for those who care...

Tell the terrorists this
I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action.
 
Appropriate it the way you wish,

You fail on a basic level in not acknowledging that your very own understanding of "terrorist" is flawed. Thats because the meaning of "terrorist", and the notion of terrorism is actually realatively arbitrary - depending on who is actually using the word - and for what purpose.

The obvious stereotype I take you identify with it as being; has been appropriated by contemporary mass media in much the same way as you take that line and attempt to make it seve your own line of thought.

This was a passage, when read in context - opposing unprovoked American aggression on foreign soil. There is another word for that, funnily enough: Terrorism.

This was in relation to the Vietnam war of course, but in the difference I feel there lies a fitting comparison.

Don't you think that it is rather funny, that to much of those civiians in Iraq currently consider the occupying American soldiers Terrorists also?

As it turns out the very definition of TERRORISM is in fact, ideological. (a changing definition for the sole purpose of whoever chooses to use the word)

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political goal. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or random civilians. An example of terrorist acts against government officials are the various assassinations carried out by Russian revolutionaries at the end of the nineteenth century, or the assassinations of American presidents. Acts of terror against military targets tend to blend into guerrilla warfare. Such acts -- depending on your perspective --could be praised or condemned. A terrorist from one perspective could be considered a freedom fighter. Acts of terrorism which are normally condemned are those against random civilians or noncombatants.

Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states, as an alternative to an open declaration of war. They are often carried out by states, and less often by those who otherwise feel powerless. States that sponsor or engage in the use of violence against civilians use neutral or positive terms to describe their own combatants, – such as freedom fighters, patriots, or paramilitaries.

source

oh, and I did title the article as being "for those who care"
 
Oh how quaint. Why wasnt this brought up long ago? Because you are an oporturnist.
You know if you really want to stand for something, try knowing the history of it.

My god woman be original, use your brain and the schooling to at least convey a thought of your own. Instead of pointing out little tidbits of a speech about the internal problems america was having on racism.

So whats next washington day? easter? youll find alot in those too.
 
WOW!!! Look at the elephant in her room.

Terrorism refers to the use of violence against noncombatantsfor the purpose of achieving a political goal, on a scale smaller than full-scale warfare.

We are not attacking non-combatants. We are in identifiable uniforms. The Iraqi insurgents are, for the most part NON-IRAQI'S & Ba'athist party members (read: Iraq Nazi). We conducted full-scale war. Freedom fighters? - these terrorists are attempting to stop freedom from happening [edited because the rest of you will bitch at me].
 
Terror has its uses in warfare.
Although Goznog pointed out the elephant.
Think Vietnam and the Phoenix program.
The solution to the situation in Iraq
is a vigorous prosecution of a Phoenix style
murder program in Iraq.

This can't be termed 'terrorism' as this would target
only the command structure of the opposition forces.

I read somewhere that the plan was to have the Iraq's
do this work after we've toned down our involvement there...
 
Back
Top