Anti-War = Pro-Terror

[firemachine69]

You have Canada's support on trying to spread freedom and democracy.

Not much else however, I must admit...

 

[The Monkey]

Could you please rephrase that first sentance? Double negatives confuse me.

We have the support of the international community and the support of the Iraqi people.

Ignore the second "not".
And no, you do not have the support of the international community not of the iraqi people.

 

[jondy]

This thread isn't going to work by any stretch of the imagination. Bliink?

 

[PvtRyan]

hahahaha,

The funny thing is, I, nor the article writer called the anti war protestors terrorists. At most we called them terrorist sympathizers, but not terrorists. The fact that anti war types and terrorists have the same goals is indisbutable, do you disagree?

I will post more later, duty calls.

A business man and a criminal both have the same goals, getting rich and succesful. Therefore business man = criminal. You sir, are an idiot.

 

[ray_MAN]

You have Canada's support on trying to spread freedom and democracy.

Not much else however, I must admit...

Britain is still with us.

 

[Nofuture]

I never said they were the saime. I said, in effect, that anti-war types have similar goals that terrorists do. They are terrorist sympathizers.

Oh, I see, you believe this: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

 

[jondy]

Britain is still with us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1309166,00.html

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/news/mediarelease/mr290104.htm

It's not like we want to be there at all.

 

[firemachine69]

Oh, I see, you believe this: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

The difference between political ties and whiney civilians is ten-folds.

 

[Bodacious]

Ignore the second "not".
And no, you do not have the support of the international community not of the iraqi people.

I am unaware of a single person, besides a terrorist, that does not want democracy to prevail in Iraq. I would think even anti-war people wanted that. I would also think that "the international community" wanted democracy to prevail. That is the support of the international community.

The Iraqi people do not support us? So why are terrorist bombings declining? Why are Iraqi civillians turning into vigilantes and stapping terrorist themseves?

 

[Absinthe]

Yes they do, I already pointed it out.

And it's such a shallow and misrepresented viewpoint that its use in a comparison between terrorist sympathizers and anti-war protesters is stupid and seemingly serves only as flamebait.

 

[Bodacious]

Oh, I see, you believe this: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

Sorry, I am not that dense. I am aware that the issue is more complicated than that.

 

[Absinthe]

The Iraqi people do not support us? So why are terrorist bombings declining? Why are Iraqi civillians turning into vigilantes and stapping terrorist themseves?

Wanting a stable nation and wanting a US occupation are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Bodacious]

Wanting a stable nation and wanting a US occupation are not necessarily the same thing.

Iraq cannot be stable without the US' involvement, not right now anyways.

 

[Kangy]

Bodacious, that's so ridiculous, I can't even believe it came out of these boards. Have you ever thought that perhaps we're not terrorist sympathisers because we detest the needless use of violence that both war in Iraq and terrorism bring?

Don't you think that I'm sickened by both sides of the conflict at times? Clear your eyes and take a good luck around.

 

[Bodacious]

Bodacious, that's so ridiculous, I can't even believe it came out of these boards. Have you ever thought that perhaps we're not terrorist sympathisers because we detest the needless use of violence that both war in Iraq and terrorism bring?

Needless violence? Tell me, how were we supposed to oust saddam?

Don't you think that I'm sickened by both sides of the conflict at times? Clear your eyes and take a good luck around.

Why take the side of a terrorist sympathizer? Are you also not sickened by what Saddam did to his people?

 

[The Monkey]

What arguments do you have that support what you say about anti-war people being pro-terrorists?

Why take the side of a terrorist sympathizer? Are you also not sickened by what Saddam did to his people?

This war has costed more lives than all of saddam's murders combined.

 

[jondy]

Needless violence? Tell me, how were we supposed to oust saddam?

Who said you had to? That's my point - you can't debate issues like this because by doing so you assume everyone supports the war. Which they don't.

Sorry, I am not that dense. I am aware that the issue is more complicated than that.

Why take the side of a terrorist sympathizer? Are you also not sickened by what Saddam did to his people?

Evidently, you aren't aware that this is complicated at all. You see this kindof stuff as black and white.

 

[Bodacious]

What arguments do you have that support what you say about anti-war people being pro-terrorists?

Both groups have the same goal of the US troops leaving Iraq. Both groups shun and disdain the actions of our soldiers at every opportunity.

This war has costed more lives than all of saddam's murders combined.

