If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The Iraqbodycount may be innacurate, but recording reported deaths is much better way of getting an accurate figure than sampling.
Not a good way to measure. For example using the holcaust as an example there are some far-right practioners who claim that only a couple of hundred Jews died in the holocaust, whereas Martin gilbert quotes 6million. If you take the middle ground its 3million. So using your argunment we should say that the holocaust killed 3million Jews.
True, but also irrelevant. If 9/11 was planned by the Iraqis (which it wasn't) and the US had invaded for revenge (which they didn't) the comparison might be valid.
A better comparison would be at the end of the conflict how many civilians have died compared to how many would have died if Saddam (and possibly his sons had remained in power). Unfortunately we'll never know the answer to that so all we can do is make a value judgement based on his past behaviour.
Of course our military past is relevant - how many years does it take before a country is no longer responsible for a past action.
September 11th and Hiroshima are both in the past - just because one is more recent does not make it any more moraly justafiable.
My point was that Hiroshima is the epitome of a civilian attack and that government will do whatever is necessary to win a war. Targetting civilians in order to drain the resistance out of an enemy has been a popular military strategy in the west for a long time. However, it is generally excused away in some way or another.
In terms of death toll September 11th and Hiroshima are incomparable so why is one an act of terrorism and the other an act of war?
It seems to be that we can inflict these atrocities on others and call it a necessary act of war and when it is done to us they are inhuman terrorists.
Regardless of that, the fact remains more Iraqi civilians have been killed during their 'liberation' than the number of people that died during 9/11.
If there had been 500 soldiers stationed in the world trade centre would you have considered it any less an act of terrorism?
I doubt it - the main distinguishing difference in a terrorist seems to be that he/she is working without the authority of a national government. If a group of people are at war they will do what they have to - just because there's enough more of us to have a nations and governments does not give us the moral high ground!
Instead of using the word 'terrorism' could you be more specific - do you mean 9/11? If we see our opponents as common people why do we imprison them without representation? How do we invade a country and tear it to pieces on a false pretense and not even offer an apology when the lie is proved a lie? Why do we see photographic evidence of squadies torturing iraqis? Why has the Sudan been ignored for so long?
If you think the west is morally superior your living in a dream world - people are people the world over . . . some good and some bad and thats the way it is.
Some mistake :shocking: :shocking: :shocking:
"Ooops I did it again" Britney`s Nagasaki Remix
seeker
How true :thumb: Giving someone a title,a label or even a uniform doesn`t change reality.
seeker
Well its unlikely they'll perform the same act. A national government may set up death camps for its own people, its unlikely a terrorist group would be able to do the same
To a certain extent I agree. Terrorist is a value loaded term. Which is why academics have been trying to define what it is.
Most of these academics would be in Western Institutions - but many of them are not neccessarily supporters of the 'West'. Some of the work has been aimed to differentiate between guerillas fighting Western colonialism (ie not terrorists) and groups like Bader-Meinhof (terrorist)
The differentiations are made so that people who are studying conflict can try and define the terms.
Well the majority of the populace voted, despite calls by some to boycott it so i suspect you could say they supported it.
Given that the terrorists/insurgents are made up of a collection of Islamic fundamentalists and former Baath party supporters given the choice between an imperfect US imposed democracy and either a return to Baathist rule or an Islamic state the majority of the population seem tio be going for the imperfect democracy.
Lots of them aren't happy thats obvious. Lots of them are happy, however. As time goes by it seems that more and more power will devolve to the Iraqi Government and there will be fewer and fewer coalition troops needed. The question you've got to ask is at what stage in this process does acting against the majority of the Iraqi's population wishes to have a democratic Government turn from insurgency to terrorism?
Well i wasn't really suggesting that it should be used in every case where there's a discrepancy in data. It seems that in this case its a fairly logical way to go though - you believe one report and admit that its inacurate and i think the other one is closer to the truth but again admit that its inacurate.
The scale is totally different and for the benefit of this argument (and to save endless back and forths over the reliability of both statistics) it seems reasonable. I really can't believe you chose to be so pedantic on such an insignificant point.
I never meant that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq justify the 9/11 attacks.
My point is that we can hardly rail on about the despicable acts of terrorists and claim moral superiority when we have a bodycount that would make Arnie blush behind our belts.
And how many Sadam may or may not have killed is irelevant - we did not go in for the sake of the iraqi people, we went in because of (supposed) WMDs
Carry on with your train of thought there,lose your innocence and think there is reciprocity
seeker
clandestine asked me to define "terrorism",i believe i did that! i agree we can't take the moral high ground,but that does not excuse what the iraq people have done to innocent westoners! do you have anything good to say about the west?
If the US government had flown a comerical Jet into a building in Baghdad after declaring war . . . would it have been considered an act of terrorism? (and Al'Quaida and its supporters do consider themselves at war)
Ok true, however as you said its a value loaded term and any definition of it comes attacked with a Western upbringing and a western view on the rules of war. If people grow up with different values how can we judge them by the standards of our own?
Well my whole point has been that i don't think there is such a thing as terrorism.
If Iraq becomes a settled, independant democratic state then they are rebels. While its settled it is insurgency.
?
What about . . .
and . . .
What?!?! Fight back against an unprovoked and illegal invasion? Sorry but if someone comes to kill my family then i'd have no ethical concerns about killing them.
