BF2S Forums Terrorists, Infidels, Insurgents...

Wow, that is a real deep thought.  Let me think about it.  . . . . Ok, good work Johnny soon you will pass 6th grade.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Wow, that is a real deep thought.  Let me think about it.  . . . . Ok, good work Johnny soon you will pass 6th grade.

Thanks !!

...Or was that just a filler because you didn't have something to say.  By all means I'm open to argument on this point.  There are completely different ways to look at it, and in some ways they may be more accurate and in other ways this one might be more accurate but it's just something to think about

CommieChipmunk wrote:

The irony is painful.  I'm going to take you back a couple hundred years on the timeline.

So people from Europe go over to America seeking riches (lets compare the gold and spices that they wanted to modern day oil).  They decide to colonize the place, and take over control from the "Indians" or"Native Americans", whatever floats your boat.  So after a while, they (the Americans) get tired of being controlled by Spain or Britain or whoever else is controlling them, so they fight back and start America as we know it today.

Now we fast forward to today.  Are these terrorists, infidels, insurgents not just fighting off an oppressive power? Seriously.. If some other nation decided that they just didn't like the government in America and came to liberate the people living here and instate an entirely different form of government, I know for a fact, that a bunch of America would fight back and they would be considered patriots for doing so.

It just seems a little hypocritically to call people fighting an oppressive force (a very American thing to do) terrorists.

This is not a legit comparrison.
But, ya, I'd fight too against a foriegn invader.

ATG wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

The irony is painful.  I'm going to take you back a couple hundred years on the timeline.

So people from Europe go over to America seeking riches (lets compare the gold and spices that they wanted to modern day oil).  They decide to colonize the place, and take over control from the "Indians" or"Native Americans", whatever floats your boat.  So after a while, they (the Americans) get tired of being controlled by Spain or Britain or whoever else is controlling them, so they fight back and start America as we know it today.

Now we fast forward to today.  Are these terrorists, infidels, insurgents not just fighting off an oppressive power? Seriously.. If some other nation decided that they just didn't like the government in America and came to liberate the people living here and instate an entirely different form of government, I know for a fact, that a bunch of America would fight back and they would be considered patriots for doing so.

It just seems a little hypocritically to call people fighting an oppressive force (a very American thing to do) terrorists.

This is not a legit comparrison.
But, ya, I'd fight too against a foriegn invader.

Why not?

(Not arguing, just curious.)

And another point, "fighting against an invader" because he is an invader. Please people, educate yourselves on this subject. The majority of the fighters in Uraq are in fact third country nationals. Ie, Syrian, Egyptian, Afghani, Iranian, and even Chechnyan. The people that live there WANT stability. Things were developing well after the initial invasion until the foreign groups began infiltrating. I have worked with the Iraqis myself, and they are good hearted hard working people who (at the risk of sounding like Dubya) really want freedom. Seriously thats not just some bs slogan. Human beings inherently want freedom.
The Iraqi nationals that are killing each other, ie the different muslim sects that are bombing each other. That is a whole new topic. Maybe about how human nature reveals itself in a time of reduced law enforcement? Or maybe something about their culture?

lowing wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

The irony is painful.  I'm going to take you back a couple hundred years on the timeline.

So people from Europe go over to America seeking riches (lets compare the gold and spices that they wanted to modern day oil).  They decide to colonize the place, and take over control from the "Indians" or"Native Americans", whatever floats your boat.  So after a while, they (the Americans) get tired of being controlled by Spain or Britain or whoever else is controlling them, so they fight back and start America as we know it today.

Now we fast forward to today.  Are these terrorists, infidels, insurgents not just fighting off an oppressive power? Seriously.. If some other nation decided that they just didn't like the government in America and came to liberate the people living here and instate an entirely different form of government, I know for a fact, that a bunch of America would fight back and they would be considered patriots for doing so.

It just seems a little hypocritically to call people fighting an oppressive force (a very American thing to do) terrorists.

Sorry, your logic and your history is flawed, here is how.

1. The colonists were proud Englishmen, they considered themselves every bit English as any man in England. They had no desire to break away from England to start their own country. They also looked at fighting the English soldiers as fighting their own countrymen. The problem is, the colonists wanted representation in Parliament. Their voices heard, their issues as English colonies addressed. They were getting taxed yet had no voice. This is what started it all. Until then, they loved mother England.

If there are examples of suicide bombings of markets and schools and the purposeful killings of women and children during the revolution I am all ears.


Also, if my govt. in America was killing us for thinking. I would welcome someone to come in and help over throw my govt. I can also promise you, that after that nation came in and removed my oppressive govt. I would not start attacking and killing my liberators, or let foreign fighters come in and do the same.

As I said earlier, I know it's not the best comparison but it's certainly not the worst.

I was just trying to make the point that America isn't always the "good guys" and thats all I see a lot of people make us (or our military) out to be.

EDIT:
But I guess here is the real question then, if we went in there to liberate people from slaughter, then why aren't we in Darfur right now??

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2007-01-05 19:29:21)

You are absolutely correct that "insurgents" are simply a group of people fighting for control of their own country.  The people of Iraq have a lot to lose if their new government is not designed just right.  For example, Sunni or Shi'a people will be treated like second class citizens if the other group has too much control of the government (the Kurds are screwed no matter what).  This is probably the only chance the people of Iraq will ever have to define their government.  I'm not saying that guns and bombs are the answer.  I'm simply saying I can understand why they feel compelled to fight for the cause they believe in.

Terrorists are a completely different story though.  They are not fighting for their freedom, etc.  Their only goal is to create chaos through meaningless acts of violence.  They are cowards and they all deserve to die horrible deaths.  Most people tend to lump insurgents and terrorists together.  The reality is, the situation is more complex than that.  There are insurgents, terrorists, and people that fall somewhere between the two.

I also notice a lot of people saying things like, "they are killing each other so they are just animals that don't deserve to have a good government."  The American Civil war was no different.  Americans killed other Americans as they fought for control of their government and what they believed in.  Why does anyone expect the people of Iraq to be any different?

lowing wrote:

Oh is Darfur breaking a peace treaty that brought a cease fire to war with a coalition of nations that are upholding a UN mandate that "serious consequences" will ensue if they don't comply with said treaty??

No, nothing bad like that.  Just hundreds of thousands of people killed so far, but no "serious consequences" or rule breaking.

QuadDamage@U wrote:

lowing wrote:

Oh is Darfur breaking a peace treaty that brought a cease fire to war with a coalition of nations that are upholding a UN mandate that "serious consequences" will ensue if they don't comply with said treaty??

No, nothing bad like that.  Just hundreds of thousands of people killed so far, but no "serious consequences" or rule breaking.

Ok then, the US deemed Iraqs non-compliance was a threat to national security. The rest of the world ( the UN ) also deemed Iraq a grave threat.

NOw, as soon as Dalfur becomes a threat to our national security, we will do something about it. Until then, IF your countries feel so strongly about it, HAVE AT IT, go in and fix it and stop waiting for the US to do something so you can bitch about it.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

lowing wrote:

QuadDamage@U wrote:

No, nothing bad like that.  Just hundreds of thousands of people killed so far, but no "serious consequences" or rule breaking.

Ok then, the US deemed Iraqs non-compliance was a threat to national security. The rest of the world ( the UN ) also deemed Iraq a grave threat.

NOw, as soon as Dalfur becomes a threat to our national security, we will do something about it. Until then, IF your countries feel so strongly about it, HAVE AT IT, go in and fix it and stop waiting for the US to do something so you can bitch about it.

are you being sarcastic? I hope so...

I guess a 'threat' to "America's national security" (which is brought on by America's political ignorance and stupidity) is much more important than hundreds of thousands of lives.


This is a much bigger picture that some people are just to thick skulled to understand.

Fine, the nmaybe for once, the US can follow Europes charge into Darfur. Until they lift a finger themselves, then they can shut up about it.

lowing wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok then, the US deemed Iraqs non-compliance was a threat to national security. The rest of the world ( the UN ) also deemed Iraq a grave threat.

NOw, as soon as Dalfur becomes a threat to our national security, we will do something about it. Until then, IF your countries feel so strongly about it, HAVE AT IT, go in and fix it and stop waiting for the US to do something so you can bitch about it.

are you being sarcastic? I hope so...

I guess a 'threat' to "America's national security" (which is brought on by America's political ignorance and stupidity) is much more important than hundreds of thousands of lives.


This is a much bigger picture that some people are just to thick skulled to understand.

Fine, the nmaybe for once, the US can follow Europes charge into Darfur. Until they lift a finger themselves, then they can shut up about it.

They? as in Europe?  We sprinted into Afghanistan right after 9/11.  We were getting ready before then though.  Seems strangely similar to Vietnam if you ask me (Gulf of Tonkin).

If there is an actual chance that we can help people in need and not profit in any way off of it, you bet that America will be no where in sight.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

lowing wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

are you being sarcastic? I hope so...

I guess a 'threat' to "America's national security" (which is brought on by America's political ignorance and stupidity) is much more important than hundreds of thousands of lives.


This is a much bigger picture that some people are just to thick skulled to understand.

Fine, the nmaybe for once, the US can follow Europes charge into Darfur. Until they lift a finger themselves, then they can shut up about it.

They? as in Europe?  We sprinted into Afghanistan right after 9/11.  We were getting ready before then though.  Seems strangely similar to Vietnam if you ask me (Gulf of Tonkin).

If there is an actual chance that we can help people in need and not profit in any way off of it, you bet that America will be no where in sight.

Ya mean like the Berlin Airlift. the Marshall Plan

maybe this article.  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tradea … /wm630.cfm


I tell ya, everyone hates us, but EXPECTS us to feed the world.........ISOLATIONISM!!!!!