• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq Ministries Targeted in Car Bombings; Over 130 Dead

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html?_r=1&ref=world

BAGHDAD — For the second time in two months, synchronized suicide car bombings struck at the heart of the Iraqi government, severely damaging the Justice Ministry and Provincial Council complexes in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 132 people and raising fresh questions about the government’s ability to secure its most vital operations.

There's still quite a bit of work to be done.
 
In principle I believe in live and let live and freedom of religion goes without question. That is until it became clear that radical Islam is not about religion they are about ticking the clock back to the dark ages and making women subservient and in essence slave in every way distorting the teachings of a questionable religion. They has declared a holy war on the west and their moving to take over the world and are well on their way to getting their wish and with the help of people like Obama they'll get there soon.
If you are one of the fools who claim Islam is a religion of peace please do yourself a favor and take your feeble argument to the special school for retarded people who can't read or think.
These bombings are killing innocent people who only want peace and a just government. The only solution is going to have to be the rounding up of a great number of religious fanatics and killing every one of them. There is no rule of law the fanatics will obey and the innocent will continue to die if drastic measures are not taken both there and sadly here.
Watch and learn; Muslim Demographics - Google Videos
 

Absolutely. But it's work they have to do. Iraq is the success story the Arab Middle East have been needing for decades and decades and they don't even see it. The last thing they need is another failure.

1) They first tried to rebuke the West as if they could be the only region on earth untouched by globalization and progress.

2) Then they tried pan-Arabism in an attempt to unite Arabs in policies and comraderie. This translated into further embarrassment with the Suez Canal War and shattered the idea of Arab unity.

3) By the early 70's Arab governments finally began to accept the Israel in their midst and the benefits of being friendly with the West vice the Soviet Union.

Despite temporary set backs in history, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon are all Muslim nations that have progressed and moved on into the modern world. Of these, Turkey started out on its own by abolishing the Sultan in the '20s (thereby ending hundreds of years of Islamic caliphates) and embarking on democracy and westernization. The most progressive being Egypt and Turkey and those are on the fringes of Islam and removed from the Sunni heartland. I believe there is something to this. We often hear how horrible westernization was for the Middle East, but the two Arab nations that were never colonized? Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. And look at them.

Iraq's population is perfectly positioned to prove once and for all to every single person on earth whether or not a mixture of tribes can get it right in this region. Given Lebanon's attempts gone bad in the 20th century, Iraq is the last of them to try to get it right. Can Middle Eastern populations exist in peace without the brutal oppressions of a dictator or brutal oppressions of a theocracy? Given the chance to progress and create opportunity for all will they opt to slaughter and murder in tribal allegiance above all else?

Iraq is going to change the world for better or for worse. It's not just a single country with an isolated problem. It is going to prove something to everybody. And the last thing Arabs need is proof that they aren't worth anything other than strict control and oppression. We already know that Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia are more upset over the choices their elite make for them rather than their oppression. But can Arabs create a prosperous democratic nation for all Muslims no matter the tribe? The answer will be what they do in Iraq. The majority is Shia. But the Sunni Arabs within will ultimately decide what comes next. And so will the Sunni governments that surround it.
 
Last edited:
Great post. However I disagree with Afghanistan being listed among "Arab" Nations.

I think that the real test is coming. Ayatollah Sistani is a very good ally for the United States and very against the Ayatollah charades we see in Iran. However, Sistani is old and will probably die within the next 10 years.

Currently, Sadr is in Iran going through Ayatollah training. This is a very big problem, if the Shia pop-star Sadr returns and becomes Ayatollah the entire dynamic of Southern Iraq will change.

The positive I see from this is that it was treated as an A.Q. terrorist attack against the Iraqi state. There are no police men rounding up Sunnis in the sectarian ways we saw a few years ago. There's finally the line between Extremism and Iraqi figures.
 
Great post. However I disagree with Afghanistan being listed among "Arab" Nations.

You'd have argument to. Afgfhanistan is a mess of ethnic diversity organized more into clans than tribes. And there is a historical Persian root to be found. But, Afghanistan has had Arab mentality since the late 70s when Saudi Arabia began to establish wahabbist schools. The invasion of the Soviets turned Afghanistan into a Sunni country. The Tali-ban and Al-Queda are Sunni Arab organizations.
 
