• 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!

Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Read m

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,116
Reaction score
33,461
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism | McClatchy DC

WASHINGTON
While they confer about “de-conflicting” their bombing raids in Syria, U.S. and Russian military officials also might want to discuss what the word “terrorist” means.

That would be an easier discussion for the Russians, who began conducting airstrikes Wednesday, than the Americans, who’ve been bombing Syria for more than a year.

For Russian President Vladimir Putin and his generals, the definition of “terrorist,” when it comes to the increasingly turbulent Syrian civil war, is simple: anyone who uses violence to try to topple President Bashar Assad.

Assad is a dictator, but he’s Moscow’s dictator. Just as the late Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was Washington’s dictator, for decades, before President George W. Bush turned against him and launched an ill-fated March 2003 invasion whose consequences are still playing out more than a dozen years later across the Middle East, from Syria and Iraq to Libya and Iran.
Click to expand...
Is anyone surprised, I don't even think they use the word "terrorist" in the White House.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

God, we must look so weak.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

The developments in regards to Russia right now are fascinating, but the discussions are hysterical between us and Russia.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism | McClatchy DC


Is anyone surprised, I don't even think they use the word "terrorist" in the White House.
Click to expand...
Frankly, it seems like in some areas like syria, everyone, on both sides, is by some definitions a terrorists.

As I understand things, Assad was dealing with a small brewing civil war before ISIS, and has been using attacks against ISIS as an excuse/cover to attack his political opponents.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism | McClatchy DC


Is anyone surprised, I don't even think they use the word "terrorist" in the White House.
Click to expand...

When the CIA is supporting one terrorist organization and perhaps more, and DOD is supporting another terrorist organization and perhaps more, the SPIN machine so effective with the Mighty Wurlitzer works overtime to project a uniform narrative that suggest that anyone accusing them of supporting terrorists is promoting CT. CT, conspiracy theory, a catch all phrase to reduce the credibility of anyone not working for the Mighty Wurlitzer narrative. Perhaps we are the TERRORISTS. Perhaps the War on Terror is the War OF Terror. I personally believe that Obama doesn't actually know what the CIA is doing, because they seem to be at cross purposes. Perhaps an unelected bureaucracy like the CIA just keeps on doing what it has been doing, and since it is so difficult to get through classified details, unknown covert agendas have continuity unbeknownst to the contemporary management. Not a conspiracy theory, but simple recognition of a possible management flaw inherent to the system. What do you think?
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

How is a terrorist any different from a rebel? Why are Ukrainian rebels not called terrorists? I think it has to do with involvement of "civilians" (as if they were victims but by who's definition).
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

Kelfuma said:
How is a terrorist any different from a rebel? Why are Ukrainian rebels not called terrorists? I think it has to do with involvement of "civilians" (as if they were victims but by who's definition).
Click to expand...

I think it is organized spin by a complicit and compliant media. Read foreign news media and get different viewpoints and then analyze for the truth.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

are the PKK terrorists? NATO says yes, Russia says no

are the muslim brotherhood terrorists? NATO says no, Russia says yes

terrorism is subjective
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
Is anyone surprised, I don't even think they use the word "terrorist" in the White House.
Click to expand...

Yeah they do- when discussing white supremacist groups! :lamo

Seriously, where have you been, ever since I was old enough to wear a Brain Bucket and a decidedly bad attitude One man's freedom fighter was another's terrorist. (you seem to forget BushII not being able to call the Chechen bunch terrorists.) :peace
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

pbrauer said:
Sure they do, what they don't say is "Islam terrorist"
Click to expand...

