Terrorists and why people support them

And Saddamn was a God loving individual who never hurt anyone?
How many people did he sanction to kill?


[edit on 03/12/04 by Bikereddie]

Two Weeks In Falluja
By: Mark Manning on: 31.03.2005 [14:10] (128 reads)


03/30/05 "ICH" - - I got back from Iraq a few weeks ago where I stayed inside the city of Falluja and lived with the refugees of that city for over two weeks. I decided to go there because it seems to be the heart of the trouble in Iraq and the place to see if any sense or peace can be found. I had also heard that the city had 250,000 citizens in it who were told to leave when my government attacked, yet there had been no stories of their situation in our media. As an American, I felt responsible for this and decided to take a look myself.

The horrors of war have been brought to the people of Falluja. The people there say the city had 500,000 people in it, not the 250,000 quoted by our media. The refugees told me that they were given one week notice to leave the city. After three days, they were told they could no longer drive out, they had to walk. No camps were established for them and no refugee location was given. There was no planning by the American government for the people, no food, no shelter and no water. They were just told to leave or be killed. Anyone who stayed in the city after one week would be considered a terrorist and would be killed.

For five months these people have been living in any location they could find, nothing was established for them in the surrounding areas of the Falluja countryside. They are living in tents in the mud, schools, abandoned chicken coups, burned out buildings, cars and other buildings that people were not using or where others have made room for them. The weather is bad, with much rain and it is very cold. When they were told to leave the city, it was summer and they were not dressed for this cold and many could not carry out their clothes. Some lucky children are going to school in tents and all the classes have been shortened to 2 hours per day. Food is short and they are eating what the farmers grow and the surrounding community can spare. Again, even after five months they have received no outside aid from either the American government or the new Iraqi government.

The city itself has been devastated. Most houses have been seriously damaged, with about 65% of them totally destroyed. Evidence of depleted uranium (DU) shells is everywhere. This leaves radioactive contamination behind which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. (See note1). Unexploded ordinance is a common sight. Many residents who were there speak of chemical weapons, napalm, cluster bombs and phosphorous used by the Americans. These are all illegal weapons and considered war crimes by the international community. Many of the houses were fired, meaning that the troops burned them down after searching them. Many houses with white flags and markings stating "Family Here" were destroyed.

Some families who had nowhere to go stayed in the city during the fighting and have paid dearly. I interviewed many people who were there and their stories will live forever in my mind. Here are some
samples:

· A mother whose son was killed by DU shells. He was in his bed sleeping when the shells came through the walls.

· A father who at 65 years of age was shot during a raid of his house, whose son was arrested during that raid and has not been seen since (he states that his son was not a fighter.)


· A 17 year old girl who hid under her bed with her 13 year old brother during a raid of her house and witnessed her father, her cousin, and her two sisters 18 and 19 years old, all shot to death. She hid for three more days with the dead bodies of her family and then they returned and shot her and her brother after finding them under the bed. Her brother died. She survived and told me her story.

· A Family of ten who lived through all the fighting. The kids were 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12. They were a mess. These kids will never be ok. Their faces were marked with open and oozing sores and they were exhibiting serious signs of emotional damage.

There is presently very little medical aid available to the residents and refugees, and again, no aid has been provided to the refugees in the surrounding area. The medical centers in the city have been destroyed and have not been rebuilt. The main hospital has been reopened, but to get there you have to walk, as the ambulances are still being shot by the Americans and the Iraqi National Guard. The doctors have been beaten and their lives have been threatened by the Iraqi National Guard. These are the security forces that the Americans are training. The new government has warned them not to talk to any journalists about the conditions in Falluja. They understand this threat to be very real and a direct threat on their lives and the lives of their families.


To walk to the hospital you must go through checkpoints, sometimes through fighting, and only at certain daylight hours. The checkpoints are manned by the Iraqi National Guards and they are very hostile to the residents of Falluja. When we were at the hospital, an old man died of a heart attack because he was not allowed through the checkpoint. A woman gave birth in the ambulance because they would not let the ambulance back to the hospital after 5 pm and instead turned it away with her in labor.

