The war on terrorism isnt really the kind of war we are used to having, its not like america vs. germany in WW2; it's a battle of ideals and cultures. It can be more easily defined as the war on radical islam, an emerging underworld-power (beleive it or not). Theres a lot more at stake than Iraq or Afghanistan. Its society that we're really fighting for.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As I said The definition of a terrorist is very broad. However, trying to strech it to "freedom-fighters" is absolutely flawed.Terrorist target civilians and military compounds. They would also kill their own people intentionally to attain their means.
Freedom Fighters are individuals who are in rebellion against an oppressive and illegitimate government. However they don't target civilians they target the ruling military.
When a terrorist straps a bomb to himself/herself and walks towards a public place an blows up killing by standers....what freedom is he/she fighting for? Explain that one to me. What is the message they're sending?
A freedom fighter has a specific target. The military...nothing more.
The family of those Iraqi victims are most likely to label the Marines as murderers rather than terrorist. And they need to be put on trial to show this people that actions such as those won't be tolerated.
Educating people on the dangers of certains drugs is very helpful. At the moment I think is still undecided on whether it's winning or losing. But as stated earlier you do not just throw your hands up and give up. You educate...that's the key.
What makes you say that it is FLAWED to talk about freedom-fighters. Are the people in the occupied Palestinian territories freedom fighters or terrorists? If your country was invaded and you fought back against the invaders, would you consider yourself a terrorist or a freedom-fighter?
The MILITARY targets civilian and military compounds as well. How can you define a terrorist by their targets and whether or not they would kill their own. How do you know all terrorists would kill their own people intentionally to attain their means? What is "own people" in your definition?
Define illegitimate government, please. I see no need that it be oppresive for people to fight against it... During WW II people in countries occupied by the Nazis would resort to sabotage and other acts as part of their attempt to undermine Hitlers regime. I am sure Hitlers regime viewed them as terrorists. And I am sure freedom fighters will have no problem targeting civilians if it is a necessary mean to a goal.
Why do YOU think a person would strap a bomb to him/herslef and walk to a public place and commit suicide and take bystanders with him/herself? This has happened in Israel. Maybe some Palestinians are trying to get attention to the mistreatment they get from the Israeli government who attacks stone-throwers with airplanes??
What do you view the freedom-fighters goal to be? As opposed to the goal of a terrorist? The ultimate goal. What do you think the suicide-bomber in Israel wishes to accomplish?
Do you think the number of civilian casualities determines whether or not a person is a terrorist or a freedom-fighter?
You write that terrorists targets civilians. Those marines targeted civilians. Does that make them terrorists?
It seems to me that those who oppose calling this "conflict" a war; those who see no significant difference between, say, the mission of the US Marines (not the aberrations) and that of the Islamic fanatics; those who feel that, in effect, America, Israel and the Western way of life are the cause of our current predicament: it seems to me their posts have been reactive, not active. In other words, they spend much time and energy pointing out the "flaws" in the POV of those who see this as a war; those who see a real difference between the two sides; those who understand that if America and her allies lose/withdraw, there will be a major step backwards in the quality of life for many people in many countries as well as increased risk of use of WMDs. To those people, I thus ask pointedly...
1. Why do you see this as a "conflict" and not a war?
2. Why do you see no real difference between what Western civilization is trying to accomplish (prevent?), and what the fundamentalists are trying to do?
3. Why do you see everything that's going on (not just the war in Iraq) as "America's/Israel's/the Western world's fault"?
4. If America et al ceases its efforts/withdraws, what do you think the short-term and long-term consequences will be? Ie, how do you feel the world will change (if at all) and why?
Don't ask questions about why I'm asking these questions; don't state that you take offense at being asked; don't quibble over wording or terminology: I trust you are all intelligent enough to understand the spirit of this thread, even if you disagree with the exact wording. If you insist on counter-questioning, getting huffy or term-quibbling, I will have to conclude that you find haven in distraction and evasion, in tangents (again, you're reacting, not acting), rather than having the confidence (focus? ability?) to state your position clearly, a position reflecting your feelings and beliefs independent of what you don't like about the opposing POV.
As comedian Lewis Black might put it: so far you've been sounding like a bunch of Democrats criticizing Republican policy, rather than offering ideas of your own.
