The war on Iraq has now killed more civilians than were killed in the attacks on September 11. Iraqis are bombed in their homes, have their cars shot up by mercenaries, have their houses raided and their lives controlled by the US military. Is this terrorism?
2007-11-13 22:57:43 · 18 answers · asked by Hidup 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It is amazing that some people try to say the attack on Iraq was legal. It was declared illegal by the head of the UN. I am outside the US in Australia and I certainly know that the attack was illegal. Bombing Iraqi civilians is a cowardly act. Isn't terrorism the killing of civilians for political goals. Isn't this what the US military does in Iraq?
2007-11-13 23:15:53 · update #1
The same head of the UN was forced out because he was the corrupt man on the planet. Let me inform you, most American's could careless about the UN. Look at how well the UN functions with out US Troops. That was a great job the UN has done in Africa. I here the UN is publishing a book on how to mass rape the population in Africa. Let us get done with Iraqi and Afghanistan first, then we'll once again come bail out the UN.
2007-11-14 00:48:44 · answer #1 · answered by 2nd AD/ 4th ID 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
As "Black Bush" put it:"If the UN doesn't like the war they can sanction me in fact they can send their army after me. OH wait I forgot, they don't have and army! You know what I would do if i had no army? I would shut the F^ck up!
Most of the civilians that are killed are by your beloved insurgents/terrorists in Iraq not the US. And you should be thankful that Bush was the president because i would have dropped so many nukes on them it would put them back to the time of the Dinos
2007-11-14 01:59:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In your further details you define terrorism as, "the killing of civilians for political goals"
I find this to be a supremely facile and historically inaccurate use of the word. By your logic, the RAF of WWII era was a terrorist organization because it inadvertently killed untold numbers of civilians in bombing runs while trying to achieve the very real political objective of avoiding their own annihilation.
Certainly, whether the killing of civilians happened as a result of being in proximity to a legitimate objective or whether their deaths *were* the objective (such as in 9/11 or the Madrid train bombings) is the crux of the matter here.
The hostile forces that the US and Iraqi govt face in Iraq do not live in military barracks nor wear military uniforms. They intentionally put themselves in close proximity to innocents. It is absolutely unavoidable in these circumstances that civilians will get killed.
It's tragic and terrible, but it's in pursuit of undeniably legitimate military targets -- and to define that as terrorism is to completely muddy any true meaning to the word.
2007-11-14 00:12:26 · answer #3 · answered by Vince Vega 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pre-emptive Strike
Destroy the enemy before he can bring his strengths against you.Destroy his ability to bring the war to you,fight the fight on his real-estate and make him take the damage.Crush all who oppose and break the will of the offender to carry on the fight.Hearts and Minds,turn the will of the civilians in the zone against the enemy.Use all weapons you can bring to bear on them and stay on their heels and give no quarter.Make the thought of war with us a horrible as possible that they will sue for peace.
2007-11-14 10:25:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it is not a terrorist attack. it is a legal use of force authorized by both houses of Congress of the US and by the UN. If the head of the UN declares it as illegal then he is admitting the organization he runs is a criminal organization and should be brought to justice.
2007-11-14 01:31:55 · answer #5 · answered by darrell m 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
got news for you brain boy..
even if there was no WMD,even if they were not allied with AL qaeda,even if they were not building nukes.
the USA had evey right to attck Iraq
After the first gulf war, Saddam signed a treaty.
He never lived up to his end of the deal.
he continued to fire at our planes in the no fly zones, he continued to lie to the UN, he continued to attack his neighbors.
We never ended gulf one according to the deal he signed.
We basically just continued Gulf one. Why is this always forgotten when we talk about Iraq?
Mike...
2007-11-14 00:32:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The US attack on Iraq is not a terrorist attack, though the local probably view it as such.
Edit: The experiences that the Iraqi people are going through are normal in any occupation. The attack in Iraq is merely a military venture, most likely to gain a new ally or oil (which, historically speaking, should be what we are after).
2007-11-13 23:12:30 · answer #7 · answered by baddius 3 · 1⤊ 6⤋
well actually if you look at it from an old school left wing stance you can see that the americans and brits took down a leader who committed ethnic cleasning of the kurds. Isn't that a good reason to go to war?
2007-11-13 23:18:16 · answer #8 · answered by Shanahan 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Nope, Terrorism is a tactic, and shock and awe wasn't that tactic.
2007-11-16 15:52:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is a legally declared war. Check the Geneva Conventions.
2007-11-13 23:06:21 · answer #10 · answered by Sid B 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