We delivered by hand the medical aid provided by some of you to the hospital in Falluja. Me and one Iraqi woman, WE were the international medical aid to Falluja. We carried these boxes one at a time through the checkpoints, across the bridge and into the hospital. They would not let us drive in, we had to walk these boxes in. We did it every day for a week, one box at a time.

All of the people I talked to had messages to the American people. They said: "We did not attack you! We have done nothing to the Americans. Why have you done this to us?"

These are the people who hosted me, fed me, and worried about my safety. They took care of me and I will never forget their generosity, compassion and grace. They want peace with America and they want the fighting to stop. They feel they are the ones being attacked and that the Americans are the terrorists. They see absolutely no justification for this war and were constantly asking me to explain how the American people can support these acts against a civilian population. For the first time in my life, I was ashamed to be an American.

good point eddie just look at what he did to the kurds

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Why do people support terrorist?

Because we have people like Syrian Sister and Corinthas in the world. Who are stupid enough to believe the US is behind every evil act in the world, so they get behind whoever opposes the US.

If you check my posts i dont think youll find me saying "the US is behind every evil act in the world". well lets put it like this you dindt copy/paste it thats for sure!!!!

I was merelly pointing out that "legitimate" armies and organizations have deliberately targetted civlians in the past. US or otherwise.. .i even suggested above the UK "a gool ole imperial nation" that has alot of blood on its hands too.

But no... a little bit of truth thats paints the US in a bad light and im a terrorist!
Its ok i understand it's the programming getting to you, intitiating the urge to lash out defensively and pre-emptively lable everyone around you a lying enemy.

It's only natural.

And Saddamn was a God loving individual who never hurt anyone?

I never said that.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

And Saddamn was a God loving individual who never hurt anyone?

I never said that.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Not putting words in your mouth. Just stating a fact after you rubbished our relevant governments for killing people.

When he was at his worst.

Just think about how bad Saddam was. Now imagine how bad your government is, when they are worse!

www.geocities.com/americanterrorism The website is fully sourced. Go , read, educated yourself.

Lol.. when he was at his worst???????????

when was he ever at his best??????????

5000 Fallujah Civilians killed say IR
by Women and children raped by savage americans Guest on 25.11.2004 [00:44 ]


shorl.com...

Statement from Falluja: 5000 were killed by USA chemical weapons in
Falluja- 22/11/2004
Photos and video files (included)


American terrorists use the civilians of Falluja as human shields on
their vehicles against the resistance during house raid in Falluja.


The resistance in Falluja insists that it has photos and video files
of many of these crimes and it will release them whenever possible.

The statement released today 22/11/2004 has said that:

"the US army in Falluja has used weapons of mass destruction and
chemical weapons which killed more than 5000 of civilians"

The statement listed some of the main war crimes of the US army in
Falluja: "

1. The US army bombards Falluja with poisoned gases and chemical
weapons

2. The US army bombards Falluja with Phosphoric pumps

3. The US army have destruct houses, Mosques and stores and rubber
value things

4. The US army killed about 5000 civilians, most of them children,
ladies and elderly people, put to death wounded and sick people, and
peel them in the ground. Then, the USA army has buried many of those
civilians in collectivism graves. However, it also disallowed for the
resistance who were killed to be buried and let them to be eaten by
dogs!

5. The US army has arrested about 3000 civilians and raped women and
children."


The statement said that the resistance has challenged the US army
around Falluja to allow international media and independent firm to
monitor these crimes. It has offered a 24 Hours ceasefire to ensure
safety for the evacuations of civilians and their wounded relatives.
The Resistance in Falluja assures that it still controls more than %
50 of the city and it gain victory over occupation.

"when was he at his worst"

Basically, when he killed the most ammount of people, you where supporting him.

syrian sister i am getting the feeling you are little anti US?

Friends,

This is a cultural war!
We have Islam vs. the west. This war has been waged for ages and is getting its second (or third) wind now. It is basically an incompatability of cultures. Islamic/Arab states have a way of thinking which is uncompatible with that of the West. Most Arab/Muslim states are dictatoral while the west is democratic. Most Arab/Muslim states have a backward economy where the masses are VERY poor with a very low standard of living. Western states/countries have higher standard of living and are economically much better off than the Arab/Muslim states.
The fact that the Arab/Muslim states have oil makes the WEST reliant on them and results in a conflict of cultures. Had the Arabs had no oil the middle east would have been like Africa today - totally neglected and generally backward.
Arab/Muslim states have been living in a regressive society where their contributions to the modern world have been negligable.

