreakingWind!

You little stinker! :evilgrin:

[WindBreak]

20. Wow

That was most creative.

[tom_paine]

25. You sure about that? Hitler referred to German insurgents as "terrorists"

Seems to me it's an all-purpose phrase that can be twisted to who's ever needs it serves.

By the by, you really should look up Herr A$$crust's definition of a terorist in Enabling Act I. It is quite an enlightening thing to know that the loose definition of "terrorist" is once again being called into the service of Totalitarianism.

Though of course the other shoe has yet to drop and may not until the Stalinistically predictable reign of Emperor Jeb in 2009.

[WindBreak]

27. So Hitler is your guide

to word definition and usage?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

44. You speak like Hannity.... Broad generalizations coupled with

antagonistic jibes in an aire of superiority because he ignores valid arguments and blows them off with a blanket "that's your opinion, you dummy."

[WindBreak]

45. It is simple

My definition of terrorism is indiscriminate and intentional targeting of civilians. I am not arguing motive. I am arguing methods.

IT IS TERRORISM AND ILLLEGITIMATE TO TARGET CIVILIANS INTENTIONALLY.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

46. By your definition, we are terrorists for our behavior in the bombing

of Baghdad.

[WindBreak]

47. No,

There was no intentional targeting of civilians like WWII. There just wasn't. In this present conflict the only ones who have targeted civilians is OBL.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

49. Hell's Bell's, boy. The very first bombs we sent to take out one man

went into the heart of a major metropolitan city and only killed civilians. The Bush administration is no better than OBL. The only difference is Bush is doing it for financial reasons and OBL is doing it for religious reasons.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

57. I'm refering to the Bush Administration as terrorists...

Bombing a city to "take out" the man who threatened your "Poppy" with no regard to the fact that thousands of innocent civilians will be killed falls into the realm of terrorism. Hell, it's beyond that, it's barbarism.

And, sorry to disagree with the neocon opinion of left-wingers, but I have no agenda here. Just an informed opinion that5 comes from reading news and reports from all over the world rather than depending solely on the tripe spewed by American entertainers and "news media."

[WindBreak]

73. Funny

All the news from your so called "objective" sources are anti-American. Do you think there are other "objective" sources from overseas that you haven't read that are pro-American? I think there are.

Why is it that you only seem to read the anti-American ones? Quite ominous itself, don't ya think?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindBreak]

79. Ask

Kerry, Gephardt, Liebermen, Edwards and Graham. They agree with me and one of them will get your precious nomination.

Who have you appeased today?

Oh BTW, watch the language boy.

[jayfish]

60. What The Fuck Was The Fire Bombing of Dresden?

How about Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Go back and read your history books. BTW did you write the new anti-drug commercials?

Jay


-ON EDIT-
In the sprit of fair debate I see that I read your post incorrectly. My response was to "There was no intentional targeting of civilians like WWII." I did not read the word like which would imply that you do believe that there were intentional bombing of civilians during WWII. I am wrong on this post but you are wrong on this entire subject.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

62. Just as horrendous... Are you saying that the fact we killed large

numbers of civilians in WWII justifies our killing civilians here in Dubya's private war? :-)


ON EDIT: OOPS!!!!!!!! Sorry, I thought that was sent to me! Damn, I'm sorry.

[WindBreak]

74. No

Next question

[WindBreak]

72. You misread my post that you were responding to

Go back and read it again.

[jayfish]

78. I Already Responded To That In An Edit Of The Post.

But in another post you state "Targeting civilians is ALWAYS terrorism." I guess that made us the terrorists in WWII then, huh?

Jay

[karlschneider]

81. You know, you could have saved a lot of rhetorical babbling if you had

just come out and forthrightly admitted you're in love with Chimpy McCokespoon and his unilateral invasion of a sovereign country.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[qb]

9. Terrorists attack civilian targets. Guerillas attack military targets.

[Maple]

11. Guerillas attack

anything they can, any way that they can... since they have no tanks, fighter jets and high tech equipment.

There are no front lines...and no nice neat rules of war.

[lazarus]

82. Okay, you've all had your fun

I had to take your chewtoy away, and since that's basically the entire thread, I'm locking it. If someone wants to restart it freep-free, go ahead.

:)