“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”

[ReidysLeftLug]

Yes, your definition of terrorism. Which renders your definition of terrorism pretty pointless unless you're a Quaker.

Oxford's to be honest.

 

[AlpineExile]

Oxford's to be honest.

Let's try a different tack:

what acts in the said invasions do you consider terrorism?

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

Let's try a different tack:

what acts in the said invasions do you consider terrorism?

I would say that the use of violence (invasion of Iraq) in pursuit of a political aim (forced template of a modern state from the West) is the act of terrorism. The people of Iraq did not want the invasion, the people of Iraq did not want the template of a modern state forced upon them, in my opinion if they did there would have been a form of revolution as has been observed with the Arab spring.

 

[Narraback]

I would say that the use of violence (invasion of Iraq) in pursuit of a political aim (forced template of a modern state from the West) is the act of terrorism. The people of Iraq did not want the invasion, the people of Iraq did not want the template of a modern state forced upon them, in my opinion if they did there would have been a form of revolution as has been observed with the Arab spring.

Much of that post isn't true.

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

Much of that post isn't true.

What was our aim with Operation Iraqi Freedom? Kill Saddam and fuck off?

 

[AlpineExile]

I would say that the use of violence (invasion of Iraq) in pursuit of a political aim (forced template of a modern state from the West) is the act of terrorism. The people of Iraq did not want the invasion, the people of Iraq did not want the template of a modern state forced upon them, in my opinion if they did there would have been a form of revolution as has been observed with the Arab spring.

We attacked the Iraqi army and the infrastructure supporting it.

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

We attacked the Iraqi army and the infrastructure supporting it.

For what reason?

 

[Narraback]

What was our aim with Operation Iraqi Freedom? Kill Saddam and fuck off?

You said the people of Iraq didn't want the invasion. Not true.

The mistake we made wasn't the invasion, it was the almost complete dismantling of the Iraqi armed forces and an absolutely shocking exit strategy.

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

You said the people of Iraq didn't want the invasion. Not true.

The mistake we made wasn't the invasion, it was the almost complete dismantling of the Iraqi armed forces and an absolutely shocking exit strategy.

In your opinion, of course. If the people wanted a change the time would have came as it has in other parts of the world, it is not for other states to go sticking their ore in the sovereignty of another state.

 

[AlpineExile]

For what reason?

Not returning the Kuwaitis they'd kidnapped during the first Gulf War, not returning the gold etc. they stole during the first Gulf War, and not recognising the right of Kuwait to exist. All of which were required of them under the agreement they signed following the first Gulf War.

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

Not returning the Kuwaitis they'd kidnapped during the first Gulf War, not returning the gold etc. they stole during the first Gulf War, and not recognising the right of Kuwait to exist. All of which were required of them under the agreement they signed following the first Gulf War.

I see, and the U.N. security council resolution deeming the action legitimate can be found where?

 

[Narraback]

In your opinion, of course. If the people wanted a change the time would have came as it has in other parts of the world, it is not for other states to go sticking their ore in the sovereignty of another state.

You said the people of Iraq didn't want the invasion. That is simply not true.

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

You said the people of Iraq didn't want the invasion. That is simply not true.

Okay, I accept that some, not many, will have wanted change at that point. But it was not on the scale which has been observed in other Arab countries where there has been change. I am saying that change would have came eventually, and it should have been left to come from within not pushed by an external force with a vested interest. With hindsight, how many Iraqi's do you think feel blessed they have been 'liberated'?

 

[Narraback]

Okay, I accept that some, not many, will have wanted change at that point. But it was not on the scale which has been observed in other Arab countries where there has been change. I am saying that change would have came eventually, and it should have been left to come from within not pushed by an external force with a vested interest. With hindsight, how many Iraqi's do you think feel blessed they have been 'liberated'?

I agree, our strategy once in there has been disastrous, and it seems many Arab countries struggle with a western style democracy. Hopefully we've learned our lesson, although I suspect not.

That still doesn't mean we are terrorists.

 

[alzeebub]

Okay, I accept that some, not many, will have wanted change at that point. But it was not on the scale which has been observed in other Arab countries where there has been change. I am saying that change would have came eventually, and it should have been left to come from within not pushed by an external force with a vested interest. With hindsight, how many Iraqi's do you think feel blessed they have been 'liberated'?

Very f***ing few, I'd imagine. By some counts there are more than 1,000,000 dead Iraqis as a consequence of that invasion.

 

[AlpineExile]

I see, and the U.N. security council resolution deeming the action legitimate can be found where?

What else are ceasefires good for if they're not enforceable?

We stopped attacking them during the first Gulf war in return for certain assurances - which I've already mentioned - so what were we to do when Iraq refused to honour said assurances?

 

[Kevin Arnott's right boot]

I've seen that said often on these boards, but does it stand up to scrutiny?

Often? Really? Care to provide some links to the occasions you've seem it said?

 

[ReidysLeftLug]

I agree, our strategy once in there has been disastrous, and it seems many Arab countries struggle with a western style democracy. Hopefully we've learned our lesson, although I suspect not.

That still doesn't mean we are terrorists.

By your definition and from the perspective which you are viewing it.

We had a clear political aim when using unauthorised violence and intimidation therefore the action is rendered that of a terrorist.

What else are ceasefires good for if they're not enforceable?

We stopped attacking them during the first Gulf war in return for certain assurances - which I've already mentioned - so what were we to do when Iraq refused to honour said assurances?

So, we are agreeing the actions of Britain and America were not legitimate, are we going to agree that both America and Britain were politically motivated or was it purely economic?

 

[safcforever]

Of course it's bollocks. There's Christian terrorist groups in central Africa doing exactly what Muslims are doing in West Africa. We just don't report it as much, presumably because there's less oil in Central Africa.

One problem at a time

 

[AlpineExile]

By your definition and from the perspective which you are viewing it.

We had a clear political aim when using unauthorised violence and intimidation therefore the action is rendered that of a terrorist.


So, we are agreeing the actions of Britain and America were not legitimate, are we going to agree that both America and Britain were politically motivated or was it purely economic?

No we're not, silly.

Please explain to me the point of ceasefires if they're not enforceable.