As for terrorism - This issue is a matter of definition. What is terrorism? There are different definitions for this but all of them are lacking and inaccurate.
Why do I say this?
dictionary.reference.com...

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

www.m-w.com...

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

These are two definitions of terrorism which simply means that every country uses these tactics. The UN uses these tactics, police use these tactics, schools use these tactics, all relgious institutions use them as well. Everyone is a terrorist under these definitions.

As a result I say this definition needs to be redefined. My best attempt at redefining terrorism is this:

The violent targeting of a civilian population as a strategy used for political gain.

Now with this definition you ask why people support them. It is because when a proud but backward society (Muslim/Arab society) faces a modernized and technologically superior society (the west), the only possible pride that that society can shell out is that of extremism - Martyrdom and terrorism. A backward society needs to be educated to realize that terrorism is wrong and that Islam is not about Martyrdom and terrorism.

Education will only be possible if you topple those regimes and install a regime that will instill such education mechanisms in those countries. This will not come easy though since the masses have been poisoned with extremism.

Originally posted by Corinthas
If you check my posts i dont think youll find me saying "the US is behind every evil act in the world". well lets put it like this you dindt copy/paste it thats for sure!!!!

It's your mindset.
9/11 happens, who do you blame? The US
Innocents beheaded, who do you blame? The US
The Beruit bombing, who do you blame? The US

[qutoe]But no... a little bit of truth thats paints the US in a bad light and im a terrorist!
Did I say that?

Its ok i understand it's the programming getting to you, intitiating the urge to lash out defensively and pre-emptively lable everyone around you a lying enemy.

It's only natural.

lol, you're joking no?


KF:

Man that was wrong and really uncalled for. I dont agree with everything they are saying, but alot of it, well, it deserves a second, third, and maybe even a fourth look. We have terrorist because a group of people are unhappy with their current situation. PERIOD. That is what it all boils down to.

The question was why do people support terrorists, not why are there terrorists. There's no way any logical person could support terrorists and their actions unless they're willing to believe the propaganda they're constantly spewing. This is exactly what Corinth and SS are doing. I'm looking for any post from them where the US isn't the bad guy and the terrorists aren't the good guys. If you can show me that, then I'll change the tone.

Everyone knows the US isn't all clean. But when you ask them about the dozens of car bombings that take place every month by terrorists, they always end up talking about well the US did this, the US did that, not even addressing the original question about what the terrorists are doing.

Hypocrisy of United States

The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil.

The problem in definition Terrorism is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." (US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.) That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.

So says Professor Chomsky.

As far as I see, the definition of the US Army manual applay to the United States also - with their foreign policy, they apply calculated use of violence to attain goals, that are political and economical in nature. And they have done that lots of times in the past.

The first war received strong endorsement. The UN General Assembly condemned international terrorism two months after Reagan's denunciation, again in much stronger and more explicit terms in 1987. NOTE[GA Res. 40/61, 9 Dec. 1985; Res. 42/159, 7 Dec. 1987.] Support was not unanimous, however. The 1987 resolution passed 153-2, Honduras abstaining. Explaining their negative vote, the US and Israel identified the fatal flaw: the statement that ."nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right..., particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation...". That was understood to apply to the struggle of the African National Congress against the Apartheid regime of South Africa (a US ally, while the ANC was officially labelled a "terrorist organization").

So - if USA says that these guys from South Africa are not terrorists, even if they were officially labelled as a "terrorist organization", then they are NOT.

Reagan's 1985 condemnation referred specifically to terrorism in the Middle East, selected as the lead story of 1985 in an AP poll. But for Secretary of State George Shultz, the administration moderate, the most "alarming" manifestation of "state-sponsored terrorism," a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself" in "a return to barbarism in the modern age," was frighteningly close to home. There is "a cancer, right here in our land mass," Shultz informed Congress, threatening to conquer the hemisphere in a "revolution without borders," a interesting fabrication exposed at once but regularly reiterated with appropriate shudders.

"The terrorists -- and the other states that aid and abet them - serve as grim reminders that democracy is fragile and needs to be guarded with vigilance," Shultz warned. We must "cut [the Nicaraguan cancer] out," and not by gentle means: "Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table," Shultz declared, condemning those who advocate "utopian, legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation." The US was exercising "the power element of the equation" with mercenary forces based in Honduras, under Negroponte's supervision, and successfully blocking the "utopian, legalistic means" pursued by the World Court and the Latin American Contadora nations - as Washington continued to do until its terrorist wars were won.

To answer the quesiton in the title of the thread: Terrorists and why people support them?

Hm, why did USA support the terrorist regimes in the past? Like South Africa? or Nicaragua?

The real quesiton that we all have to answer First is - Who the Real Terrorists are?

Are they Rich and Powerful states? Or Poor and Powerless States?

Second question: Who supports Terroristic Regimes and who funds them?

Is THIS an act of International Terrorism?

In the peak year of 1985 is a car-bombing in Beirut on March 8 that killed 80 people and wounded 256. The bomb was placed outside a Mosque, timed to explode when worshippers left. "About 250 girls and women in flowing black chadors, pouring out of Friday prayers at the Imam Rida Mosque, took the brunt of the blast," Nora Boustany reported. The bomb also "burned babies in their beds," killed children "as they walked home from the mosque," and "devastated the main street of the densely populated" West Beirut suburb. The target was a Shi'ite leader accused of complicity in terrorism, but he escaped. The crime was organized by the CIA and its Saudi clients with the assistance of British intelligence.

Source: Chomsky Info

Why did they support pinochet?

Why do they still support dictatorships, like the one in saudi arabia?

Because it serves there interests.

This is a cultural war!

Your mistaken. This is a war about resources and power. Like all wars.

US spy ordered to bring home bin Laden's head on dry ice
By: AFP on: 04.05.2005 [07:36 ] (1276 reads)
Article image

(2164 bytes) Print

WASHINGTON - US spy chiefs ordered agents to deliver Osama bin Laden's severed head in a box of dry ice and hoist heads of other Al-Qaeda leaders on pikes, a retired field officer has disclosed.

As America reeled in shock days after the September 11 attacks in 2001, former CIA officer Gary Schroen was sent to Afghanistan to help the opposition Northern Alliance to topple bin Laden's hosts the Taliban.

He told National Public Radio (NPR) in an interview broadcast on Monday and Tuesday that he stopped by the office of then Director of the CIA counter-terrorism center Cofer Black for final instructions.

He was told : "'your basic marching orders are to link up with the Northern Alliance and get their cooperation military and they will take on the Taliban.

"'When we break the Taliban, your job is to capture bin Laden, kill him and bring his head back in a box full of dry ice.'"

Schroen was also ordered to kill other al-Qaeda leaders suspected in the plot which saw terrorists slam planes into the New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing nearly 3,000 people.

It was the first time in 30 years with the CIA he been ordered to set out to kill a target rather than try to bring them in alive, Schroen told NPR's station's Morning Edition program.

He said he told Black, '"Sir, those are the clearest orders I have ever received, I can certainly make pikes out in the field but I don't know what I'll do about dry ice to bring the head back but we will manage something."

A week after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush told reporters he wanted Osama bin Laden and recalled Wild West posters that demanded suspects "dead or alive."

But the suspected terror mastermind was never caught and Schroen told NPR that CIA operatives found it hard to get close enough to strike bin Laden, partly due to his ability to move quickly around the country.

"We had could never tell where the man was going to be that night," Schroen, who is promoting a new book and believes bin Laden is now hiding out in tribal areas of Pakistan, told NPR.

Oh poor osama getting his head put on a pike,

its not like he diserves it..


[edit on 9-5-2005 by C0le]

Originally posted by C0le
Oh poor osama getting his head put on a pike,

its not like he diserves it..


[edit on 9-5-2005 by C0le]

Wether he deserves it etc.... is not the point.

The point is, the US who claims to be "civilised' and who see beheadings as abhorant, are the very people who openly admit that beheading is A O K.

We are expected to belive, muslims are behind those videos? Who benefits. All evidence points to you. You already admit you like beheadings.