You'd have argument to. Afgfhanistan is a mess of ethnic diversity organized more into clans than tribes. And there is a historical Persian root to be found. But, Afghanistan has had Arab mentality since the late 70s when Saudi Arabia began to establish wahabbist schools. The invasion of the Soviets turned Afghanistan into a Sunni country. The Tali-ban and Al-Queda are Sunni Arab organizations.

There are more Muslims outside of the Middle East/ Arabia than within the Middle East.

The majority of the people are Pashtuns. The taliban has much more in common with Pakistan than Saudi Arabia. They're as different as Germany is to the United States-- sure a similar religion and history, but still different and should treated as such.
 
In principle I believe in live and let live and freedom of religion goes without question. That is until it became clear that radical Islam is not about religion they are about ticking the clock back to the dark ages and making women subservient and in essence slave in every way distorting the teachings of a questionable religion. They has declared a holy war on the west and their moving to take over the world and are well on their way to getting their wish and with the help of people like Obama they'll get there soon.
If you are one of the fools who claim Islam is a religion of peace please do yourself a favor and take your feeble argument to the special school for retarded people who can't read or think.
These bombings are killing innocent people who only want peace and a just government. The only solution is going to have to be the rounding up of a great number of religious fanatics and killing every one of them. There is no rule of law the fanatics will obey and the innocent will continue to die if drastic measures are not taken both there and sadly here.
Watch and learn; Muslim Demographics - Google Videos


You mention radical Islam, then suggest that people who think Islam is a religion of peace are fools. Islam and radical Islam are not the same thing. Also, calling people who do not think like you fools is not likely to cause someone who doesn't already agree with you to give your statements any weight at all.

Last, can you space your paragraphs? It's hard to read a mashup.
 
You mention radical Islam, then suggest that people who think Islam is a religion of peace are fools. Islam and radical Islam are not the same thing. Also, calling people who do not think like you fools is not likely to cause someone who doesn't already agree with you to give your statements any weight at all.

Last, can you space your paragraphs? It's hard to read a mashup.

I just ignored that post. The video he suggested is erroneous beyond recognition.

People just don't understand that "teaching Muslims the Gospel" is like trying to teach the Gospel to a Baptist Minister. Muslims read the Bible. They believe in the Gospels... sorry for the aside.
 
There are more Muslims outside of the Middle East/ Arabia than within the Middle East.

Which proves that the problems of the Middle East aren't a Muslim thing rather than a regional thing. The further nations, religions, and people (Muslims included) got from Mecca and Medina the healthier they got.


The majority of the people are Pashtuns. The taliban has much more in common with Pakistan than Saudi Arabia. They're as different as Germany is to the United States-- sure a similar religion and history, but still different and should treated as such.

Religion and history isn't what makes them "Arab." Remember pan-Arabism? It was a movement that pulled plenty of non-Arabs into the unity of the Arab tribe thereby identifying them as loyal to the Arab movement. The Baathist party in Syria were not Arabs, yet they identified with the Arab nationalist movement and they catered to the Sunni minority in their midst to unite Muslims under certain causes. In the end, this strengthened the Arab tribe and influenced non Arabs throughout the region.

The Sauds spent a fortune funding wahabbist schools in Afghanistan to combat Khomeini's revolution in Iran. It was combatting Shia fanaticism with Sunni fanaticism. This pulled in non-Arabs. Next thing we know we have a Sunni loyal Tali-Ban hosting a Sunni Al-Queda. The same thing happened in Lebanon. After being slaughtered in Jordan by Jordanioan forces, the PLO shifted into south lebanon. They went on to conscript the largely Shia population in the Arab war against Israel. Before this, the Shia didn't share the Sunni Arab mission to destroy Israel.

All these nations have seperate issues and seperate groups within their unatural borders, but we can't find ouselves in the trap of trying to identify them in accordance to anchient histories. The twentieth century did a lot to alter tirbes allegiances and this resulted in the abandonment of some of their true identities.
 
Which proves that the problems of the Middle East aren't a Muslim thing rather than a regional thing. The further nations, religions, and people (Muslims included) got from Mecca and Medina the healthier they got.




