are American and British Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan engaging in acts of Terrorism?
are American and British Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan engaging in acts of Terrorism ?
..and spare me worthless patriotic reaction. Try to engage a modicum of independent and objective consideration here.
It's easy for the Western 'viewing public' of ongoing Imperialist wars to presume that terrorism is predominantly the weapon of choice employed by the fanatical religious Jihadist; desperate, disenfranchised, and filled with a burning rage which negates their basic humanity. However, lets take a brief look at the belligerent activities of plundering western Capitalists.
Take for example the invasion of Fallujah in November 04 by American, and their allied troops in the guise of ‘liberators’, bravely collapsing houses on the heads of Iraqi civilians as they huddled in their cellars and shooting anything and everything that moved, supported by helicopter gun-ships in the background.
Here is a single incident of US terrorism among many. Dutifully carried out by American foot-soldiers on the front line, employed by the representatives of US predatory Imperialists at home in order to secure continued access to depleting oil reserves, and cynically paraded as some form of 'welcomed liberation' by corrupted politicians through privately controlled mass-media outlets.
Britain also. Its desperate and flustered squads of soldiers rushing back and forth in the great expanses of Afghanistan, firing at shadows on the horizon with the best equipment sterling can afford. Except those shadows are often non-combatants. Helpless elderly figures that don’t know what’s just hit them as they lay in a pool of their own blood and curious children that raise their head at the wrong time, and lose it. When confronted by any significant resistance on the ground the intrepid Tommy darts off, calling in an aerial bombardment of settlements which are bound to contain civilians.
Just as the suicide bomber in a martyr's vest is willing to mow down unsuspecting souls indiscriminately; in its failure to defeat their ostensibly identified foe, the Allied crusader armed forces employ the same recourse of ‘blanket destruction’: An arbitrary massacre of anything and anyone that is near to, and therefore "probably fraternising with, the enemy".
All new points answered eventually, and in turn
How easily you reduce the value of foreign lives to that of vermin. How reminiscent of the party faithful in Nazi Germany
I don’t understand what you mean
*-nokilleye-* The answer to your riddle is: Modern Capitalism
The description I gave for the British engagement in Afghanistan was from a report I watched by the BBC, who sent an imbedded journalist with a patrol unit. It depicts the standard practice of hit and run tactics.
the proof is available, if you are prepared to look. Here is a clip from British ‘the Independent’ journalist Popham:
[ In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for." ]
Full article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
Defining terrorism isn’t simply a matter of loyalty to one side or the other. Surely if a policy of decimating civilian populations which are thought to harbour the enemy is incorporated into rules of engagement this denotes terrorism? And I don’t for a moment believe such acts of slaughter derive from mere error as you have suggested. These are covert policies which emanate from the very apex of the international imperialist political super-structure. Implemented by American and British foot-soldiers on the front line
You castigate users here for daring to comment on an issue they may never have had first hand experience in. Saying their lives are ‘pointless’, ‘non-productive’ and ‘unfulfilling’. Yet what could be more Pointless than these illegal invasions, which only make the World a more dangerous place and spill endless human blood. What could be more unproductive than bombing a civilisation back to the stone age or as unfulfilling than spending the halcyon days of ones young life being treated like an organic robot, trained to obey without question, to disregard natural intuition and Human empathy for that pavlovian bark of the chain of command
Well said *Penfold*
Not such a big word in literary terms, however in its material application devastating. Just ask the grieving relatives of the lost generations of infants from sanctions (infant mortality dropped to 47 per 1,000 in 1984-9 compared to 7 per 1,000 in the UK).and the war You make the argument for me already because each and every one of the definitions forwarded reflect US policies from the outset.
The U.S. not only championed but argued against any relaxing of the sanctions to deliberately make life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people and ‘encourage’ regime change. Sound familiar *ralen*?
