I am a member of the United States Army and by no means do we use Violence, Terror, or Intimidation to achieve a result. The military and the United States in which we so proudly defend always try to achieve results through diplomatic relations. It is only when our freedom and way of life is threatened do we proceed to take Violent measures, but never using terror or intimidation. We never threaten the lives of innocents nor do we harm those who surrender. We treat the enemy with far more respect than they would treat us, we give the enemy, who has been trying to kill us, the same rights that we give our own citizens. I feel that the statement you made, calling the United States Military Terrorists, is appalling. By the way the 2500 soldiers who died in this War say your welcome for your freedom.
2006-07-18 01:58:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I wasn't aware that the Military had different definitions for words than the general populace.
Now, terrorists traditionally aim for innocent civilians in an effort to put fear in the population's heart. Bombing a cafe, a train, a large building...
The war in Iraq can hardly be defined as that. It's intent is to target insurgents. Are there going to be errors? Unfortunately... but the targets are NOT weddings... people going to work... etc.
Now, don't get me wrong... I'm hardly defending Bush's actions... and I think the war in Iraq is wrong... but to lump Terrorism and Military actions together is ridiculous... and, to be quite honest, makes you look stupid.
Let's take Lebanon and Israel as an example:
The Hezbollah has targeted civilian locations... using car bombs, rockets and mortars.
The Israeli army had made a POINT of targeting specific strategic locations in an effort to disarm and disable the Hezbollah forces. Again, they've screwed up... but they don't go after civilian targets with intent.
So... now lets look up the definition of Propaganda:
"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. "
and Spin:
To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: “a messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred”
... see a pattern here?
2006-07-18 01:51:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Village Idiot 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
LoL When you look at it from this point of view the only difference between the two are that they both have reasons and stories to blame the other i can go into them but most people will know the history behind this war.
But another point is America has a all too close connection with most of the terroist groups that it does not allways make open.
this renges from the obvious helping of osoma bin laden (note i allways spell his name badly) to the supply of guns and wepons to fractions all over the world including the worst war torn parts of africia. so they say that its peace that they are after its a bit hard not to get caught up in conspericy and think that they were in on it all from the beggining using bin laden as a pwan to force his hand in order to get the support for the war effort that would of never gotten the same backing if 911 never happend.
Cheers
Michael H Flack
2006-07-18 01:54:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by flackstar 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is Bill Clinton a terrorist because he bombed the Serbs? Is Theodore Roosevelt a terrorist because he bombed the Nazis? Is George Washington a terrorist because he fought the British?
If your goal is to attack Pres. Bush, then there are several legitimate issues with which you can take a stand--taxes, environment, abortion, stem cell research, etc... Instead, your question does nothing more than support the enemies of the US who are sworn to destroy us and everything related to Western society. Are you an enemy of this country too?
2006-07-18 01:41:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You did not read past the first line.
Why do you Libs always do that?
The term is often used pejoratively to assert that the violence against civilians is immoral, wanton, and unjustified, that the terrorist attacks are "indiscriminate", "targeting civilians", or executed "with disregard for human life". According to some definitions of terrorism used by states and governments, terrorists are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors". Due to the term's pejorative connotations, groups that are called "terrorist" by the popular media typically do not accept that identity for themselves. Instead, terms may be used that reflect ideological or ethnic struggle.
Armed military conflict
is sometimes associated with terrorism when its objectives are to produce shock and awe for the purpose of forcing capitulation. For the purpose of weakening or destroying the opponent's military force, however, armed military conflict is a form of conventional warfare.
2006-07-18 01:46:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oh give me a break. Play whatever word games you want - here's a Yahoo question for you - what's the point of your question? What do you think it's going to accomplish?
Do you really, honestly, think there is no distinction between the American military and the people who blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces? Grow up.
2006-07-18 01:43:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Brian T 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
This definition is incorrect. Do American soldiers deliberatley, with malice and forethought, wrap themselves in plastic explosives and blow Iraqi people up? Do they kidnap people and behead thme on CNN or Al - Jazeera? Do they wish for the destruction of Israel?
Listen up!!! Terrorists kill innocent people and revel in it!! Get that through your heads.
2006-07-18 01:45:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
whilst in comparison with the Sep 11 assaults, those assaults are very small scale. locate out approximately 3k to easily tens of human beings. no longer that i'm attempting to point the lives of those interior the assaults stated are any much less powerful. in spite of the shown fact that, the dimensions distinction is very super.
2016-11-02 06:46:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who cares! History is written by the victorious.
2006-07-18 01:42:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by shrek 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
By God Bush is a terrorist!!!! Someone take him out!!!
2006-07-18 01:40:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by nick m 4
·
0⤊
0⤋