Religion and history isn't what makes them "Arab." Remember pan-Arabism? It was a movement that pulled plenty of non-Arabs into the unity of the Arab tribe thereby identifying them as loyal to the Arab movement. The Baathist party in Syria were not Arabs, yet they identified with the Arab nationalist movement and they catered to the Sunni minority in their midst to unite Muslims under certain causes. In the end, this strengthened the Arab tribe and influenced non Arabs throughout the region.

The Sauds spent a fortune funding wahabbist schools in Afghanistan to combat Khomeini's revolution in Iran. It was combatting Shia fanaticism with Sunni fanaticism. This pulled in non-Arabs. Next thing we know we have a Sunni loyal Tali-Ban hosting a Sunni Al-Queda. The same thing happened in Lebanon. After being slaughtered in Jordan by Jordanioan forces, the PLO shifted into south lebanon. They went on to conscript the largely Shia population in the Arab war against Israel. Before this, the Shia didn't share the Sunni Arab mission to destroy Israel.

All these nations have seperate issues and seperate groups within their unatural borders, but we can't find ouselves in the trap of trying to identify them in accordance to anchient histories. The twentieth century did a lot to alter tirbes allegiances and this resulted in the abandonment of some of their true identities.

Oh. I thought we were dealing with the physical nature of the people. Yeah I would totally agree that they see themselves, most of them at least, as a Arabian front against Bolshevism and Westernization.

They share much in common with their Saka ancestors in-as-much that people still get headaches trying to identify them haha.

The Sauds wouldn't agree with you. They would try to reaffirm that Wahabbism is an American media creation (it's actually fairly laughable to hear the American raised Saudi Diplomats seriously deny such).

We still see some problems involving Muslim communities in areas such as Thailand. But, overly, yeah it is a bad neighborhood for anybody regardless of religion.
 
You mention radical Islam, then suggest that people who think Islam is a religion of peace are fools. Islam and radical Islam are not the same thing.

Most Muslims would agree. And so would I. But plenty would not and simply replace "radical" with "true." The extreme voices of Islam are rather fond of Islam's history and continually preaching about the golden age of Islam when Arabs were on top of the world. Plenty of radicals believe that slavation lies in the past when Islam was in its most glorious, which was when Muhammed established it. The problem here is that Muhammed was a protestor, an activist, an arbiter, a politician, a general, and a soveriegn. We have to consider that Islam has a very dark and deadly side not easily dismissed by politicial correct pats on the back. Consider a few things....

1) Are the radicals and extremists wrong?

After all, when the pagan establishment of Mecca began to confiscate Muslim homes and property it was Muhammed that authorized the uprisings. It was Muhammed that led ambush parties against Meccan caravans to achieve an economical base. And it was Muhammed that eventually led a Muslim army back to Mecca where the pagan establishment fell with little fight. Today, Muslim radicals and extremists are convinced that westernization is a direct assault upon Islam (and Muslims) and that militant organizations to defend it are justified.

2) Do Muslims in the region mean it when they condemn terrorist activity?

If they do, then where are the Muslim armies combatting those who pervert and destroy Islam's image to the world? It makes no sense that Muslims throughout the region can unite, riot, and protest the west whenever they are all lumped into stereotypes as if Islam just suffered the worst insult, but find no will to unite against those who truly destroy their religion directly in their midst.

The fact is that even Muslims in the region are confused about the true identity of their religion. Christians who kill in the name of God can't get away with "what would Jesus do." But can Muslims who are looking back for guidance in describing their religion? Reform is that much harder for the faithful when the inventor of their religion set the example.
 
Most Muslims would agree. And so would I. But plenty would not and simply replace "radical" with "true." The extreme voices of Islam are rather fond of Islam's history and continually preaching about the golden age of Islam when Arabs were on top of the world. Plenty of radicals believe that slavation lies in the past when Islam was in its most glorious, which was when Muhammed established it. The problem here is that Muhammed was a protestor, an activist, an arbiter, a politician, a general, and a soveriegn. We have to consider that Islam has a very dark and deadly side not easily dismissed by politicial correct pats on the back. Consider a few things...