Obama is making people think that he's Muslim sympathizer.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

DaveFagan said:
When the CIA is supporting one terrorist organization and perhaps more, and DOD is supporting another terrorist organization and perhaps more, the SPIN machine so effective with the Mighty Wurlitzer works overtime to project a uniform narrative that suggest that anyone accusing them of supporting terrorists is promoting CT. CT, conspiracy theory, a catch all phrase to reduce the credibility of anyone not working for the Mighty Wurlitzer narrative. Perhaps we are the TERRORISTS. Perhaps the War on Terror is the War OF Terror. I personally believe that Obama doesn't actually know what the CIA is doing, because they seem to be at cross purposes. Perhaps an unelected bureaucracy like the CIA just keeps on doing what it has been doing, and since it is so difficult to get through classified details, unknown covert agendas have continuity unbeknownst to the contemporary management. Not a conspiracy theory, but simple recognition of a possible management flaw inherent to the system. What do you think?
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism | McClatchy DC


Is anyone surprised, I don't even think they use the word "terrorist" in the White House.
Click to expand...

Terrorist is a poorly defined word, really. Where do you want to draw the line to freedom fighter using the same methods? Or for that matter, where is the difference to Assad's people that have lost control and can only be categorized as fighters trying to reestablish a failed state using terrorist methods.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

John Kerry is terrorizing our language. I imagine most Russians and Americans can agree on that. That sumbitch needs to learn to speak clearly about the subject he's addressing, if he even knows what the hell it is. I doubt it. Here's a clue: The Russians just slapped your face and handed you your ass. Deconflict? Really?
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Russia is now in contact with the Free Syrian Army. Perhaps they will suggest to the FSA that they work toward a political solution instead of terrorizing Syria. Otherwise Russia will kick their ass. I think the FSA will listen and respond. Of course the FSA get paychecks from Uncle Sam and that may gum up the works, eh?
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

joG said:
Terrorist is a poorly defined word, really. Where do you want to draw the line to freedom fighter using the same methods? Or for that matter, where is the difference to Assad's people that have lost control and can only be categorized as fighters trying to reestablish a failed state using terrorist methods.
Click to expand...

Freedom fighters don't kill women and children on purpose, and they don't just behead people in the most brutal fashion possible.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
Freedom fighters don't kill women and children on purpose, and they don't just behead people in the most brutal fashion possible.
Click to expand...

No? The Freedom Fighters (US Media term) known as the FSA launched chemical attacks in Syria and tried to blame Assad. A false flag operation, don't ya' know? I think you better do your homework a little better.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
Freedom fighters don't kill women and children on purpose, and they don't just behead people in the most brutal fashion possible.
Click to expand...

That is a question of circumstances. It is true that freedom fighters have traditionally not used asymmetry of means as brutally as has become normal during the last 50 years. But if you think of Resistance, Algerians, Lumumba's people, PLO, IRA, Kurds etc as revolutionary groups looking to liberate themselves from this or that dominant and in their opinion illegitimate power you will see a certain progression. I don't mean to say that I would think all of these movements smart or legitimate, but that is only opinion. Mine against theirs.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

DaveFagan said:
No? The Freedom Fighters (US Media term) known as the FSA launched chemical attacks in Syria and tried to blame Assad. A false flag operation, don't ya' know? I think you better do your homework a little better.
Click to expand...
Then aren't real freedom fighters.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

joG said:
That is a question of circumstances. It is true that freedom fighters have traditionally not used asymmetry of means as brutally as has become normal during the last 50 years. But if you think of Resistance, Algerians, Lumumba's people, PLO, IRA, Kurds etc as revolutionary groups looking to liberate themselves from this or that dominant and in their opinion illegitimate power you will see a certain progression. I don't mean to say that I would think all of these movements smart or legitimate, but that is only opinion. Mine against theirs.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you're debating. Are you saying the purpose killing women and children is a signature strategy for freedom fighters?
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

American said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're debating. Are you saying the purpose killing women and children is a signature strategy for freedom fighters?
Click to expand...

Not signature. But it is an instrument that has been used by organizations that can be termed freedom movements. That it has usually proven to be a poor weapon does not mean it has not been employed by otherwise legitimate groups.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

joG said:
Not signature. But it is an instrument that has been used by organizations that can be termed freedom movements. That it has usually proven to be a poor weapon does not mean it has not been employed by otherwise legitimate groups.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I'm not so sure.
 
Re: Even with translators, U.S. and Russia can’t agree on definition of terrorism Re

The U.S. can't agree on a definition of terrorism. And that's two different organizations within the same government. Obama's admin in Syria is looking ever more ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom