Terrorism (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter Zlatan
- Start date
- Status
I guess, but why would the west be the enemy? So Islam is not a traditional western religion, but there are muslims practicing their religion freely all over the planet. Why single out the west as an enemy? Are these so called "terrorists" simply intolerant of all other religions and all people who don't practice any religion at all? If so, they should have been on the Mayflower. Afterall, the USA was founded by what I had thought was the most religiously intolerant group of bastards to ever walk the earth.
The Jihad has been highly.. er.. misconcepted (word?) by other people. Islam doesn't tell its followers to go kill non muslims mercilessly. If there's one thing Islam is, it's peace. I'm not acquired with enough knowledge regarding terrorism, but I hardly think their main purpose is to wipe out non muslims.
For me personally, these terrorists - the extreme muslims, guerrilla welfares etc, are not just some psycho people. People have been mistreating them, and I think they're just desperate to be heard. Unfortunately, nobody is doing that. And until a negotiation can be reached (which I believe can be reached, but unlikely) this cycle of innocent killings will continue.
For me personally, these terrorists - the extreme muslims, guerrilla welfares etc, are not just some psycho people. People have been mistreating them, and I think they're just desperate to be heard. Unfortunately, nobody is doing that. And until a negotiation can be reached (which I believe can be reached, but unlikely) this cycle of innocent killings will continue.
Some people claim here that America's objective in invading iraq was to 1) Depose Saddam 2) destroy weapons of mass destruction and there programs 3) help the Iraqi people by given them domecratic government ect...
In order to achieve these 3 objectives America simply could have sent 1 assassin with 1 bullet. In order to achieve no. 2 they could have allowed UN to do there job. in order to achieve 3. they better get the **** off there arses and start helping.
IMO America saw Saddam as a potential threat. But thats not why they went in there. I watched a docu recently (ps wasn't Michael Moore) showing how amarica was predicted to run out of oil supplies and not met growing demands in near future. This is the sole reason they went- for oil and cash generated from it.
Another reason goes back to Suddam. I think 15 years (approx)ago Bush senior put Suddam in power simply because he was there Iraqi political/ buisness tool. NOw that Suddam has become bad boy as Ossami has they have decided its best to find new leaders. Having learnt from the past they will now choose candidates under a so called democratic proccess in which the Iraqi's are so called in control of.
If im am wrong anywhere above it is most likely that i have misread USA's intensions. Perhaps they are the a country that wants to help others who are suffering. If this is so then why do they allow hundreds of thousands of African's/ asians to die from things like malnutrition and starvation and civil war. Why has America instead choosen to fight world crisis by funding army's such as the Israeli army in there conflict against the "terrorsit" from palestine or african cults that initiate civil wars.
Other psoters here claim killing any civil who is innocent is an act of terrorsim. If this is your opinion than do you assume that when America went to war with cambodia,vietnam, afghansitan, and now Iraq that no innocent civilians were killed?
I think sadly many people's definition of a terrorist, without realising, is someone from a marginalised group in society who kills a white man/ westerner. Yes some of these people are terrosist but so too are the men living in their Washington estates, drinking fine wine and wearing smart suits whilst playing a round of golf.
In order to achieve these 3 objectives America simply could have sent 1 assassin with 1 bullet. In order to achieve no. 2 they could have allowed UN to do there job. in order to achieve 3. they better get the **** off there arses and start helping.
IMO America saw Saddam as a potential threat. But thats not why they went in there. I watched a docu recently (ps wasn't Michael Moore) showing how amarica was predicted to run out of oil supplies and not met growing demands in near future. This is the sole reason they went- for oil and cash generated from it.
Another reason goes back to Suddam. I think 15 years (approx)ago Bush senior put Suddam in power simply because he was there Iraqi political/ buisness tool. NOw that Suddam has become bad boy as Ossami has they have decided its best to find new leaders. Having learnt from the past they will now choose candidates under a so called democratic proccess in which the Iraqi's are so called in control of.
If im am wrong anywhere above it is most likely that i have misread USA's intensions. Perhaps they are the a country that wants to help others who are suffering. If this is so then why do they allow hundreds of thousands of African's/ asians to die from things like malnutrition and starvation and civil war. Why has America instead choosen to fight world crisis by funding army's such as the Israeli army in there conflict against the "terrorsit" from palestine or african cults that initiate civil wars.
Other psoters here claim killing any civil who is innocent is an act of terrorsim. If this is your opinion than do you assume that when America went to war with cambodia,vietnam, afghansitan, and now Iraq that no innocent civilians were killed?
I think sadly many people's definition of a terrorist, without realising, is someone from a marginalised group in society who kills a white man/ westerner. Yes some of these people are terrosist but so too are the men living in their Washington estates, drinking fine wine and wearing smart suits whilst playing a round of golf.
Same old stuff again, no new arguments. Michael Moore's documentary was very biased, and frankly a one-sided opinion like this can make it seem like Bush is doing no good in office.
When we went to war in those locations, the civilian deaths were mostly all accidents (except for Mi Lai which was a bad situation). But what terrorist groups do is have premeditated killings of civilians, which is of course different from accidental. The definition of a terrorist is someone who kills innocent people, not accidentally, for some cause which may or may not be valid (usually the latter). Thats why our government is not a bunch of terrorists.
When we went to war in those locations, the civilian deaths were mostly all accidents (except for Mi Lai which was a bad situation). But what terrorist groups do is have premeditated killings of civilians, which is of course different from accidental. The definition of a terrorist is someone who kills innocent people, not accidentally, for some cause which may or may not be valid (usually the latter). Thats why our government is not a bunch of terrorists.
- Status