OK class, for homework, I want you all to rent the movie
"Red Dawn" this weekend and hand in a report on Monday on the subject: "Was Patrick Swayze a terrorist or a freedom fighter?"
WOLVERINES!
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
okbye
joefromchicago wrote:OK class, for homework, I want you all to rent the movie
"Red Dawn" this weekend and hand in a report on Monday on the subject: "Was Patrick Swayze a terrorist or a freedom fighter?"
WOLVERINES!
Swayze was a freedom fighter for the simple fact that he was fighting the invading army only. He wasn't killing fellow Americans. If he were to kill Americans then that would have made him a terrorist.
Being a US soldier I don't have a problem (I do have a problem but for different reasons) with the "Insurgents" attacking coalition soldiers that is a sound tactic. I have an issue with them attacking civilians and blowing up car bombs while people wait to get jobs or people leaving a Mosque. That is what makes them terrorists and not freedom fighters.
Baldimo,
It is certainly possible that there are "freedom fighters" (i.e. by your definition) in Iraq. Just because insurgents are attacking civilians (a tactic that all of us agree is barbaric) doesn't mean that all anti-US forces are using this tactic.
One of the big questions is whether a full Civil war will take root in Iraq. This would mean a unified anti-government force with a well defined strategy, a leadership and clear political goals. It is clear that right now there are many small group acting chaotically.
So what exactly is the problem with attacking civilians? I thought it was a time honored tradition in all wars.
I don't think there is any problem when soldiers attack civilians. It is when civilians attack soldiers that they get really rankled.
Yeah that really pissed me off. bastids! Ya gotta nuke 'em going in and put a stop to that nonsense right off the git go.
Okay, let me see if I'm following this:
Saudi Arabia invades the US. They decide our president is a nitwit, dangerous to his own people, has WMD's (and they really DO know where they are) and he must be removed. They also decide we would be better served by a monarchy, so they set out to invade the USA and make these changes with our (civillian) best interest at heart.
Americans are armed. We fight back. Worried about the impact, Canadian and Mexican civillian fighters cross the borders to help. Due to self interest /preservation (Okay, lack of a real army) Canadian and Mexican governments refuse to get involved and even agree to some sharing of oil deals just to show how friendly they are to the Saudi's.
The Canadians and Mexicans are insurgents?
US civillians are freedom fighters?
But, if in all of the fighting we and the insurgents kill some of the Americans that are lining up to take jobs as police officers, military etc. in service to the new Monarchy, we are terrorists?
ebrown_p wrote:I don't think there is any problem when soldiers attack civilians. It is when civilians attack soldiers that they get really rankled.
Did you forget your smiley? Since when did the US sanction the attack of civilians? Please be recent.
Name any war the US has been involved in.
Re: my previous post
So, what are the Americans that kill Americans that are joining the people taking over our country?Freedom fighters or terrorists?
squinney wrote:Re: my previous post
So, what are the Americans that kill Americans that are joining the people taking over our country?Freedom fighters or terrorists?
Are you going for moral relativism?
Americans shooting Americans to help in the take over would be traitors and should be shot on site!
Brandon9000 wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:1. If I were resisting an invasion of the United States, I don't think that I would deliberately blow up non-combatants, or take civilian, non-combatant hostages, use them to blackmail their countries, and saw their heads of while they screamed in agony.
If you didn't do any of these things, would fighting (shooting foreign troops) while you were out of uniform using personal arms be morally justified?
It certainly could be depending on the purpose of the invasion, but I might not be covered by the Geneva Convention.
Then the difference between the U.S. and Iraq would be....?
Baldimo wrote:Are you going for moral relativism?
Boy, i don't know where you picked up that "moral relativism" crap, but i've seen you use it twice in a week, and you have used it incorrectly both times. In both cases, people were attempting to get an
absolute statement from you, applicable in all cases--not a statement solely relative to the circumstances. You really shouldn't use that "moral relativism" nonsense if you don't know how to apply it properly.
squinney wrote:Okay, let me see if I'm following this:
Saudi Arabia invades the US. They decide our president is a nitwit, dangerous to his own people, has WMD's (and they really DO know where they are) and he must be removed. They also decide we would be better served by a monarchy, so they set out to invade the USA and make these changes with our (civillian) best interest at heart.
Americans are armed. We fight back. Worried about the impact, Canadian and Mexican civillian fighters cross the borders to help. Due to self interest /preservation (Okay, lack of a real army) Canadian and Mexican governments refuse to get involved and even agree to some sharing of oil deals just to show how friendly they are to the Saudi's.
The Canadians and Mexicans are insurgents?
US civillians are freedom fighters?
But, if in all of the fighting we and the insurgents kill some of the Americans that are lining up to take jobs as police officers, military etc. in service to the new Monarchy, we are terrorists?
