Author Topic: Kerry is supporting the enemy, again (Read 1178 times)

Coolridr · « **Reply #30 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:05:50 PM »

Quote

so the founding fathers were terrorists.

I bet in the minds of the British at that time period, our founding fathers would have been considered terrorists. I'm syre there was propaganda back in England about how violent cells were disrupting the peace of the loyal colonies

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #31 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:29:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Coolridr
I bet in the minds of the British at that time period, our founding fathers would have been considered terrorists. I'm syre there was propaganda back in England about how violent cells were disrupting the peace of the loyal colonies

Good point - of course it does make the occupying forces in Iraq sort of the the equivalent of the Redcoats or Hessians.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:33:28 PM »

I don't recall the redcoats helping the colonists to establish an independent freely elected government and rebuild their infrastructure.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #33 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:39:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I don't recall the redcoats helping the colonists to establish an independent freely elected government and rebuild their infrastructure.

Actually they were.(well at least with the infrastructure thing)

NUKE · « **Reply #34 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:42:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
That has nothing to do with what is defined as terrorism, and btw. their infrastructure wouldn't need rebuilding if you hadn't destroyed it in the first place.

And it would have been destroyed if Saddam didn't invade Kuwait.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #35 on:** April 07, 2004, 10:49:07 PM »

I love the moral relativism here... The Iraq terrorists fighing the USA people offering them democracy and religious freedom are compared to the French resistance who was fighing the Nazis - one of the most brutal regimes in history.

NUKE · « **Reply #36 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:04:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Again irrelevant to the Iraqis who wonder why you now want to help them rebuild their water treatment plant you bombed 13 years ago and prevented them from rebuilding themselves because the equipment was deemed "dual-use".

Irrelevent since now they are liberated now.

NUKE · « **Reply #37 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:11:58 PM »

Yes it does, imo

They know power will be turned over to Iraqis by June, and they are simply a minority of thugs trying to screw everything up for the majority while trying to gain control of the country for themselves.

NUKE · « **Reply #38 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:32:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
If someone fighting a good force he believe to be evil is a terrorist, while someone fighting an evil force he believes to be evil is a freedom fighter, the question is subjective and dependant on how you perceive good and evil. The old cliché "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". Wouldn't truth be better served if we had a common term for these combatants regardless of how and what we perceive good and evil?

That argument makes no sense.

You say a person fighting a good force? I dont care what they beleive, if it is a good force it is a good force.

And if someone is fighting an evil force, then they are fighting evil and that is good.

You assume a third party definition of good and evil in that argument.

Steve · « **Reply #39 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:37:00 PM »

Quote

You know that and I know that, but the Iraqis fighting the Coalition believes they are being "occupied", not liberated.

This is patently wrong. Nuke you have to call him on this. The Iraqi's involved in the recent fighting are doing so because they are in the minority there and will have no chance at power should a democracy rise from the ashes. Their only hope at power is thru concessions from the coalition or outright withdrawl of coalition forces. Don't let Gscholz get away with his Bullcrap.

NUKE · « **Reply #40 on:** April 07, 2004, 11:49:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
No, you misunderstand.

Two combatants, both using the exact same methods for the exact same purpose, the only difference is in their political ideology or religion. If you call one a terrorist and the other a freedom fighter based on your political ideology or religion the definition is subjective and serves no purpose beyond propaganda and demonising your political or religious opponents. Truth would be better served with a common definition based on their methods or purpose regardless of their beliefs, lest what I call a terrorist may not be the same as what you call a terrorist even if we're talking about the same person.

well, I agree that calling someone a terrorist is subjective in this case.... maybe just "enemy" is a better definition.

I wouldn't call them freedom fighters though, since they are fighting against freedom, imo.

Cobra412 · « **Reply #41 on:** April 08, 2004, 12:12:16 AM »

The whole thing about who do we consider what is exactly as you guys have stated, it's subjective. It depends on who's eyes you are looking through. Regardless of peoples opinions of why we went there and what our true purpose was is now irrelevant.

The only thing that should matter now is allowing the Iraqi people to have the rights that they all justly deserve. No matter what their religion maybe. It's about equal opportunity for all opposed to what they had before with the last regime. Give them the tools and the abilitity to build a new government thats main objective is to serve all the people of Iraq. We can't give everyone everything but we can help to make it so even the minority have a say in there country. I'm sure thats all they want and though some may take it to an extreme to get there point across in the long run we are all wishing for the same thing.

NUKE · « **Reply #42 on:** April 08, 2004, 12:23:09 AM »

GScholz, since we actually agreed on something, might I ask that you remove everyone from your ignore list? Myself, I like to see all the posts everyone offers...regardless of weather or not they make me upset.

Hristo · « **Reply #43 on:** April 08, 2004, 12:54:33 AM »

A lot of people on this board consider US presence in Iraq = Freedom.
So much that they don't accept any other view on it.

A lot of Iraqis consider US presence in Iraq = occupation.
So much that they are taking arms and fighting the occupator.

Do Iraqis even want something you consider freedom, although I doubt they would ever get a share of it as you enjoy it in US ?

Do you really think US would allow a Iraqi government elected after June which wouldn't suit US interests ?

While US might be one of most liberal countries in the world (this board is only a small proof), their standards are very different when they occupy another country. Much less a country of totally different culture and tradition.

Put yourself in Iraqi shoes. Someone occupied your country, destroyed a lot of infrastructure, jailed countless people and all that while saying he brings freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy with barbed wire and checkpoints, puppet government and a modern kalif Bremer knowing what's best for Iraqis ?

I don't doubt some US people are sincere and believe they are doing a good thing. But majority of Iraqis, IMO, do not think that way. And it is their life to decide how to live it.

Occupation proved a good thing with Germany and Japan in the long run and all turned out well. But in Middle East or Southeast Asia it turned out to be a disaster.

NUKE · « **Reply #44 on:** April 08, 2004, 12:59:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
A lot of people on this board consider US presence in Iraq = Freedom.
So much that they don't accept any other view on it.

A lot of Iraqis consider US presence in Iraq = occupation.
So much that they are taking arms and fighting the occupator.

So you are an authority on how Iraqis and their feelings? Maybe we should hire you to mediate the peace.

Do you consider the US to be occupiers?