Statue made in honor US Soldiers

[new.vogue.nightmare]

It's a sad fact that people view the lives of "their own" as more important than those of others. And, because of that, the media will of course only cover what will get it higher ratings on TV/radio, or more sales for print media, or more hits for websites and the like. Society is driven by greed and arrogance.

[Pirog]

Vogue>

Yes, and that makes cheering on capitalism and the current form of ruthless democracy pretty cynical, don't you agree?

[nitefyre]

since you obviously support the ideals of terrorism and "sympathize" with evil.

Well, with conclusions like that I doubt that you are open for discussion with any other people than those who support your own ideas.

Well I took the conclusion DIRECTLY from your own words. I understand your isolationism, "In some way I have sympathy for the "terrorists"..." which is from your speech there. I'm not arguing as I said I wouldn't-just needed to clarify that.

[g1asswa1ker]

Most of these terrorists were created by us Americans. We are the cause of our own plague. Why cause we think everyone wants to be like MIKE...
Do you know we have made and betrayed allies so many times it's scary. There was a tribe in the middle east that we the US told rise up and rebel we are the mighty US we have your back. Guess what they rised up and were slaughtered cause all we did was watch them die. Someday we Americans will get the clue not everyone wants to be like MIKE.

[Pirog]

Nitefyre>

I'm sorry to say this, but you must be stupid if you think it is a fair conclusion that I "support the ideals of terrorism and sympathize with evil" from a quote where I say I can in some way have sympathy for terrorists.
If you don't understand the difference you need to finish school before you get involved in discussions like this.

[nitefyre]

Nitefyre>

I'm sorry to say this, but you must be stupid if you think it is a fair conclusion that I "support the ideals of terrorism and sympathize with evil" from a quote where I say I can in some way have sympathy for terrorists.
If you don't understand the difference you need to finish school before you get involved in discussions like this.

@Pirog, If all you can do is to attack the actual arguer, [unlike G1asswalker who I applaud] then, it is not merritted to actually discuss with the intollerance that you possess in your argument toward me, not even my argument. To directly attack me, is not to directly attack my argument, if I use your words to attack your argument, it is not to attack you. =\ So don't take it on a personal level as to insult and make tales of my intelligence.

@G1asswalker, I concur, it is the United States who indirectly produces the evil that is directed at the States. Not everyone should wanna be like "mike" s you put it, and we should respect that. But would it really hurt trying to just try democracy in the middle-east? Then perhaps, these people may change their mind, or then again, possibly not. BTW, the tribe you are talking about are either the Minority Kurd or Majority Shiite populations who were repressed by the Sunnis.

@General, to sum myself up, it is this that I argued. It is true the US has been one of the causes, among many others to have caused evil to breed. But that does not mean, we are not responsible for solving the problem. If we made it, we should solve it. And as RKL was saying along these lines, it hence should be solved and not left to be. I am not here to support Bush, I think he's an idiot of a president who made a few destined choices. I am a moderate independent, during this period though, completely turned off by the uber idiot Dean, I support what the US is doing at this time, to correct itself. If we all learned from our mistakes, and avoided them-well that'd be the moral of my argument.

[Pirog]

Nitefyre>

Come on, don't switch on me like that.
It was you who first dismissed me as unworthy of discussion, based on false accusations that you had no right to make...and now you are actually trying to convince me not to take it personal?

if I use your words to attack your argument, it is not to attack you.

The point is that you didn't use my words. Now, the reason for it might be stupidity, but I actually don't think you are such an idiot.
I believe you tried to twist my words falsely on purpose for cheap points...and that is not a good way to discuss.
So please stop dodging my question and give me an answer on this...

[nitefyre]

I quoted your words, but perhaps the context to which I sourced your own words were out of context of what you were trying to the image you were trying to portray; it may be considered lies and false accusations, but I believe it was more of a misunderstanding between your words and my quote, who's context was lost through many posts. I did not believe I attacked you on the personal level, and I am sorry if I did. Slandering me, I'm not going to vulgar you back as it is not in my nature OOCly, and so I won't. I thought it was a healthy discussion which took a turn to extremes, to which words were spun on both sides.
I found this to be a nice tiny microcosm of the world outside us, the examples are present, though I won't take the pain of repeating what was said.

"Now, the reason for it might be stupidity, but I actually don't think you are such an idiot."

I agree, only half an idiot. And by the way, you never asked a question for me to answer.

[Pirog]

Well, I'm sorry that I didn't keep my cool...but it is very frustrating when people try to twist your words in such an important discussion.

Because you have to understand that there is a big difference between feeling some sympathy with people using "terrorist" methods and actually supporting terror.

Let me give you an example.
In the movie Star Wars the rebel alliance (the heroes) can be seen as terrorists. But since they are fighting for the good side, instead of picturing them as terrorists (because much of their actions in the movies must kill thousands of civilians) you see them as heroic freedom fighters.
Now, if you look at the Iraq war from the perspective of the anti-American side they see the people you call terrorists as equally heroic freedom fighters, fighting a huge super power with a seemingly undefeatable army in the best way they can.

I have gotten the feeling from you and some other people here that you think everyone must always chose sides...like Bush puts it, "you are either with us or against us". But such arguments doesn't work.
I can see the actions of USA as wrong without supporting Saddam Hussein, or terrorists.
Because In reality, the world is never as one-sided as the Star Wars movie. There are no pure good or pure evil sides.

Since you live in a country involved in war you must understand that your government has an interest in keeping the mistakes they make as hidden as possible, while trying to magnify the mistakes the enemy makes. It is simply a natural way to react, and especially nowdays when wars are fought as much thru the media as with actual weapons.

Therefore you may have to look for more independant media than the official one for a more objective view on the world situation.
I'm not saying you aren't, but from your arguments it feels like you sometimes see this conflict as a very one-sided affair.

It is dangerous to not view your government from a critical perspective.
For example, I live in Sweden. Sweden has for a long time trying to send out the image of being the big peace promotors in the world.
We have been (officially) neutral in every large conflict in modern times, and very seldom support the aggressive part in a conflict.
I like that about Sweden, but from viewing my own government thru more independant media I have found out that the truth isn't always what it seems.
For example, Sweden is making good money selling weapons to the American army, even if we have laws that prohibit us from selling arms to countries involved in armed conflicts.

So I urge you to not have quite so much faith in what president Bush and official media says, since they can't possibly be objective in their view of the situation.

[nitefyre]

Well thats why our first ammendment, one of the if not the earliest of the rather modern countries to support freedom of the press and speech. Hence I am take advantage of this, viewing anything from BBC to CNN and I find it pretty balanced, well compared to Al Jazeera.

I think your argument tends to be over assuming as well, because my view is not always parallel to my media sources, I've realized that time and time again. I did not support going to war for WMDs, though I do believe they exist. This was in rather should've been based on getting Saddam for Human Rights violations, to which he is being prosecuted. I believe the War in Afghanistan was well in merit as attacking the Pentagon was an act of war.

BTW, just to twist this argument around: AL QAEDA STATES THAT IT HAS A NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE, what do you think of this? Is it true? Is it a lie? Is it going to be used? And where?

-Sweden supports I believe in small contracts of motor armored vehicles. Forgot their names though...

And then again, I could always argue like Indio. =\

[Pirog]

I would very much like a response from you on the discussion about terrorists. If I could convince you that the difference between a "freedom fighter", a "guerilla soldier" and a "terrorist" is mostly just in the eye of the beholder I could at least be happy with the time I spent in this discussion

About the Human Rights violations>

But the problem is if it is worth breaking international law, and thus making it hollow, to get someone like Saddam Hussein.
Other countries can now wage war on neighbours led by someone they have a problem with and use Americas war against Iraq as an excuse not to follow international law.

I also think America needs to look over how you follow the Human Rights before acting so strongly against others. I'm not in any way trying to compare America to Iraq in forms of human rights, but America has refused to sign several agreements made around the world to make peace less hard on civilians etc.

BTW, just to twist this argument around: AL QAEDA STATES THAT IT HAS A NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE, what do you think of this? Is it true? Is it a lie? Is it going to be used? And where?

I don't understand. Have they actually claimed to have one, or is it a hypothetical situation?

-Sweden supports I believe in small contracts of motor armored vehicles. Forgot their names though...

We supply the US army with quite a lot of weapons actually.
Anything from cannons/anti-tank guns to sights on hand weapons.

[rklenseth]

Quote:
BTW, just to twist this argument around: AL QAEDA STATES THAT IT HAS A NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE, what do you think of this? Is it true? Is it a lie? Is it going to be used? And where?


I don't understand. Have they actually claimed to have one, or is it a hypothetical situation?

Yes, it has been all over the news today that a reporter met with some top Al-Queda officials who told him that they had nuclear weapons and that they will be used soon.

[nitefyre]

Quote:
BTW, just to twist this argument around: AL QAEDA STATES THAT IT HAS A NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE, what do you think of this? Is it true? Is it a lie? Is it going to be used? And where?


I don't understand. Have they actually claimed to have one, or is it a hypothetical situation?

Yes, it has been all over the news today that a reporter met with some top Al-Queda officials who told him that they had nuclear weapons and that they will be used soon.

Correct. So its not hypothetical, tell me what you think @Pirog if they use that in your home city for supporting the US with arms?

A terrorist is one who takes to killing civilians and makes large casualty counts to scare into submission the people or government of a nation.

A Freedom fighter would be someone who fights a government for their freedom or independence.

A guerilla soldier is someone who uses unconventional tactics against usually a large, conventional battle force.

These are different, but they may be combined. THE VC in 'Nam would be guerilla fighters. The resistance forces like Kurds in Iraq would be freedom fighters. Terrorists would be like Hamas who suicide bomb civilian buses.

[Pirog]

I personally don't worry about a nuclear bomb going off in Sweden.
Although I find Al-Queda's methods and views wrong I don't believe they are driven by some horrible evil against humanity...they are fighting a war. And in that war they won't waste a nuke on a country like Sweden...
But I understand your worry, since such a strike would probably hit USA or Britain...

My reactions, as I have thought before, is that perhaps Europe and American need to finally understand that we can't keep sticking our nose were we don't belong.

I assume your view is that we need to fight them more than ever, but we will never be able to kill every last one of them...and the current war on terror will probably produce more terrorists than it eliminates.
We live in a new era, where the old thoughts of fighting your way out of conflicts are starting to become impossible.

So, to answer your questions in order.

Is it true? Is it a lie?

It may very well be. The war on terror USA is waging has probably made enough countries with capabilities of nuclear production scared enough to consider supplying Al-Queda with such weapons.
Then again, it is a big chance it is just a lie to. If they indeed had one and intend to use it they would probably be smart enough to keep it a secret until it sets off...

Is it going to be used?

Quite possible, if they have one.

And where?

I would be surprised if it wasn't an American target...

Regarding the other things>

A terrorist is one who takes to killing civilians and makes large casualty counts to scare into submission the people or government of a nation.

Well...that would rule out the Iraqi resistance then.
Sure, they hit civilians...but not everyday people. They have killed people in recruit lines to the police force or people working for the Americans.

A Freedom fighter would be someone who fights a government for their freedom or independence.

Since the American forces are now in control in Iraq, the Iraqi resistance groups can thus be considered Freedom fighters?

Even Al-Queda can be seen as Freedom fighters. They fight the western society in general. Not a government, more of a world order.
(I know you will have a problem agreeing to this, but I bet many of you would label yourself Freedom Fighters if you fought a fundamentalistic muslim invasion that threatened to take over the world...for example.)

A guerilla soldier is someone who uses unconventional tactics against usually a large, conventional battle force.

Just like the Iraqi resistance groups and in many ways the Al-Queda then?

See...you can twist these "categories" quite much depending on the perspective, right?

[nitefyre]

The categories may be twisted but objectively thinking, I put it this way the Iraqi Insurgents by me would be considered terrorists. They strike their own people. The ones in the beginning of the war (who were actually iraqis) were more of the guerilla breed fighter, who supported Saddam, an oppressor.