Debates
13 Mar 04
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
14 Mar 04
Originally posted by slimjimI seem to remember the British Government being none to happy with the US government a few years ago when a certain person the British Government considered to be a "terrorist" was allowed to freely argue their case, appear on your media shows, ask for funds, and develop poltical leverage. To a great many people in Britain at the time this man was viewed in the same light as Bin Ladden is in your country now.
Saddam was a terrorist. He harbored terrorists in his country.ðŸ˜
I am sure there are many cases like this one of the US "harbouring" what another nation may consider a "terrorist", and indeed supporting and giving voice to their respective causes.
Does this make America a Terrorist state? No.
For the other side of the coin, look at Lybia. Gaddafi was the Saddam of the 80's, was more directly involved in "Terrorism", and yet now, is accepted open arms into the "club" of Euro-American favour as it suits their needs at the moment. Who is to say that Saddam would not have gone through a simular transformation in 5 years time.
He is a bad man, no doubt about that, and I certainly would not want to find myself under his sphere of control. But is he a terrorist? No.
He is the leader of a recognised nation, that means he commits acts of War not terror. He does terrible things to his own people, as bad as that is he is not alone in this, look what the European governments did to their people in the name of "policy" in the disater that was WW1. Government is about power and control, this is going to lead to bad situations for a lot of people unfortunately.
If the US is really concerned about human rights and a "better" world, there are a lot of "hot spots" out there that could do with some direction at the moment.
Andrew
14 Mar 04
Originally posted by Black LungHow about the one who died recently in Iraq who killed that man in the wheel chair (Klinghoffer) on the achilli Lauro. I believe his name was Abbas. You should talk look at your ex-president Mandela.
Who did he harbor?
You're getting confused. Perhaps this is because your country is fighting so many wars it is easier to just define anyone that fights against you, or disagrees with your fascist president, as a terrorist.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
14 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by slimjimSorry, do you think Nelson Mandela was a facist president? He is one of the most respected statesmen in the world!
How about the one who died recently in Iraq who killed that man in the wheel chair (Klinghoffer) on the achilli Lauro. I believe his name was Abbas. You should talk look at your ex-president Mandela.
Andrew
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
14 Mar 04
2 edits
Lets focus on the definition of terrorism for a second shall we? from Mirriam Webster's online dictionary:
Terrorism: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
So, much as we might like to, we can't call Saddam a terrorist, as he was a govenrment leader rather than a member of a group trying to intimidate the government. You could say that he bombed the Kurdish population (of his own country) - but this was mainly to kill them rather than to force them to grant any demands.
14 Mar 04
2 edits
Originally posted by iamatigerWhat about "terror reign" or "Reign of Terror" ? Is that English or what ?
Lets focus on the definition of terrorism for a second shall we? from Mirriam Webster's online dictionary:
Terrorism: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in ...[text shortened]... l them rather than to force them to grant any demands.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
14 Mar 04
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes. It's English - It means "a period of brutal suppression or intimidation by those in power.". That's terror used in the "extreme fear" sense, rather than the terrorism sense.
What about "terror reign" or "Reign of Terror" ? Is that English or what ?
14 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by iamatigerThe Saddam regime was a true "Reign of Terror" and in that sense he was a terrorist. I agree however that the term is usually reserved for opponents of a government. On the other hand people speak of "state terror" when they are referring to the Israely policies towards the Palestinians.
Yes. It's English - It means "a period of brutal suppression or intimidation by those in power.". That's terror used in the "extreme fear" sense, rather than the terrorism sense.
15 Mar 04
Originally posted by slimjimNelson Mandela is a giant among men!
You should talk look at your ex-president Mandela.
You obviously have no understanding of the political climate in South Africa at the end of the regime. This man was single-handedly responsible for preventing a civil war and the deaths of many innocent and no-so-innocent civilians in South Africa.
I'd like to know how you can justify calling him a terrorist.
15 Mar 04
4 edits
Originally posted by iamatigerCan you then state that Saddam is not a terrorist? What sort of "influence" did he use in gaining control of Iraq? This is where I totally lose your logical train. You seem quite content to accept his control of the nation, while admitting he used "terror" as per YOUR OWN and Websters definition... to wrongfully gain control. Your logic seems to be that "Terror Makes Right". I have heard you poo-poo the notion that "Might Makes Right". Did Saddam gain and maintain control of thirty million people LEGITIMATELY? I am really facinated in your answer.
Lets focus on the definition of terrorism for a second shall we? from Mirriam Webster's online dictionary:
Terrorism: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in ...[text shortened]... l them rather than to force them to grant any demands.
More so because I am feeling more and more that people who understand the logic of mathematics are strangely deficient in the application of logic to "Language". Every mathematician I know has no problem accepting the idea that Saddam murdered his way into existence, but is not a terrorist. Your definition: "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands".
When did the people of Iraq cease to be a "population"?
Don't get your wrankles up. I respect you a lot, and would appreciate it if you can help me understand your line of logic IN LANGUAGE in granting Saddam legitimate "ruler" status.
Thanks for any help. And I am really interested in understanding this. My real fear is that I am defective in Language Logic... just as I am in Math Logic. I have always prided myself on my ability to parse the logic in LINGUISTIC settings. Maybe I have been self-delusional... Again.
😳
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
18 Mar 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI am just saying that the noun "terror" has more than 1 meaning. One is "extreme fear" and Saddam may be said to have governed by this kind of terror. The second meaning is more related to clandestine, illegal use of force to intimidate or coerce a government / population. "Terrorism" pertains to the second meaning of terror.
Can you then state that Saddam is not a terrorist? What sort of "influence" did he use in gaining control of Iraq? This is where I totally lose your logical train. You seem quite content to accept his control of the nation, while admitting he used "terror" as per YOUR OWN and Websters definition... to wrongfully gain control. Your logic seems to be ...[text shortened]... ility to parse the logic in LINGUISTIC settings. Maybe I have been self-delusional... Again.
😳
I am saying Saddam was not a terorrist because there was nothing clandestine about his use of force against his population and it was also not illegal in the strictest sense of the word, since he defined his countries own law.
I think Saddam would qualify as a terrorist if he had sponsored the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombing or other clandestine illegal uses of force in other countries. However there is no evidence that Saddam was behind any incidents of terrorism in other countries and to call him a terrorist makes it sound as if he was.