I think you have hit the heart of the extremist interpretation of the prophet's life. Most Muslims would not look at the violence and apply it to their lives; it would just be as ridiculous as a Jew or Christian taking the foreskins of Philistines as David did.
I think you miss that Muhammed, ultimately, was a reformer. He introduced concepts such as reorganizing the marriage structure-- strict guidelines on polygyny. I don't think the fault lies within the reformer, but those who obtain power after Muhammed.

1) Are the radicals and extremists wrong?

After all, when the pagan establishment of Mecca began to confiscate Muslim homes and property it was Muhammed that authorized the uprisings. It was Muhammed that led ambush parties against Meccan caravans to achieve an economical base. And it was Muhammed that eventually led a Muslim army back to Mecca where the pagan establishment fell with little fight. Today, Muslim radicals and extremists are convinced that westernization is a direct assault upon Islam (and Muslims) and that militant organizations to defend it are justified.

I see radicalism within the Middle-East as not a bunch of fanatics leading fanatics, but a bunch of intelligent (ultimately secularists) evil people who twist the religion for their goals.
I don't know if A.Q. leadership has actually read the Kuran... they totally got the wrong message of Jihad, and totally forgot the part that suicide is blasphemous... especially against follow Muslims and Ahl al-Katrib.

2) Do Muslims in the region mean it when they condemn terrorist activity?

If they do, then where are the Muslim armies combatting those who pervert and destroy Islam's image to the world? It makes no sense that Muslims throughout the region can unite, riot, and protest the west whenever they are all lumped into stereotypes as if Islam just suffered the worst insult, but find no will to unite against those who truly destroy their religion directly in their midst.
I think the Muslim governments that only condemn terrorist activity work as the United States has for decades when it comes to it's rhetoric against coups and genocide. I would suspect that the Muslim governments understand the position they would be putting their population in if they tried to take on these extremists.
The fact is that even Muslims in the region are confused about the true identity of their religion. Christians who kill in the name of God can't get away with "what would Jesus do." But can Muslims who are looking back for guidance in describing their religion? Reform is that much harder for the faithful when the inventor of their religion set the example.

Muslims don't think that Muhammed is the "inventor" of anything. They are adamantly opposed to the concept that Westerners try to label them as, which is "Muhammedism". Muhammed is just the final messenger.
 
i can't imagine what. we went where we shouldn't have, we're leaving a mess. it's a horrible situation with no good way out.

What do you mean we went where we shouldn't have? The ME is our resposibility. Can't just leave it to the dictators.
 
What do you mean we went where we shouldn't have? The ME is our resposibility. Can't just leave it to the dictators.

or the Mullahs. God knows the middle east can't be just handed over to Islam
 
Absolutely. But it's work they have to do. Iraq is the success story the Arab Middle East have been needing for decades and decades and they don't even see it. The last thing they need is another failure.

1) They first tried to rebuke the West as if they could be the only region on earth untouched by globalization and progress.

2) Then they tried pan-Arabism in an attempt to unite Arabs in policies and comraderie. This translated into further embarrassment with the Suez Canal War and shattered the idea of Arab unity.

3) By the early 70's Arab governments finally began to accept the Israel in their midst and the benefits of being friendly with the West vice the Soviet Union.

Despite temporary set backs in history, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon are all Muslim nations that have progressed and moved on into the modern world. Of these, Turkey started out on its own by abolishing the Sultan in the '20s (thereby ending hundreds of years of Islamic caliphates) and embarking on democracy and westernization. The most progressive being Egypt and Turkey and those are on the fringes of Islam and removed from the Sunni heartland. I believe there is something to this. We often hear how horrible westernization was for the Middle East, but the two Arab nations that were never colonized? Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. And look at them.

Iraq's population is perfectly positioned to prove once and for all to every single person on earth whether or not a mixture of tribes can get it right in this region. Given Lebanon's attempts gone bad in the 20th century, Iraq is the last of them to try to get it right. Can Middle Eastern populations exist in peace without the brutal oppressions of a dictator or brutal oppressions of a theocracy? Given the chance to progress and create opportunity for all will they opt to slaughter and murder in tribal allegiance above all else?

Iraq is going to change the world for better or for worse. It's not just a single country with an isolated problem. It is going to prove something to everybody. And the last thing Arabs need is proof that they aren't worth anything other than strict control and oppression. We already know that Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia are more upset over the choices their elite make for them rather than their oppression. But can Arabs create a prosperous democratic nation for all Muslims no matter the tribe? The answer will be what they do in Iraq. The majority is Shia. But the Sunni Arabs within will ultimately decide what comes next. And so will the Sunni governments that surround it.