I, personally, will not be looking to attack what you have to say. This thread has gone on long enough to highlight that That won't get us anywhere. But stating your position clearly, if nothing else, may help those who think you guys are "wrong/in denial/blissfully naive" to better understand where you're coming from.
Please: just answer the questions I've posted. Period.
Thank you.
Originally posted by MindshipEasy there on the attachment to opinion, my friend! Same goes for me also...anyway😉
2. Why do you see no real difference between what Western civilization is trying to accomplish (prevent?), and what the fundamentalists are trying to do?
3. Why do you see everything that's going on (not just the war in Iraq) as "America's/Israel's/the Western world's fault"?
4. If America et al ceases its efforts/withdraws, what do you think the short-term and long-term consequences will be? Ie, how do you feel the world will change (if at all) and why?
Thank you.
2. Why do you see no real difference between what Western civilization is trying to accomplish (prevent?), and what the fundamentalists are trying to do?
I think it's more than just "prevention" on the US side, but more an invasion from the US side into other countries and not minding their own business. US should not force things into the way they want. Give the freedom to others to even destroy themselves.
3. Why do you see everything that's going on (not just the war in Iraq) as "America's/Israel's/the Western world's fault"?
The Western world is built on ego, materialism, accomplishment, material gain and goals, lacking in simple loving kindness - the effect is Karma - you reap what you sow. Agression and Invasion IN = Agression and Invasion OUT.
4. If America et al ceases its efforts/withdraws, what do you think the short-term and long-term consequences will be? Ie, how do you feel the world will change (if at all) and why?
In that case, the US will be an excellent example of detachment and respect for the business of others. By dropping the "pro-active" act, other countries, including the Middle East will return the kindness and freedom.
Originally posted by The Omega
What makes you say that it is FLAWED to talk about freedom-fighters. Are the people in the occupied Palestinian territories freedom fighters or terrorists? If your country was invaded and you fought back against the invaders, would you consider yourself a terrorist or a freedom-fighter?
Comparing the two is flawed. That's why there are two distinctive words. If my country was invaded and I fought back there are two descrpitions I would be a given one is a "Rebel" the other a member of a "Resistance". Does WWII "Resistances" ring a bell to you?
Originally posted by The Omega
The MILITARY targets civilian and military compounds as well. How can you define a terrorist by their targets and whether or not they would kill their own. How do you know all terrorists would kill their own people intentionally to attain their means? What is "own people" in your definition?
"The MILITARY targets civilian and military compounds as well." I have problem understanding this....the "military" targets "military compounds" does that mean they target themselves? Or do they target "enemy locations"? (see how nice it is to answer a question with another question) An army does NOT directly attack the civilians. They directly attack the enemy. However, the enemy is so clever (and cowardly) that they hide behind civilians so that later they can claim the military purposly (sp?) kill innocents. It's an old trick...see, the enemy hides behind some mosque or a church...the military attacks...and later the enemy declares..."they're attacking our RELIGION". That's how they gather sympathy. Their own people would be define as the "people whom they fight for" meaning those who willingly support them both political and religious.
Originally posted by The Omega
Define illegitimate government, please. I see no need that it be oppresive for people to fight against it... During WW II people in countries occupied by the Nazis would resort to sabotage and other acts as part of their attempt to undermine Hitlers regime. I am sure Hitlers regime viewed them as terrorists. And I am sure freedom fighters will have no problem targeting civilians if it is a necessary mean to a goal.
Look up Resistance that I mention above please. The Maquis worked with other nations to liberate their country from the Nazi occupation. In this sense the Nazi's could have call them anything. For the rest of the world they were consider freedom fighters. Not terrorist....see you're confuse. When you say Terrorist and Freedom fighter you're thinking on tactics. Both may use "guerilla warfare" as a method of attack. That doesn't mean they're the same. If you consider both terms to be the same then write a letter to all the dictionaries and tell them that the definition is the same.
Originally posted by The Omega
Why do YOU think a person would strap a bomb to him/herslef and walk to a public place and commit suicide and take bystanders with him/herself? This has happened in Israel. Maybe some Palestinians are trying to get attention to the mistreatment they get from the Israeli government who attacks stone-throwers with airplanes??
The Israel/Palestine conflict is much more complicated than that. It's a whole different and separate issue. A better term for these individuals is refer to as "suicide bombers".
Originally posted by The Omega
What do you view the freedom-fighters goal to be? As opposed to the goal of a terrorist? The ultimate goal. What do you think the suicide-bomber in Israel wishes to accomplish?
Do you think the number of civilian casualities determines whether or not a person is a terrorist or a freedom-fighter?You write that terrorists targets civilians. Those marines targeted civilians. Does that make them terrorists?
A freedom fighter goal is to be liberated from an oppresor goverment. The goal of a terrorist is to inflict FEAR into civilians. Up to this point I've only heard these terrorist proclaim they figth for the Mighty Allah and destroy the infidel (i.e. me an any other American)
Originally posted by juliustheimpale
actually, it's more of an economic war... but probably, the worst thing that could happen is when everybody couldn't recognize the thin line between a real war and a war for money... but then again, wars are always because of money... so why do i even bother responding to this? LOL ^_^
Because it needs to be repeated every once in a while?
Originally posted by cking
it is more of a war of control also.
Indeed.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Comparing the two is flawed. That's why there are two distinctive words. If my country was invaded and I fought back there are two descrpitions I would be a given one is a "Rebel" the other a member of a "Resistance". Does WWII "Resistances" ring a bell to you?
I am not saying the two are the SAME. I am saying that we’re running the risk of labelling anyone who’s not awed at the West and fight against the current western invasion in Arab countries as TERRORISTS, when they may see themselves as rebels/freedom-fighters etc.
It’s not what you or a person taking up arms may or may not be – I’m talking about how the word “terrorist” can easily be abused to label almost ANYONE who does not conform to western ideals. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
"The MILITARY targets civilian and military compounds as well." I have problem understanding this....the "military" targets "military compounds" does that mean they target themselves? Or do they target "enemy locations"? (see how nice it is to answer a question with another question) An army does NOT directly attack the civilians. They directly attack the enemy. However, the enemy is so clever (and cowardly) that they hide behind civilians so that later they can claim the military purposly (sp?) kill innocents. It's an old trick...see, the enemy hides behind some mosque or a church...the military attacks...and later the enemy declares..."they're attacking our RELIGION". That's how they gather sympathy. Their own people would be define as the "people whom they fight for" meaning those who willingly support them both political and religious.
Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other. Are you saying terrorists intentionally targets others from their own terror-group? “An army does NOT directly attack the civilians. They directly attack the enemy.” Vietnam?? Iraqi civilians gunned down by marines? Define “the enemy.” Do you mean terrorists? And if “the enemy” hides behind a Mosque, why would “the army” attack the Mosque in the first place?? Is a Mosque a military compound???? Are you speaking solely in terms of Iraq right now, because your definitions are vague? If your army is weaker than your enemies, do you not think you’d resort to “clever” and “cowardly” tricks in the conflict?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Look up Resistance that I mention above please. The Maquis worked with other nations to liberate their country from the Nazi occupation. In this sense the Nazi's could have call them anything. For the rest of the world they were consider freedom fighters. Not terrorist....see you're confuse. When you say Terrorist and Freedom fighter you're thinking on tactics. Both may use "guerilla warfare" as a method of attack. That doesn't mean they're the same. If you consider both terms to be the same then write a letter to all the dictionaries and tell them that the definition is the same.
Again, when did I claim a terrorist was the same as a freedom-fighter? However, one person with a gun may be called both, depending on who you ask. Can you see this?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The Israel/Palestine conflict is much more complicated than that. It's a whole different and separate issue. A better term for these individuals is refer to as "suicide bombers".
Yes, but the Palestinians may call a suicide-bomber a freedom-fighter. The Israeli government would call them terrorists. So are they both?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
A freedom fighter goal is to be liberated from an oppresor goverment. The goal of a terrorist is to inflict FEAR into civilians. Up to this point I've only heard these terrorist proclaim they figth for the Mighty Allah and destroy the infidel (i.e. me an any other American)
Perhaps some Iraqis see Western occupation as oppressive? And want to get rid of the invading forces and the government they have created? Does that make this group freedom-fighters or terrorists?
Part of the problem lays in the US bases that the Saudi government has allowed in Saudi Arabia. This means “infidel forces occupy the holy land (of the Muslims)” to fanatical extremists. This creates ANOTHER disgruntled group who now sees the war in Iraq as an opportunity to strike at “the enemy”…
Begging your pardon, but if you think “infidel” means only YOU or other US-citizens your world is too small.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
(i.e. me an any other American)
And all of everyone else who is not a Muslim/middle-eastern extremist. If you need more explanation Omega, that means Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Mexicans, Spaniards, Germans, French, Italians, Irish, English, and definitely Israelis will be killed because they are not Muslim, and they do not serve the almighty Allah.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And all of everyone else who is not a Muslim/middle-eastern extremist. If you need more explanation Omega, that means Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Mexicans, Spaniards, Germans, French, Italians, Irish, English, and definitely Israelis will be killed because they are not Muslim, and they do not serve the almighty Allah.
Well said. 😉
XYZ, you further prove the point of why little kids dont take place in real discussions.
Originally posted by The Omega
I am not saying the two are the SAME. I am saying that we’re running the risk of labelling anyone who’s not awed at the West and fight against the current western invasion in Arab countries as TERRORISTS, when they may see themselves as rebels/freedom-fighters etc.
It’s not what you or a person taking up arms may or may not be – I’m talking about how the word “terrorist” can easily be abused to label almost ANYONE who does not conform to western ideals. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
Oh, good I'm glad you're saying that there are not the same after the fact I explained they're NOT the same. Well done. The word "terrorist" can be abused? Really? If that is the case then why do we call the insurgency in Iraq "insurgents" and not "terrorist"? You would think that if the word was truly being misused we would label these insurgents as "terrorist". I'm sure they MIGHT have connections to terrorist groups. However, because of lack of evidence they will be label as insurgents. Now, Do you understand what I am trying to say? Or you are just waiting to reply? In a conversation do you listen or wait to reply?
Originally posted by The Omega
Maybe we’re misunderstanding each other. Are you saying terrorists intentionally targets others from their own terror-group? “An army does NOT directly attack the civilians. They directly attack the enemy.” Vietnam?? Iraqi civilians gunned down by marines? Define “the enemy.” Do you mean terrorists? And if “the enemy” hides behind a Mosque, why would “the army” attack the Mosque in the first place?? Is a Mosque a military compound???? Are you speaking solely in terms of Iraq right now, because your definitions are vague? If your army is weaker than your enemies, do you not think you’d resort to “clever” and “cowardly” tricks in the conflict?
I don't think I'm misunderstanding you. I think you're not willing to understand me. Read it again:
It's an old trick...see, the enemy hides behind some mosque or a church...the military attacks...and later the enemy declares..."they're attacking our RELIGION". That's how they gather sympathy. Their own people would be define as the "people whom they fight for" meaning those who willingly support them both political and religious.
For the purpose of discussion we will call them "The Enemy".
This is a tactic used by The Enemy to attract their opponents into attacking into their territory. They give out information of their location with the purpose that their opponents attack them. Their location is inside some sacred religious location. The Enemy wants them (i.e. their opponents) to attack their sacred religious location so that later they can proclaim that their opponents have NO respect for their sacred places. This will gain them support by those who share their religious beliefs. As clever as The Enemy may seen this is an act of cowardice. Using their religion to justify their actions. Dirty War tactics.
Originally posted by The Omega
Yes, but the Palestinians may call a suicide-bomber a freedom-fighter. The Israeli government would call them terrorists. So are they both?
They can call themselves whatever they want! So if they call themselves Freedom Fighters does that mean they are? Basically they want your sympathy. The Israeli government would call them terrorist. However, the Israeli government may not have the final word on this. Also, Why did you continue to bring this out? Wasn't I clear enough when I told you this a more complicated separate issued? I hope this is not some tangling tactic to throw off the argument.
Originally posted by The Omega
Perhaps some Iraqis see Western occupation as oppressive? And want to get rid of the invading forces and the government they have created? Does that make this group freedom-fighters or terrorists?
Part of the problem lays in the US bases that the Saudi government has allowed in Saudi Arabia. This means “infidel forces occupy the holy land (of the Muslims)” to fanatical extremists. This creates ANOTHER disgruntled group who now sees the war in Iraq as an opportunity to strike at “the enemy”…
If the Iraqis see it like this is understanble. However, they're been giving the chance to elect their future leaders. So maybe down the road they decide to get rid it of all we can't say nothing more. As for your freedom fighters and terrorist comment...look up insurgents.
Originally posted by The Omega
Begging your pardon, but if you think “infidel” means only YOU or other US-citizens your world is too small.
No, I don't need you to beg my pardon about my world. Trust me my world is larger than yours. Every time Osama Bin Laden releases a tape with the destroy the American Infidels message is pretty clear he's addressing us (i.e. the US nation and it's citizens) I'm quite aware that the word "infidel" is broad. But when an extremist uses to address us...he is basically addressing us.
terrorism is created by war, not by people who 'hate freedom'. they are elevated to power through brute force from the power vacuum we leave behind everytime we play god of the world. we allowed osama and al qaeda to gain control of afghanistan. we did this by abandoning them, fueling general contempt and despair/hopelessness and thus allowing the general population to slip into a fanatical and panicked state. its the perfect disposition for crazed warlords to take power.
the way to win a war on terror is to kill their support. the way to do this is to stop bombing the shit out of civilians. you would be surprised how people would calm down after going a few months of not seeing leveled buildings and body parts littering the streets...people tend to be slightly content when not confronted with the everyday prospect of dieing in some random bombing.
like it or not, the more we attack the more they hate us, and the more they hate us the more terrorists are recruited. so its either we choose diplomacy or we choose genocide. however dirty they fight is inconsequential to that reality.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And all of everyone else who is not a Muslim/middle-eastern extremist. If you need more explanation Omega, that means Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Mexicans, Spaniards, Germans, French, Italians, Irish, English, and definitely Israelis will be killed because they are not Muslim, and they do not serve the almighty Allah.
That was not what WrathfulDwarf defined an infidel as...
Question: How can you be a Middle-eastern extremist? 😄
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh, good I'm glad you're saying that there are not the same after the fact I explained they're NOT the same.
When did I ever say they were??? None of my arguments have been based on this assumption… Are you reading what I write or reading what you THINK I write?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The word "terrorist" can be abused? Really? If that is the case then why do we call the insurgency in Iraq "insurgents" and not "terrorist"? You would think that if the word was truly being misused we would label these insurgents as "terrorist". I'm sure they MIGHT have connections to terrorist groups. However, because of lack of evidence they will be label as insurgents. Now, Do you understand what I am trying to say? Or you are just waiting to reply? In a conversation do you listen or wait to reply?
If you are right, why are the insurgents in Iraq also labelled terrorists? Or were else is this “war on terror” being fought? http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/bush.iraq/index.html So is it not the terrorist movement the west is fighting in Iraq? 😄
And, please, do not stoop to patronizing – that suits no argument or discussion.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't think I'm misunderstanding you. I think you're not willing to understand me. Read it again:
So you are not misunderstanding ME - it must be ME who is not WILLING to understand you? No, if you’re not misunderstanding me, then my previous post stands and you can reply to it.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
For the purpose of discussion we will call them "The Enemy".
This is a tactic used by The Enemy to attract their opponents into attacking into their territory. They give out information of their location with the purpose that their opponents attack them. Their location is inside some sacred religious location. The Enemy wants them (i.e. their opponents) to attack their sacred religious location so that later they can proclaim that their opponents have NO respect for their sacred places. This will gain them support by those who share their religious beliefs. As clever as The Enemy may seen this is an act of cowardice. Using their religion to justify their actions. Dirty War tactics.
You seem very certain of the tactics used. Can you give me an example of this tactic being used in… say… Iraq? I know of examples were insurgents themselves have attacked sacred religious places, but when did the western armies do this?
Cowardly? If you’re outnumbered 10 to 10000 I doubt charging the enemy head on would be considered courageous.
But – you’re saying terrorists are defined by what you would call cowardly tactics?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
They can call themselves whatever they want! So if they call themselves Freedom Fighters does that mean they are? Basically they want your sympathy. The Israeli government would call them terrorist. However, the Israeli government may not have the final word on this. Also, Why did you continue to bring this out? Wasn't I clear enough when I told you this a more complicated separate issued? I hope this is not some tangling tactic to throw off the argument.