If a murderer is dropping white prosperous on yourself and your family from 20,000 feet, his attire is the last thing on your mind. When cruise missiles drop from the night sky I can assure you it is an act of terror on an unsuspecting people. U.S. torture chambers are full of people 'kidnapped from their homes in the middle of the night‘ without trial. And the dust of Iraq and Afghanistan is strewn with the unidentified bodies of victims of overwhelming Allied firepower. Do you remember the 'Highway of Death'? Or have the manic tones of the star spangled banner drowned out grisly spectacles from recent history. More than 2000 vehicles and tens of thousands of withdrawing troops and Palestinian civilians butchered by US cowards from the sky using illegal chemical weapons in an illegal act
- ralen_jorLv 41 decade agoBest Answer
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Before using a big word like "terrorism," you should make an effort to understand what it means. The tactic of swaying the masses by way of fear is a central concept, and not one that even remotely applies to actions of Coalition Forces. It has "terror" in the name, for God's sake.
Edit: No matter how much you make a claim, it doesn't make it any more true. You might try making argument by way of logic and reason, rather than blanketed statements without any basis in fact. I expect you would yield better results.Source(s): Active duty PO1 and Arabic linguist, US Navy
- 1 decade ago
So where is your proof? Just saying so doesn't make it so. I can tell moving stories about how fanatical terrorists have spilled the blood of innocents and blown up their own people...blah blah blah. Destruction, war, pain, terror, hatred, oppression, rhetoric, it's all evil, no matter who is doing it. There is really no "good or righteous" side here. It is a clash of religions, respect, and freedoms. You ask the question with such rhetoric, such hatred, what kind of answer do you expect? I wish the world would just wake up and realize that there are good people everywhere, if we only take the time to look. That war is illogical and counterproductive. The problem is that no one will yield, because it will be seen as a weakness, so we continue this vicious cycle, and probably will forever. Unfortunately, the one brave person who does try to yield and compromise will probably be taken advantage of by the evil people who think their way is right. Why can't we just live in our perspective countries and leave everyone alone?
- 1 decade ago
I agree about Fellujah, but I had not heard of the whole 'British soldiers shooting anything that moved' fiasco. I know I have a flag in my profile but that doesn't make me massively bias; I am however more versed in American war crimes in the middle east than British ones so perhaps you could shed some light and give me some links.
And guy who has a bunch of thumbs down for being racist - calling the denizens of the Middle East vermin is the same as what Hitler said about the Jews. I hope you are young a naive or simply made a grammatical error because if not... The word 'racist' comes to mind.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
terrorism is a word that has been so illused that it ceases to have any objective meaning at all. It has become an excuse, a rallying call, a bogey man and bugle for the unthinking masses. The only yard stick that can be reasonably applied to decide if crimes have been committed by the U.S and U.K government are the standards set down during the Nuremburg trials at the end of WW2. Contrary to the commonly held view, the majority of Nazis convicted at Nuremburg were convicted not of crimes related to the holocaust but for acts of aggressive war. By this measure there is no doubt that the British and American governments are war criminals. To circumvent this inconvenient truth the UK and US governments have adopted the position that international law is something that applies to other countries.
I watched as cheering and whooping American sailors fired off salvos of cruise missiles into the heart of Baghdad which is a densely populated civilian area. Every man present was a war criminal, in fact, in deed and in his heart.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
What about the US or Britian being attacked people loosing their lives because why? Because they are just not liked. Give me a break. I know for a fact yes a fact that the military is not just shooting at everybody. If they didn't go in with force then nothing would change and everybody would stay in danger. Yes I do know that some die that should not but this hatred had to be stopped. The leaders in that country was wanting to destroy to much. People living there innocent ones have thanked the US for being there. For helping them I am sorry for everyones lost. It is hard to lose a loved one for any reason, And the truth is every person that dies has a loved one some where. But the truth is all wars are sad and confusing we just have to remember what we are fighting for. Alot of the soldiers are dads and moms they are not in a hurry to kill someone that is innocent most diffently a child unlike some cultures a childs life is very precious to Americans and the British but we all protect our homes and this is the only way to do so. I don't think please and thank yous would have worked!