For the most part I would agree. I think the work that must be done, must be done by the Iraqis. It's not something we can give them. They have to choose to get along, to create a government for themselves which is sensitive to the varying tribe. For that a truly secular government is needed. It's nice to say we're going to go bring freedom and democracy or whatever, but the truth is we can't. It's not just us rolling in saying "hey you're free" which makes the situation successful. The people of the area have to be willing to go the route too. They have got to want it, they have got to fight for it, they have got to secure it. Not us.

Will it turn out for the better? I don't know. I don't see things getting better, I don't see the resolve necessary in a People to accept the responsibilities and consequences of freedom. To fight for it, and to hold on to it. I hope that Iraq can figure their **** out. But at the same accord, I don't think anymore of my countrymen should die for their freedom.
 
Wow that is one big freaking explosion. More like a damn MacTruck bomb instead of a car bomb.

[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d62_1256489185]LiveLeak.com - Second Baghdad Car Bomb Caught On Camera.[/ame]

[ame="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=74e_1256482362"]LiveLeak.com - Baghdad car bombing footage - 136 dead so far[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. But it's work they have to do. Iraq is the success story the Arab Middle East have been needing for decades and decades and they don't even see it. The last thing they need is another failure.
Since they've never had it how can it be another failure?

Iraq's population is perfectly positioned to prove once and for all to every single person on earth whether or not a mixture of tribes can get it right in this region. Given Lebanon's attempts gone bad in the 20th century, Iraq is the last of them to try to get it right. Can Middle Eastern populations exist in peace without the brutal oppressions of a dictator or brutal oppressions of a theocracy? Given the chance to progress and create opportunity for all will they opt to slaughter and murder in tribal allegiance above all else?
Can a leopard change it's spots? Of, course, of course but evolution takes a long, long time.

Iraq is going to change the world for better or for worse.

Only on the slim chance that it either goes back to a Saddam type, or, evn less likely it becomes a quasi democracy with no tribal, sectarian divisions.

But can Arabs create a prosperous democratic nation for all Muslims no matter the tribe? The answer will be what they do in Iraq. The majority is Shia. But the Sunni Arabs within will ultimately decide what comes next. And so will the Sunni governments that surround it.

I think some sunni factions voted yesterday.
 
You'd have argument to. Afgfhanistan is a mess of ethnic diversity organized more into clans than tribes. And there is a historical Persian root to be found. But, Afghanistan has had Arab mentality since the late 70s when Saudi Arabia began to establish wahabbist schools. The invasion of the Soviets turned Afghanistan into a Sunni country. The Tali-ban and Al-Queda are Sunni Arab organizations.

Everything I've read by Afghanis say this is not so. Taliban have had training/funds from Arab and Chechen sources. They are hardly taking on a Chechen mentality. The insurgency in Afghanistan is primarily nationalistic and anti foreign. They will accept help from whoever, but once in control they will pay little heed to the Arabs. They will, however, pay heed to the Pakis.
 
I see radicalism within the Middle-East as not a bunch of fanatics leading fanatics, but a bunch of intelligent (ultimately secularists) evil people who twist the religion for their goals.
I don't know if A.Q. leadership has actually read the Kuran... they totally got the wrong message of Jihad, and totally forgot the part that suicide is blasphemous... especially against follow Muslims and Ahl al-Katrib.

I sort of agree, but I think they started out as religious nationalists, by which I mean they were pro Islam/anti west. They saw their own govts as faux islam and pro west. This led them to use religious nationalism as their driving force, but they knew that emphasizing the Islam part would sell better to the masses. When their own govts cut them off at the knees they focused more on the anti west aspect, which forced them to spin an: " our way is the only way" mantra. The sunni insurgency in Iraq is simply after power, but they recruit their cannon fodder through religious mendacity.

But under it all is a deep wish to return to the "glory days" of Empire Islam, which is a power issue at the core of a religious belief: "we were briliant because we followed the proper path, and the way back is to do so again." Which sells better than: "we can get powerful again if we just learn from the Jews.":mrgreen:
 
Absolutely. But it's work they have to do. Iraq is the success story the Arab Middle East have been needing for decades and decades and they don't even see it. The last thing they need is another failure.