I think that your analogy is inappropriate. Hussein used chemical weapons to kill the Kurdish and other inhabitants of Halabja, intentionally targetting men, women, and children indiscriminately. He maintained extensive torture chambers and tortured and/or murdered citizens who dissented. I have also heard a few things about him having forcible sex with women he fancied, although I am not sure whether I could find a reference or not. Do you think this is very parallel with Bush?
Brandon9000 wrote:squinney wrote:Okay, let me see if I'm following this:
Saudi Arabia invades the US. They decide our president is a nitwit, dangerous to his own people, has WMD's (and they really DO know where they are) and he must be removed. They also decide we would be better served by a monarchy, so they set out to invade the USA and make these changes with our (civillian) best interest at heart.
Americans are armed. We fight back. Worried about the impact, Canadian and Mexican civillian fighters cross the borders to help. Due to self interest /preservation (Okay, lack of a real army) Canadian and Mexican governments refuse to get involved and even agree to some sharing of oil deals just to show how friendly they are to the Saudi's.
The Canadians and Mexicans are insurgents?
US civillians are freedom fighters?
But, if in all of the fighting we and the insurgents kill some of the Americans that are lining up to take jobs as police officers, military etc. in service to the new Monarchy, we are terrorists?
I think that your analogy is inappropriate. Hussein used chemical weapons to kill the Kurdish and other inhabitants of Halabja, intentionally targetting men, women, and children indiscriminately. He maintained extensive torture chambers and tortured and/or murdered citizens who dissented. I have also heard a few things about him having forcible sex with women he fancied, although I am not sure whether I could find a reference or not. Do you think this is very parallel with Bush?
Gee, I was hoping we would get an actual answer to squinney's question. The answer has nothing to do with her question.
Intrepid wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:squinney wrote:Okay, let me see if I'm following this:
Saudi Arabia invades the US. They decide our president is a nitwit, dangerous to his own people, has WMD's (and they really DO know where they are) and he must be removed. They also decide we would be better served by a monarchy, so they set out to invade the USA and make these changes with our (civillian) best interest at heart.
Americans are armed. We fight back. Worried about the impact, Canadian and Mexican civillian fighters cross the borders to help. Due to self interest /preservation (Okay, lack of a real army) Canadian and Mexican governments refuse to get involved and even agree to some sharing of oil deals just to show how friendly they are to the Saudi's.
The Canadians and Mexicans are insurgents?
US civillians are freedom fighters?
But, if in all of the fighting we and the insurgents kill some of the Americans that are lining up to take jobs as police officers, military etc. in service to the new Monarchy, we are terrorists?
I think that your analogy is inappropriate. Hussein used chemical weapons to kill the Kurdish and other inhabitants of Halabja, intentionally targetting men, women, and children indiscriminately. He maintained extensive torture chambers and tortured and/or murdered citizens who dissented. I have also heard a few things about him having forcible sex with women he fancied, although I am not sure whether I could find a reference or not. Do you think this is very parallel with Bush?
Gee, I was hoping we would get an actual answer to squinney's question. The answer has nothing to do with her question.
Sure it does. Her question included an analogy as an integral part. I pointed out that the analogy was baloney. That is certainly relevant.
Setanta wrote:Baldimo wrote:Are you going for moral relativism?
Boy, i don't know where you picked up that "moral relativism" crap, but i've seen you use it twice in a week, and you have used it incorrectly both times. In both cases, people were attempting to get an
absolute statement from you, applicable in all cases--not a statement solely relative to the circumstances. You really shouldn't use that "moral relativism" nonsense if you don't know how to apply it properly.
You going to attempt to pick at me or are you going to post something of relevance?
Any attempt to make a moral equivalency between any group who would defend their homeland against invaders like the French Underground did in World War and the fanatic extremist Muslims in Iraq is being ridiculous.
As Brandon pointed out, the public annoucement of beheadings; the use of noncombatants including women and the extaordinarily cruel savagery involved in beheading put the fringe Muslims in a separate class.
Most people are not aware that the fringe radical Muslims, as reported by our leading American authority on Islam- Professor Bernard Lewis- really believe that it is their duty to bring Islam as the leading and only religion in the world.
Those kinds of people can never be equated with ANY group defending their homeland.
I am unaware of any present day religious tradition that views the rest of the world as converts or victims.
Intrepid wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:1. If I were resisting an invasion of the United States, I don't think that I would deliberately blow up non-combatants, or take civilian, non-combatant hostages, use them to blackmail their countries, and saw their heads of while they screamed in agony.
If you didn't do any of these things, would fighting (shooting foreign troops) while you were out of uniform using personal arms be morally justified?
It certainly could be depending on the purpose of the invasion, but I might not be covered by the Geneva Convention.
Then the difference between the U.S. and Iraq would be....?
I'm not sure how your question relates to anything in these posts.