Yes the climate suits my complexion.
I have nothing good or bad to say about the east or west - their geographical locations and by-words for politcal powers.
Things would be a lot better if people stopped seeing this east/west or them/us divide and realised that where your from really isn;t that important.
Yes . . . Iraq had nothing to do with that.
Remember that little invasion into Afghanistan? That was in response to 9/11. Iraq was about WMDs. Just because Bush mentions 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath does not make them responsible for it.
Using my definition it wouldn't be terrorism. Which isn't to say it wouldn't be immoral or a violation of the Geneva Convention
I think you can define it (and have done so). That said I also believe its value-loaded and is often used inaccurately (by my view Al-Q weren't actually terrorists - which isn't to say I sympathise with their views or their actions because I don't). I don't think its a terrorist act unless its against your own Government (or at least a Government which claims to be your own Government).
I would put Al-Q's act down as an act of war, but would then also classify it as a war crime.
Certainly when I've written essays on this in the past I've always tended to a) define what a terrorism is and then b) avoid the use of the word during the essay as much as possible
Then we're very nearly in agreement.
My only problem with terrorism in this form is that its really only victory that separates revolutionaries and terrorists.
However, if the term terrorist is going to be used then i'd agree with you that it is an internal act.
Then by that reasoning George Washington and all the colonists which took up arms against the British forces and King George III were "terrorists". Undoubtedly to most sheepish British subjects throughout the empire at the time that is exactly how they were portrayed and naturally accepted as being.
This is precisely the sort of "paradigm of thought" conditioning I constantly refer to in my posts. Even educated people seem incapable of utterly eschewing the categorisations fed to us daily by mainstream press and media.
An excellent article on just how constant and pernicious this practice is (i.e. applying unflammatory labels to those things which oppose the corporate West's designs) can be found here:
Loaded Labels
From reading through the many posts since my last contribution I can see numerous excusatory remarks aimed at justifying the terrorism we have visited upon countless civilian populations simply because it was done under the mantle of "state" action (aka: military expedition).
What is the state then, other than an assemblage of persons given some institionalised anonymity and thus status quo distinction of authority? If tomorrow one regime is supplanted by another (who would the day before have been "terrorists" for daring take up arms against the status quo) is the new regime suddenly and magically absolved of its "terrorist" label simply because it serves the interests of perceived stability or continuity?
I submit that the very notion of "terrorism" is merely an all to often employed term intending to dissuade the majority of sheeple from either giving ear to the message(s) being made by the opposing party/parties or in lendiing credence to such messages even should they bother to listen. Most certainly do not and will not bother to truly investigate to determine whether the actions of those currently afforded "legitimacy" in fact warrant any violent response, certainly not by a media whose corporate purpose is to satisfy shareholders and help maintain the illusion of "business as usual". That would force far too many out of their comforable daily routines to actually recognise the brick wall into which our modern societies are being driven.
Perhaps if people began to seriously reject the "official" characterisations of persons and events and truly investigated who is and has been benefitting out of this repetive cycle (which I and others have now born witness to for decades), the resulting outrage would finally turn the spotlight on the true global "terrorists", namely our own well entrenched political establishments and the pathological corporate entities they serve (whether through co-option of foreign lands, peoples and resources or by militant conquest).
You make me sick.
Killing another human is either right or wrong. Pick one and stick to it.
If you think that - oooh let's pick a figure at random - The Queen. She is only in the position she is in because great great grandpa was the biggest murdering bastard around.
There are "governments" which don't?
Just words when it comes to the real thing.
What are we supposed to do. As yet I don't have the power to stop people dying, do you?
Not that straight forward IMHO, but please tell me which you think it is...
Really? So sure? How come?
Just because 100,000 (ish) people died?
This is the definition of terrorism I used earlier:
Were there other political avenues Washington el al could have used to resolve their dsipute with the crown? If there were other avenues they were terrorists and if there weren't other avenues they weren't.
So it wasn't a mistake then surely.
If, at the time, Truman considered it to be the right thing. If it achieved it's aims - helped to end the war. If we learned the effects of atomic weaponry on a general population and this has lead to the fact the these bombs haven't been used since...
Then surely it was a good thing...?
If it hadn't happened then we could have seen much worse since.
The only power I have is over my own limbs. No one else controls them but me. In the same way no one else controls your limbs but you. All those soldiers who squeeze a trigger do it for their own reasons, alone.
They are nothing to do with me.
I pick the power of individual decision, because whatever I choose it will remain the case.
I take that as a no then.
So, what do you want us to do about it, was my question. You complained that a discussion about definitions was going on, so what would you have preferred. We cannot prevent the deaths of these people, it isn't possible.
If you look at what you said, that wasn't an option. You said there was only "irght" and "wrong". So which is it?
Its too easy to sit insulated in our Western living rooms, believing that the status quo is just as it is explained to us, when the reality of the conditions we have long imposed on countless billions remain worthy of opposition and increasingly violent response.
Let us also remember that those French we immortalise as "the resistance" during WWII were to the occupying powers merely "terrorists", all the more so because just as we see with the Iraqis (falsely labelled "insurgents"), so too did the French target their own countrymen who dared work with the occupying forces.
So again, don't go buying into "official" categorisations so readily without scrutinising the entire context within which the denounced actions have arisen.
did you bother to read my quote that you put in your responce, i did answer your question