Prove it.

Form what I have seen we have saved upwards of 50k lives because of our actions.

Saddam killed upwards of 700k of his own people.
During OIF the highest estimate of civillian deaths is what? 16k?

 

[Absinthe]

Both groups have the same goald of the US troops leaving Iraq. Both groups shun and disdain the actions of our soldiers at every opportunity.

Your first point is misrepresented.
Your second point is based off of your interpretation of what the media provides. It's hardly a valid comparison.

 

[Bodacious]

Your first point is misrepresented.

How so?

Ant-War protestors chant about removing our troops from Iraq, do they not?

Terrorists currently in Iraq are terrorizing the populace for what goal? To remove our troops from Iraq, are they not?

Your second point is based off of your interpretation of what the media provides. It's hardly a valid comparison.

Sorry, you are wrong. I have done a lot of in depth reasearch about what is said at anti-war protests so I am perfectly aware of what is voiced at their rallies. Assumptions are not fact.

 

[Kangy]

Needless violence? Tell me, how were we supposed to oust saddam?

Well, how about civilian bombings and shootings in very public areas when there was no real reason to do so?

Why take the side of a terrorist sympathizer? Are you also not sickened by what Saddam did to his people?

I'm sickened by Saddam, but I'm also sickened by the prisoner abuses, the civilian death toll and the violence of the insurgency. The whole war is disgusting. Of course I don't like it.

 

[Bodacious]

Well, how about civilian bombings and shootings in very public areas when there was no real reason to do so?

Such as? I have not heard of these events.

I'm sickened by Saddam, but I'm also sickened by the prisoner abuses, the civilian death toll and the violence of the insurgency. The whole war is disgusting. Of course I don't like it.

Saddam killed upwards of 700k of his people. We have killed at max 16k civillians. Saddam's and current terrorist's torture is far worse than what we have done to prisoners at Abu Grhaib.

Saddam's acts are far more sickening than ours.

 

[Kangy]

Saddam killed upwards of 700k of his people. We have killed at max 16k civillians. Saddam's and current terrorist's torture is far worse than what we have done to prisoners at Abu Grhaib.

Saddam's acts are far more sickening than ours.

Heh.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire right? It's still a crappy place to live. The fact you're not quite as bad as Saddam doesn't mean I should like what you're doing. Bad stuff is still bad stuff.

(do some research into the earlier parts of the war. There was a market place bombing in the middle of the day for no reason at all that killed a lot if I am recalling it correctly)

 

[Absinthe]

How so?

Ant-War protestors chant about removing our troops from Iraq, do they not?

Terrorists currently in Iraq are terrorizing the populace for what goal? To remove our troops from Iraq, are they not?

Actions happen for reasons, and the reasons between the two groups you compare are vastly different.

The terrorists want a victory of the United States and a controlling hand in Iraq.

The anti-war protestors either want their troops returned safely or they feel that the US has no business in Iraq.

Think what you want about these two lines of reasoning, but they are still different.

Sorry, you are wrong. I have done a lot of in depth reasearch about what is said at anti-war protests so I am perfectly aware of what is voiced at their rallies. Assumptions are not fact.

Show me this in-depth research before you make another dumb generalization as to what anti-war protestors do.
Me? I've found that most are more content with railing against Bush, whereas those that bash the troops are in the minority.

 

[CptStern]

Saddam killed upwards of 700k of his people. We have killed at max 16k civillians. Saddam's and current terrorist's torture is far worse than what we have done to prisoners at Abu Grhaib.

Saddam's acts are far more sickening than ours.

nope, saddam killed around 200 k of his own people, 800,000 iranian soldiers

US killed 500,000 + children, 30,000 civilians (gulfwar 1), 30,000 -100,000 iraqi soldiers (gulf war 1) , 17,000-100,000 civilians (current occupation)

 

[Solaris]

So? Becuase I dont want my tax dollars to be spent on bombing little children does not make me a terrorist symathiser. Yes I do share a goal with the terrorists, but our methods are different. But hell I'll admit it, if thoose troops shot up my familly andshot my children, I'd be there with an AK in hand.

Thats what create theese terrorists, not a hatred of freedom, or an evil religion. In their eyes thoose troops are shooting their people, and their trying to get their country back. The Coalition should pull out and not risk the lives of our troops and civillians alike.

 

[OCybrManO]

Form what I have seen we have saved upwards of 50k lives because of our actions.

Saddam killed upwards of 700k of his own people.
During OIF the highest estimate of civillian deaths is what? 16k?

That is like someone saying "I saved $10 by buying a shirt on sale." Did he really save money? No, he spent money. The "savings" are compared to a hypothetical situation (that he would have bought the shirt even if it hadn't been on sale) that may or may not have happened had the actions not been taken. It's similar to the questionable reasoning for bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That math sounds like the total bodycount (which seems quite a bit higher than most estimates I've seen) was divided by his total time in power (20+ years) to determine an average number of deaths per year with which to extrapolate through the duration of the Iraqi "war"... a highly inaccurate method. There are two assumptions that have to be made for it to work logically (both of which will never be known for sure): He would have kept going at that average rate (which doesn't seem likely under increasing international scrutiny of "terrorist" actions) and no other possible actions could have stopped him.

Yes, he was a bad guy. Yes, he should have been removed from power somehow. I won't argue those parts. My points of disagreement are threefold:

1) The leaders should not have misled the people into supporting the war by creating imminent fear of a potential attack on their own soil with nuclear weapons and/or other "weapons of mass destruction."
2) The leaders should not have broken international law by attacking a country and attempting to overthrow its government when it was not in self-defense even after asking and subsequently being denied permission by the UN.
3) The size of the coalition's force was smaller than necessary for a relatively smooth invasion and, especially, for the required reconstruction period... even after advisors warned that this would happen.

If you want to be technical that kind of war, by international law, is illegal. I'm not saying the motives in this case were evil or that the final result will be failure... nor would I hope for either of those to be true... but the methods are highly questionable. Why? The Nazis also misled their people to start wars not in self-defense because of "evil" people that they saw as the equivalent of potential "terrorists"... well, that's the way they explained it in their propaganda. So, there is a good historical reason for not allowing public support and a perceived potential threat as sole justifications for war. If we just ignore the rules what kind of precedent are we setting for everyone else? What if everyone else thought we were a threat and did the same thing to us? You can't let individual nations police the world.

 

[Nofuture]

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

The difference between political ties and whiney civilians is ten-folds.

You statement makes no sense to me.


'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy, October 14, 2001
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-04.htm

"WASHINGTON — "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make," President Bush said in his widely praised speech to a joint session of Congress last month.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And I thought: Are those really the only possibilities? Can't there be some nation, in some region, that dislikes both terrorism and America — or that is indifferent both to the United States and to those behind the September 11 massacre?

If it were only a rhetorical flourish, I wouldn't be pursuing the matter. But I seem to be hearing a long list of similarly constricted options now that our war on terrorism has begun in earnest. Two on that list are particularly troubling:

If you wonder about the wisdom — military or moral — of the massive assault on Afghanistan's Taliban, then you support Osama bin Laden.

And, if you think much of the Arab resentment of America's foreign policy is justified, then you condone terrorism.

...

In secular usage, though, the point seems to be that thought breeds irresolution. Don't tell me you are serious about fighting crime if you're not willing to suspend — just for a while — the Bill of Rights. Don't pretend you really oppose terrorism if you're entertaining second thoughts about the carpet-bombing calculated to render the Taliban vulnerable to its Afghan enemies.

Maybe that's why some of us find it attractive to think of the present campaign against terrorism as war. War allows the suspension of certain bothersome restrictions. No need to prove that any particular Taliban soldier supports terrorism or knows where bin Laden is hiding.

But we won't follow the war idea all the way, either — perhaps because we haven't thought through how to wage real war that doesn't involve territory and where the enemy is scattered over scores of sovereign countries, including some of our valued allies.

And so we publish a list of most-wanted terrorists, and announce to the world they have all been indicted and that we intend to bring them to justice. Indicted? That's what we do with criminals, not military foes.

As Columbia University's George P. Fletcher noted in a brilliant op-ed piece earlier this month, we indict Timothy McVeigh but have no interest in the personal culpability of the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor. Oklahoma City was a crime; Pearl Harbor was war.

And the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? We haven't quite decided.

It's a crime when we undertake to kill or capture (and "bring to justice") individual leaders of the terrorist network. It's a war when we need to suspend rules that make it difficult to go after those leaders.

But if our official policy seems to be of two minds, there are those who won't allow the same option for rank and file Americans. If you wonder if war is the right answer to international terrorism, if you suggest that it may be time to rethink elements of our foreign policy, if you question whether America has always been above reproach in its international dealings, wanting nothing for itself, you'll be told to get with the program. Sometimes with an implied "or else."

The people who insist on a suspension of thought aren't necessarily bad people. Their nightmare is of the growing influence of "peace" advocates — appeasers, in their lexicon — who are capable of understanding why terrorism thrives. My nightmare is of American action so brutal and arrogant and indiscriminate that it creates their nightmare."


Hmm, a bit similar to what I've said before:

"Would you blame Iraqi people, who e.g. are outraged of lots of innocents being killed in this illegal war, and who are now probably thinking what could be the best target in UK (or US)?

Hmm, it's not so easy to say. Would I care about victims then? Yes, I would. I would definitely care about people who were against this war.
About ones who supported this war, one could say, you've got what you wanted... You wanted a war, now you've got it..."


War, crime, terrorism, war, crime, terrorism, war, crime, terrorism, war, crime, terrorism... The borders are blurred, aren't they?

One is for sure: Don't do to ohers what you don't want to be done to you. If you nevertheless do it, then don't wonder if you'll get it back!

 

[Venmoch]

Thing is, we've gone in. Probably for all the wrong reasons but I can't see how withdrawing everything we have in Iraq will make anything better. Sure servicemen get home, but would Iraq be able to cope? Sure I'd love to see people come back to the UK and get out of Iraq but the reality is that it isn't that easy.

However on the subject of the Anti-War activists mentioned in the first post. No matter how unjust the war is/was that still doesn't give them the right to bad-mouth the person to his face. Thats just plain rude and shows amazing short sightedness on the hand of the protesters. It must be crushing to think that the people back home don't support you.

I mean even the political partys back in the UK said before the whole thing even started "We may not support the war, but if we do go to war we will support the servicemen that go out there." No I'm not trying to take sides here but I support the servicemen out there. Not because I agree with the war but because whether it was just or not, they are still out there and they ought to have support.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Being Anti-War has nothing to do with Pro terrorism.

I am myself Anti-War, but we can beat internal security risks by increasing funds in the right places.

Increased vigilance in our own country is what is required as well as better border patrol.

The reason why I am Anti-war is because of the amount of OUR money in the form of taxes are being spent on the little things such as ammo and petroleum, (Pointing fingers at the tank, which drink the shit like its a friday night)

The only external security we require are information gathering personel

 

[Bodacious]

Thank you all for your opinions.

 

[MilkMan12]

Reasoning does not matter. The fact is that both sides ARE trying to accomplish the same thing, whether for different reasons or not it will lead to very bad things. Helping the terroists unintentionally does not help anything, whether or not you believe that thousands of people dieing for the sake of millions is worth it.

 

[gh0st]

Really? Remember this guy?

How about this guy?

I dare you, just once, to defend American troops. Oh wait, you cant. Because unlike the normal mainstream left, you cannot identify with American troops because you really do support the insurgency, and you really do hope America and Iraq fail. You really do identify with the islamo fascist freedom fighting headcutters. Isnt that special.

How about those twelve Nepalese hostages killed, and for what?

You make me sick.

 

[Ennui]

Yeah, being liberal definitely makes us "identify with the islamo fascist freedom fighting headcutters". And we can't identify with American troops.

Funny, I guess that means all american soldiers are conservative, then.

 

[gh0st]

Yeah, being liberal definitely makes us "identify with the islamo fascist freedom fighting headcutters". And we can't identify with American troops.

Funny, I guess that means all american soldiers are conservative, then.

I said UNLIKE mainstream liberals, stern is so eccentric in his beliefs that he is unable to see who is good and who is bad.

 

[Javert]

(I didn't read the entire thread but most of it, including the 1st post)

I am anti-war, but I am pro-peace and pro-soldier. Those demonstrators are wrong to call soldiers baby killers.
The more "mainstream" (if we shall accept a limited definition) protester supports Iraqi independence from foreign influence, American withdrawl of troops back to the homefront and family, recognition that there are FAR more dangerous countries out there, and for those who need to take responsibility realize they need to, not resign or point fingers when the heat is on them.
To do anything else would only lead to the domestic disaster of the Vietnam War.
If soldiers feel that what they do is morall right, then no one should stop them. But not everyone believes so, and those voices must be equally heard and not villanized or simplified.