1) They first tried to rebuke the West as if they could be the only region on earth untouched by globalization and progress.

2) Then they tried pan-Arabism in an attempt to unite Arabs in policies and comraderie. This translated into further embarrassment with the Suez Canal War and shattered the idea of Arab unity.

3) By the early 70's Arab governments finally began to accept the Israel in their midst and the benefits of being friendly with the West vice the Soviet Union.

Despite temporary set backs in history, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon are all Muslim nations that have progressed and moved on into the modern world. Of these, Turkey started out on its own by abolishing the Sultan in the '20s (thereby ending hundreds of years of Islamic caliphates) and embarking on democracy and westernization. The most progressive being Egypt and Turkey and those are on the fringes of Islam and removed from the Sunni heartland. I believe there is something to this. We often hear how horrible westernization was for the Middle East, but the two Arab nations that were never colonized? Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. And look at them.

Iraq's population is perfectly positioned to prove once and for all to every single person on earth whether or not a mixture of tribes can get it right in this region. Given Lebanon's attempts gone bad in the 20th century, Iraq is the last of them to try to get it right. Can Middle Eastern populations exist in peace without the brutal oppressions of a dictator or brutal oppressions of a theocracy? Given the chance to progress and create opportunity for all will they opt to slaughter and murder in tribal allegiance above all else?

Iraq is going to change the world for better or for worse. It's not just a single country with an isolated problem. It is going to prove something to everybody. And the last thing Arabs need is proof that they aren't worth anything other than strict control and oppression. We already know that Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia are more upset over the choices their elite make for them rather than their oppression. But can Arabs create a prosperous democratic nation for all Muslims no matter the tribe? The answer will be what they do in Iraq. The majority is Shia. But the Sunni Arabs within will ultimately decide what comes next. And so will the Sunni governments that surround it.

How exactly has Syria progressed? Its no less totalitarian than Saddam was. Eygpt is hardly switzerland either
 
AQ and Taliban are just a dehumanizing campaign. Their side has many non-humans. And we must stop them.

Most insurgents in Afghanistan not religiously motivated, military reports say - The Boston Globe

Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports

Some of the major insurgent groups, including one responsible for a spate of recent American casualties, actually opposed the Taliban’s harsh Islamic government in Afghanistan during the 1990s, according to the reports, described by US officials under the condition they not be identified.

US commanders and politicians often loosely refer to the enemy as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, giving rise to the image of holy warriors seeking to spread a fundamentalist form of Islam. But the mostly ethnic Pashtun fighters are often deeply connected by family and social ties to the valleys and mountains where they are fighting, and they see themselves as opposing the United States be cause it is an occupying power, the officials and analysts said.


We are not contemplating sending many troops to stop fanatical zealots. We are thinking about sending more to fight against people, who a huge majority, that feel they need to fight for their territory. That we are invading them.


Even the way we use the word "insurgency" is almost propaganda.

Insurgent
1. the state or condition of being insurgent.
2. insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.
3. rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.

What happened to battling terrorists? Are we their to kill there spreaders of terror? Or their territory resistors?

Terrorist
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

So to be an insurgent against the UK was ok during the times of the founding of America. But then we invade non-guilty countries we start off by calling them terrorists. Now our focus is using terrorism on our part to scare those who would rebel against the government we are vying to establish there. If America is invaded by aliens/NWO/China/or Jew robots is it wrong to be a rebel/insurgent against them? (Whatever form of rebellion is sought) Aren't TEA party insurgents by the true deffinition of the word? How much longer till they are dehuminized to the extent of AQ?

How much longer till we can point at a massive group of people on our soil and say,

"Because of the extreme actions of a tiny percent of people in that crowd it will be safer to kill them all."



Merging terrorist and insurgent becomes a scary thing. And we use the word as if it is one in the same in this country.

I would like for someone to pull up a insurgent terrorist's kill count and American drone kill count so we can compare who is spreading more terror in our occupied territories. If a huge base of people want to be against our government and we iron hand them into obedience... Are we not the actual terrorists? If one of them kills our brother is it right to kill them? Their brother, their daughter, sister, and grandma?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom