posted April 02, 2006 11:20 AM            

The United States doesn't define terrorist or terrorism in any way not consistent with the customary definitions of the words.

Terrorism
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

Terrorist
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

These are perfect descriptions of Hamas, al-Queda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Taliban, the governments of Iran, Syria, the former government of Iraq and so called Palestinians, including Yasser Arafat.

Calling for support for these groups or funding from the United States or the International community, or attempting to shift blame for their actions on to some other party or parties and away from the perpetrators should get Carter censured by the Congress of the United States and isolated from reasonable people everywhere.

posted April 03, 2006 12:55 AM              

quote:

---

Terrorism
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

Terrorist
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

---

posted April 03, 2006 02:20 AM            

Terrorists who are not in military uniforms are not civilians and neither are those in militias who are fighting against coalition forces...civilians.

If you have "credible" information to the contrary, I urge you to post it right here.

posted April 03, 2006 03:50 AM              

A terrorist would celebrate civilian death.
But compensation is paid to the next of kin by the government who is a victim of terrorism.

In colonization, an invading power imposes its definition of right and wrong on another country.
18th-19th century British and French style colonization was for looting resources.

21st century military colonization is slightly different, it is about keeping a puppet government long enough to meet strategic interests, than direct ruling for looting resources.

America is also being colonized but peacefully and intellectually. Legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, outsourcing, purchase of US Debt, these are all a mode of colonization. The America of 2100 AD will be a peaceful, prosperous and colonized version where 60-75% of Americans are going to be from those who were ethnic minorities in 1900 AD.

Spanish, Hindi, Japanese and Chinese may well be additional official languages.

posted April 03, 2006 07:04 PM              

However, I would disagree that no compensation has been paid to the families of Iraqi victims of "collateral damage". It's a paltry sum and, in my opinion, almost an insult ... but it has been paid.

As for American colonization .... Peacefully? Yeah, in general I suppose. Peaceful doesn't always equal desireable. Intellectually? Not sure if I agree with that, but I'm also not entirely sure of your meaning so I'll cut you some slack.

If you mean to say that America is experiencing an influx of different cultures, philosophies, etc. ok, of course. We always have. The difference being that a good amount of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, aren't interested in the classic American philosophy of government. That special alchemy of assimilation/contribution, which we once upon a time so excelled at, is failing. And so slowly but irretrievably America becomes .. well, less American, if you know what I'm saying. I don't think that bodes well for either America or the world.

quote:

---

21st century military colonization is slightly different, it is about keeping a puppet government long enough to meet strategic interests, than direct ruling for looting resources.

---

If Bush had half a brain he would have done just that. Destroy the upper echelon of the Iraqi military, install a friendly Iraqi general into power, get the hell out of dodge. It's a simple enough strategy and time tested. I can't imagine what he was thinking. Delusions of grandeur?

posted April 03, 2006 07:07 PM              

quote:

---

The US is not and has not deliberately targeted civilians in Iraq.

---

Actually the US just doesn't care if they hit and kill Iraqi civilians. If they do...oopsie ...that's ok, they're only "collateral damage."

Since when did you have to wear a uniform to fight? So if one doesn't wear the appropriate uniform, which clearly shows support for American colonization, then one is a terrorist.

I've posted stuff here for about a month. What am I supposed to do if you're not reading it.

quote:

---

Further, the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens DO NOT want coalition forces to leave Iraq until the government is formed, the Iraqi military is trained and the police and other security forces are trained and able to defend them from external and internal threats.

---

Sorry I dont trust your sources. The majority of Iraqi citizens DO want the coalition forces to leave.

posted April 03, 2006 07:15 PM              

It's war, DD. And it certainly sucks, but there it is. You won't find a government in the world, including the Canadians or the Iraqis themselves, who do things differently.

posted April 03, 2006 07:37 PM              

If we could say that the Americans are killing civilians with intent, such as setting off a car bomb in the middle of a busy public interesection with no opposing military personnel in sight, that would be different. Terrorism , by definition, does just that.

posted April 03, 2006 07:41 PM              

quote:

---

I'm simple saying your theory that the dirty, vile Americans are evil because they caused the death of Iraqi citizens completely disregards the very nature of war.

---

Those aren't my words, nor my theory. I have something against the US admin, that's all.

posted April 03, 2006 07:52 PM              

"Well those who are setting off car bombs don't exactly have the same weapons the US military does....they'd probably be following in the steps of the US military if they did."

posted April 03, 2006 08:15 PM              

Are you saying you don't sympathize with the insurgency? You believe they're defending Iraq the only way they can, right?

Terrorism may not take as many lives as orthodox means of war, that's true, but it takes the wrong lives.

posted April 03, 2006 08:27 PM            

If the US was making war on the Iraqi people there wouldn't be a home or building in Iraq with walls 2 bricks high.

We have taken additional casualties specifically because of the care taken to not strike where there's a good probability Iraqi civilians will be killed or injured. It still happens but it's not because they were deliberately targeted.

Further, some of those terrorist infested homes and buildings have large caches of weapons...ammunition and explosives...which go off when the building is hit and that causes casualties among Iraqi civilians.

posted April 03, 2006 09:14 PM              

"America becomes less American " in NO way means America becomes less white. I mean that we stray further away from our philosophical roots. I've had occasional lapses into white man's burden territory (I plead waspy upbringing) but at the end of the day I know that Euros don't have exclusive rights to the ideals of freedom and democracy and individualism and all that fun stuff.