Terrorists or terrorised?

dictionary.reference.com...

Going by the above definition, aer the people of Iraq the terrorists or are the invading coalition forces?

It's a thin line. Since we declared war, making it a gentleman's fight betwixt 2 countries, we give the brutality some decency. Terrorists DO NOT, as a country, generally declare anything as a country. It's hard to hod terrorists accountable lile you can the US in this war...

since war is declared does that mean that neither are terrorists and the Iraqi's are a defending force?

Originally posted by weemart
since war is declared does that mean that neither are terrorists and the Iraqi's are a defending force?

War is not declared any longer. The war has been over for a year.

The people of Iraq are not a monolithic unit. Some of them may be terrorists. Most of them are probably just like people everywhere else. The invading coalition forces are not a monolithic unit. The few who torture and abuse prisoners are terrorists, in my book, and a disgrace to their families, their countries, their cultures, their religions, and the whole human race.

They have put captives from the coalition forces in grave danger. It's unexcusable on the part of their officers that this was allowed to go on. I'm glad that the officers in question are being disciplined. I hope they are kicked out of the armed forces. All the participants in these disgusting activities have spit in the face of every single soldier who has maintained self-discipline during combat at enormous emotional cost.

It is hard to fight terrorism. I'm all for fighting terrorism. But I would like to know, who are we fighting in Iraq? We declared war on Saddam, or so we said. We have him. We have disbanded his army and political machine. So who are we fighting now? Some terrorists maybe, probably some opportunists, too, but if some of these Iraqi fighters had lived in North America in the late 1700s and had chosen to fight against occupying foreign forces, they'd have been called patriots.

Should the soldiers who have tortured Iraqi prisoners not now be labelled "terrorists" as they were not working under orders and if so should they be allowed to be tried and punished by the new Iraqi government, when that comes to power.

Surely any breach of human rights should be treated the same - whether on a grand scale like Saddam or on a small scale like the torturing soldiers.

It is an American tradition that all are equal in the eyes of the law. It frequently has not been an American fact. I'm not sure who has jurisdiction, but a slap on the hand is not going to answer the case here. And the most serious punishments should go to those with the most responsibility.

If we want the Iraqis to believe in the benefits of democracy, then they need to see it at work, bring justice to all.

Our country had around 150-200 years of slow adaptation towards self-government before we decided to rebell--remember most of the colonies were let go whether or not they rebelled. In the countries in south America adopted various forms of our constitution, but had no way to work it out, and so have fallen apart. Japan was given some time to adjust--don't remember how much, when we wrote their constitution-we were still there after WWII for a bit. If we pull out now, we are going to leave the ones with the biggest guns in control--and that's lieky to be the ones we are having the problems with now...we're kind'a stuck; we'll be lucky if it's only 5 years. (And I wouldn't trust the care of a baby seal to the UN.)

I think that what they did falls more under war-crimes, and they can be put to death under it...sigh