(-sighs-) It has nothing to do with what YOU tell me, dear. You’re not the final authority on this matter, are you? If you are, can you explain to me when you became this? The Israeli government calls the Palestinian freedom-fighters terrorists to attract sympathy as well… Especially from one specific country…
(-sighs loudly-) Yes, it is complicated… the point is to show you, that who WE label as terrorist may not be… Unless you claim that only in one specific location is the issue complicated??
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If the Iraqis see it like this is understanble. However, they're been giving the chance to elect their future leaders. So maybe down the road they decide to get rid it of all we can't say nothing more. As for your freedom fighters and terrorist comment...look up insurgents.
What does elections in Iraq have to do with Iraqis who’ve had their civilian family members gunned down by marines?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No, I don't need you to beg my pardon about my world. Trust me my world is larger than yours. Every time Osama Bin Laden releases a tape with the destroy the American Infidels message is pretty clear he's addressing us (i.e. the US nation and it's citizens) I'm quite aware that the word "infidel" is broad. But when an extremist uses to address us...he is basically addressing us.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Up to this point I've only heard these terrorist proclaim they figth for the Mighty Allah and destroy the infidel (i.e. me an any other American)
PVS> Well said.
Originally posted by The Omega
That was not what WrathfulDwarf defined an infidel as...
🙄
Originally posted by The Omega
When did I ever say they were??? None of my arguments have been based on this assumption… Are you reading what I write or reading what you THINK I write?
Again, you say this AFTER the fact. Your argument tries flux from one thing to another. But we'll let this one rest. I can ask you the same thing if you're reading what I write or reading what you think I write. It's going nowhere let's set aside personal assumptions from here on...
Originally posted by The Omega
If you are right, why are the insurgents in Iraq also labelled terrorists? Or were else is this “war on terror” being fought? http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/bush.iraq/index.html So is it not the terrorist movement the west is fighting in Iraq? 😄
And, please, do not stoop to patronizing – that suits no argument or discussion.
I could be wrong. Or I could be right. Maybe I'm neither. I may have the wrong or right impressions. I don't mind accepting my faults....Do you accept yours? The main point for me is that in order to keep one thing from turning into another is the definitions. For me an insurgent a terrorist and a freedom fighter are not the same.
As for your comment on stooping to patronizing I'll ask you the same next time you feel like calling me "dear":
(-sighs-) It has nothing to do with what YOU tell me, dear.
Originally posted by The Omega
You seem very certain of the tactics used. Can you give me an example of this tactic being used in… say… Iraq? I know of examples were insurgents themselves have attacked sacred religious places, but when did the western armies do this?Cowardly? If you’re outnumbered 10 to 10000 I doubt charging the enemy head on would be considered courageous.
But – you’re saying terrorists are defined by what you would call cowardly tactics?
If I remenber correctly this tactic was used by terrorist networks in Sudan and Afghanistan (however, I will admit that I'm not 100% sure on where exactly they've used). They organize and conduct their opperations in mosques. I think western armies are aware of these tactics and would not take direct action. Again, that's what these people want. An attack on their holy places.
Oh well TOO friggin bad if they're outnumber! The terrorist picked a fight with the Bigger dog. So if they get a big bite in the rump they simply ask for it. And yes they are still cowards for hidding in caves and using their own people to shield themselves from an attack.
Originally posted by The Omega
(-sighs-) It has nothing to do with what YOU tell me, dear. You’re not the final authority on this matter, are you? If you are, can you explain to me when you became this? The Israeli government calls the Palestinian freedom-fighters terrorists to attract sympathy as well… Especially from one specific country…(-sighs loudly-) Yes, it is complicated…
I'm not the final authority and neither are YOU. Finally, we agree this is complicated issue...and I think is best to separated.
Originally posted by The Omega
What does elections in Iraq have to do with Iraqis who’ve had their civilian family members gunned down by marines?
Those marines most likely will be put on trial for their crimes. When was the last time a terrorist or an insurgent was put on trial by their respective supporters for killing innocent bystanders? I mention the elections in Iraq because these people now have a right to protest and demand justice for the wrongs commit to them. Elections=Power to the people. They have a right to demand justice. And I feel that it should be given to them.