- ArchangelLv 71 decade ago
"Just as the suicide bomber in a martyr's vest is willing to mow down unsuspecting souls indiscriminately; in its failure to defeat their ostensibly identified foe, the Allied crusader armed forces employ the same recourse of ‘blanket destruction’: An arbitrary massacre of anything and anyone that is near to, and therefore "probably fraternising with, the enemy".
The difference is that the military is visibly armed and in a recognizable uniform. The martyr hid his intentions (the foe is NOT identified) and blew himself up on unsuspecting people. The people know who the military is and what they are there for. Terrorism by it's very meaning is to strike terror in the hearts of a people due to the unknown. The military not putting bombs in parked cars in markets and blowing them up. The military is not kidnapping people from their homes in the middle of the night and burying them in some unmarked grave somewhere. In fact, the military has to get an arrest warrant from the Iraqi government before they can do anything.
- 4 years ago
Just to clarify One shot's stement about iraq, The Brit troops are in their barracks, because they've handed over responsibility to the Iraqi Military. If you look at casulty figures for Iraq Duration of war: 5 years, 5 months Number of troops in theatre: 4,000 Casualty data analysed to: July 31st UK military fatalities: 176 UK military casualties in 2007: 1950 UK military casualties in 2008: 524* Total UK casualties: data not released and compare with Afghanistan Duration of war: 6 years, 10 months Troops in theatre: 7,800 Casualty data analysed to: July 31st UK military fatalities: 116 UK military casualties in 2007: 1442 UK military casualties in 2008: 986* Total UK casualties: data not released You'll see the figure reflect that Iraq has a higher casualty figure and a higher fatality figure with a shorter duration. With the change in operations in Iraq the casualties this year have decreased there so the focus has gone on to Afghanistan. In answer to your question, Helmand in Afghanistan is currently the "hotter" of the two with the Brits fighting a more conventional type of war rather than the anti Terrorist role they have in iraq. I think they troops will be there for some time, if we pull out even more innocent people will suffer than if we stay.
- 1 decade ago
Very simple response to your post:
Terrorism is an extraordinarily subjective and ambiguous term.
It's whether or not you believe in the over-arching goals of an actor that lets you decide if someone is a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter".
And no matter which side you're on, both sides will engage in killing innocent civilians, whether on purpose or by accident. No matter how modern one's technology is, human beings will always make mistakes.
- JDLv 51 decade ago
Couldn read it all sorry im too tired, I think that some are doing acts of terrorism and some are been ordered to do acts of terrorism, I would go as far as to say that some have shed innocent blood in both iraq and afghanistan and that some have been ordered. I would also add that there has been drugs shipped out of afghanistan by troops, poppy production has increased in the last 8 years.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I'm too lazy to read your entire posting, so I imagine I'm probably repeating you but my short answer is... ABSOLUTELY! We like to call it cute euphemisms like "regrettable incidental casualties" or blame others by calling our victims "human shields", but the reality is, if you target unarmed civilians knowing before you fire they are unarmed and civilians... yeah, that's what I like to call terrorism.
Now, here's your next mission, should you choose to accept it: What do you call it when you compel a population to work so they can pay to live indoors then prohibit them from working then punish them for not working by expelling them to the outdoors?
Just type words like iraq, afghanistan, massacre, war, civilian, etc, into your search screen. You can find all kinds of stuff just playing around like that.
EDIT ADD: 'Middle Child' (cute name) "what about", nuthin'. They hurt us / We hurt them... That scorecard is pointless no more than two lines down into the exercise. At this point in time, what fundamentally amounts to civilians, are attacking a formal uniformed occupying army and a formal uniformed occupying army is killing civilians. It is arguably something along the lines of civil defense versus murder. In addition, pay attention as the story emerges about the death squads... It's army versus civilian with abduction, torture, massacre and death squad... In my book, it doesn't get much more 'terrorist' than that.