Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Would the Indians that attacked White Settlements be considered terrorists

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:24 AM
Original message
Would the Indians that attacked White Settlements be considered terrorists
Edited on Fri Jul-08-05 09:26 AM by Toots
This notion that you don't negotiate with terrorists is pretty bogus if you ask me. Why should one not open diologue with your enemy. We certainly did it with the Indians and we broke every treaty we made but that is beside the point. The point being that the Administration is saying unequivelently that they will not negotiate with terrorists. It is not a sign of weakness to talk although the right wing thinks it is. It is always good to learn your enemy. Learn what their problems are and what their desires are. They may not be compatible with ours but at least we know and don't just throw out preposterous assumptions like "They Hate us for our Freedom" We are doing something to upset them and we should know what that is. I truly do not believe this is a religious battle. I believe it is all about Money and Power. Most Arabs have none and want some. America stands with the Monarchs who keep it all in their own families and not the ordinary people and that is obvious to all. The family of Saud is obscenely rich with the countries wealth and yet the common people are dirt poor and America likes it that way. We talk about Democracy but as Bush* says things are much easier under a Dictatorship. America can make all sorts of underhanded deals with a single family and not have to deal with the people at all. They hate us because we won't share our Freedom. We encourage the Royal families and protect them and never demand that they give the people a say in running their country. We(USA) talk big but do not walk the walk. Just like how all our current leaders did during their younger years when they should have been in the military. They all talked big about the war and how much they supported it but none went to fight. Chickenhawks and turning America into one big Chickenhawk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Insurgents...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Different times, different people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. Didn't the Brits with the U.S. negotiate the disarming of the IRA
We didn't level Belfast with smart bombs and tanks, did we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. white people live in belfast!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. of course.
So would the guys who dressed up as Indians and threw a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. they reportedly have met
Edited on Fri Jul-08-05 09:35 AM by G_j
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050628/world.htm#1


US officials meeting insurgents in Iraq
Ashish Kumar Sen writes from Washington

June 2005

Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Sunday confirmed a British newspaper report that the US officials had been meeting some insurgents in Iraq.

The US military officials say the talks are part of a US plan to create a rift between Iraqi and foreign insurgents.

Doing a round of the Sunday morning television talk shows, Rumsfeld denied these contacts involved terrorist groups that have claimed responsibility for deadly attacks across Iraq.

“There’s no one negotiating with Zarqawi or the people that are out chopping people’s heads off... but they’re certainly reaching out continuously, and we help to facilitate those from time to time,” he said.

Meetings go on “all the time,” Rumsfeld said, adding that Iraq’s government often initiates contact. “I would not make a big deal out of it.” He told Fox News the meetings were part of a plan to “split people off and get some people to be supportive.”

..more..
===
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9142

Talking with the Enemy
By Michael Ware
Time

Sunday 20 February 2005

Inside the secret dialogue between the U.S. and insurgents in Iraq - and what the rebels say they want.

The secret meeting is taking place in the bowels of a facility in Baghdad, a cavernous, heavily guarded building in the U.S.-controlled green zone. The Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein's regime and the senior representative of the self-described nationalist insurgency, sits on one side of the table. He is here to talk to two members of the U.S. military. One of them, an officer, takes notes during the meeting. The other, dressed in civilian clothes, listens as the Iraqi outlines a list of demands the U.S. must satisfy before the insurgents stop fighting. The parties trade boilerplate complaints: the U.S. officer presses the Iraqi for names of other insurgent leaders; the Iraqi says the newly elected Shi'a-dominated government is being controlled by Iran. The discussion does not go beyond generalities, but both sides know what's behind the coded language.

The Iraqi's very presence conveys a message: Members of the insurgency are open to negotiating an end to their struggle with the U.S. "We are ready," he says before leaving, "to work with you."

In that guarded pledge may lie the first sign that after nearly two years of fighting, parts of the insurgency in Iraq are prepared to talk and move toward putting away their arms--and the U.S. is willing to listen. An account of the secret meeting between the senior insurgent negotiator and the U.S. military officials was provided to TIME by the insurgent negotiator. He says two such meetings have taken place. While U.S. officials would not confirm the details of any specific meetings, sources in Washington told TIME that for the first time the U.S. is in direct contact with members of the Sunni insurgency, including former members of Saddam's Baathist regime. Pentagon officials say the secret contacts with insurgent leaders are being conducted mainly by U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers. A Western observer close to the discussions says that "there is no authorized dialogue with the insurgents" but that the U.S. has joined "back-channel" communications with rebels. Says the observer: "There's a lot bubbling under the surface today."

..more..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. Would the whites that attacked Indian Settlements be considered terrorists
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsychoDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Only in the Native American owned media...
Edited on Fri Jul-08-05 09:45 AM by PsychoDad
And only in those aeras where it wasn't controlled by the liberating white forces... and certanly never to be mentioned in the white media.

The Native peoples greeted Custer with flowers, don't cha know...

Just imagine, if you can, the spin that would be applied to this if it were to happen in today's world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. It was then. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Yes of course and the Indians met and talked with them
They were betrayed at almost every turn but they met and talked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. One could argue, probably successfully, that the settlers were....
...the REAL terrorists. For instance, delivering blankets contaminated with smallpox, destroying Indian camps filled with nobody but men, women, and children, and forcing some tribes to live on reservations with little or no natural food sources are considered to be acts of terrorism in most circles.

The terrorist act most associated with the Indians, that of scalping, was actually first demonstrated by the French to their Indian allies during the French and Indian Wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
11. yes

The whole scheme of this War On Terror is essentially one of pursuit of an Indian raid. Tora Bora is where the settler posse catches up with the raiding party, but they escape (as is usually the case).

Iraq is the piece that is so bizarre in Modern times, but it's the one where when the settlers have been unable to catch the raiding party, they send the military in to the tribal homeland and put up a fort. The fort is then used to destroy the tribe(s) by harassment and attrition of resources and extrajudicial killings.

The trouble with the present ab/use of the theory (even though it polls well with Heartland Americans, who recognize its logic but not its limitations) is that Al Qaeda's people resources are distributed over much or most of Eurasia and its money sources are ultimately reserves held in the West.

I think you're both right and wrong about the religion aspect. Religions are distillates of cultures, and for the sort of cultural conflict these two very different kinds of people fighting are engaged in, religion is the shorthand for all their differences. Al Qaeda fights rather like desert peoples have fought throughout human history, for example, and the Americans and British (e.g.) have fought as Europeans have since roughly the days of Alexander the Great.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
12. They called them savages.
To much the same effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC