Terrorists and why people support them

Terrorists, and the reasons people support them.

Having had an in depth and somewhat heated debate with a new comer to ATS in her introduction speech, i thought i would start this thread for the matter to continue in the right place.

Looking forward to some more excellent debates here.

Yeah why do people supprt soldiers... or terrorists for that matter as they are the same thing with a different label.

If you think thae cause is just its a soldier and you support him or his cause... if you think the cause is unjust you call them terrorists and dont support them.


[edit on 9/5/2005 by Corinthas]

I support the soldiers who are doing a job they are payed for and signed up for.
I do not support terrorism for the simple fact that they fight, and kill and maim innocent people to justify their cause.

Terrorist's are not an army, no matter how they see them selves. They are just cowards who stop at nothing ,nor think nothing of anyone who happens to be in the way when a bomb explodes, detonated by some mindless individual who has been brain washed into believing he will become a martyr.

could it be that they are opportunists who think that oil is worth more than lives?

the answer: YES!

i read somewhere that if a muslim kills himself by a mechanical devise he will be tortured in hell over and over again by the same device...... not sure if this is 100% but maybe someone could shed some light on this?? maybe it does not count if he is in a jahid?? but then the first suicide bomber was in palestine i believe?? never 100% with my details so if i am wrong please correct me cause i hate being wrong

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I support the soldiers who are doing a job they are payed for and signed up for.
I do not support terrorism for the simple fact that they fight, and kill and maim innocent people to justify their cause.

Get that difference out of your head, cilvilians and the innocents have been fair game since they were in range of the guns!

What do you think the bombing of dresden was?

When Kissinger picked up that phone and said (about cambodia) "everything that flies on everything that moves" do you think that included special orders to avoid civilians?!?!?!?!


Oh go on ill even include a CIA carbomb in beiruth in 80something.. didnt even take out the intended target but some 50 civilians instead.

Sorry you've got to come up with a better difference between em


[edit on 9/5/2005 by Corinthas]

check the last post we where tlaking on, i added something.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
could it be that they are opportunists who think that oil is worth more than lives?

the answer: YES!

And the people who killed all the hostages by hacking their heads off are not opportunists? or are they just cowards?

That is true, as far as i know.

Biker eddie.. youre not replying to my post... got nothing to say about those exapmles of "legitmate" armies and organizations targeting civlians?

Didn't think so ;p

Also another point..... War regardless on how you look on it is always about money, lots and lots of people make serious amounts of money I.E. weapon manufactures and so on and so forth, the goverments cannot keep buying or producing this equipment and just stock pile it.....

And supporting someone whos aim is to strike terror into the hearts of his people and the rest of world is not the same as a solider at all.. there underhand tactics of assaults and propergander should not be encouraged or publised in anyway shape or form, why build there moral by showing these pics and video footage that they make.... my thought on these people are they should all be locked in the deepest darkest chamber possible.... death is to good for these people.....

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Terrorists, and the reasons people support them.

Having had an in depth and somewhat heated debate with a new comer to ATS in her introduction speech, i thought i would start this thread for the matter to continue in the right place.

Looking forward to some more excellent debates here.

"One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist",

thats why people supporting terrorism.

are the same people who are behind, the bombings of Churches, mosques and market places in iraq.

They are mossad/CIA agents working to defame the resistance.

It would not be the first time.

"Oh go on ill even include a CIA carbomb in beiruth in 80something.. didnt even take out the intended target but some 50 civilians instead."

Originally posted by Corinthas
Biker eddie.. youre not replying to my post... got nothing to say about those exapmles of "legitmate" armies and organizations targeting civlians?

Didn't think so ;p

I would reply to it, but where do you get your facts from that support this?

Originally posted by infinite
[
"One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist",

thats why people supporting terrorism.

Absolutely thats what im trying to get across to...

one would say, your son is part of the biggest terrorist orgonisation in the world. The US military.

Here is an iraqi website, that shows how US air strikes target civilians.

www.abolkhaseb.net...

WASHINGTON, August 10 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The United States admitted dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the "horrible" weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion.

An upgraded type of the weapon, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns, was used in March and April 2003 , when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad, the Independent reported Sunday, August10 .

"We napalmed both those bridge approaches," the paper quoted Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group11 , as saying.

"Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die," said Alles.

On March 22 a correspondent for Sydney Morning Herald, traveling with U.S. marines reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill, near the Kuwait border.

His account was based on statements by two U.S. marines officers on the ground.

"Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. I pity anyone who is in there," a Marine sergeant said

The Pentagon insisted at the time the statement was "patently false".

"The U.S. took napalm out of service in the1970 s. We completed the destruction of our last batch of napalm on April4 ,2001 , and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm," Lieutenant-Commander Jeff Davis, from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense had said.

'Generals Love Napalm'

But a Pentagon official told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Thursday that U.S. forces used the new type against Iraqi forces in their drive towards Baghdad and defended their use as legal and necessary.

The official, who did not wish to be identified, said that U.S. marines jets dropped the fire bombs at least once to destroy Iraqi positions at Safwan.

"It is like this: you've got an enemy that's hard to get at. And it will save your own lives to use it. There were no international conventions against it, the official said.

Marines used the bombs on at least two other occasions during the drive to Baghdad, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported this week.

"The generals love napalm, … it has a big psychological effect," the paper quoted Alles as saying.

Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed to the paper that napalm was used on several occasions in the invasion.

A 1980 U.N. convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm. The U.S., which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon, as it was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war, according to the Independent.

The revelation that napalm was used in the invasion of Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon," Robert Musil, director of the organization Physicians for Social Responsibility, told the British paper.

"It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Musil said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception by the U.S. administration".

It Is Still Napalm

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in1942 , and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh510 lbs, and consist of44 lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet fuel.

John Pike, director of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The U.S. is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not aware of any other country that uses it."

Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the weapons was outrageous.

"It's Orwellian. They do not want the public to know. It's a lie," he said.

After the offensive on Iraq ended, Iraqis began to complain about unexploded cluster bombs that still litter their areas and the U.S. forces failed to take them away.

here is the web site that shows them killing there own people and beheading others! www.ogrish.com

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Here is an iraqi website, that shows how US air strikes target civilians.

www.abolkhaseb.net...

Thats not evidence, thats just propaganda. We can all show things like that and lead people to believe that its the US who have done it.

I didnt see any of the western hostages shown amongst those pictures lying dead with their heads on their chests. But then again, its not going to show what barbaric acts the Iraqi freedom fighters did is it? Its allways going to show what the western world has done.
Total bias propaganda.