View Single Post
Old 2008-07-04, 16:09
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,677
Originally Posted by FireBall2K View Post
I don't see why someone should say "terrorist" instead of terrorist, in the end it's a person that causes terror to some group, not much to argue there.
Originally Posted by Jasiek
Well guys, anyone who kills in any different manner then self-defense, or kills innocent people, has no moral right to call himself a freedom fighter. Which means the tool he uses to fight is terror, and thus he is a terrorist. It doesn't matter if his cause is just or not, the fact remains that innocent deaths on his hands make him just a big of a murder as the people he fights.
In that case, every Army, is a terrorist army. The word "Terrorist" is a convenient term used by those usually guilty of similar, if not more grave crimes (e.g. Israel which, by all means, has targeted civilian populations as a policy) to give them the moral upper hand in a war, and to justify the crimes they commit.

Its not to say that those who are usually termed terrorists are not, ill be the first to admit that firing rockets that have no guidance system is terror, in that it terrifies civilian populations. But I'll like to point out theres more than 100fold more rockets fired in the opposite direction into civilian populations, often with complete disregard as to whom may get hit, even though they have technology that would allow them to avoid civilian targets.

I personally would like for Obama to come to power because of the threat we all face from a war between Israel and Iran. Israel has an arrogant policy, Iranian WILL strike back hard, and its proxy groups would too. The result? It would most certainly spread to Iraq, and from there on possibly other countries.

Such a war holds catastrophic consequences for the entirity of the middle east. It is by no means necessary, as Irans aquiring of a nuke is most definatly more of a threat to its arab nieghbors than it is Israel, as Nuking Israel would result in wiping out the palestinean people.

Personally, I would like for a North Korea like scenario, where Iran does aquire a nuke, and the world negotiates a serious deal in which both Israel and Iran let go of their respective nukes.

Regarding the threat, I would say it is common knowledge there are two nuclear powers in the middle east, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. I would presume the latter has nuclear weapons, as it financed Pakistans nuclear program.

The three having nuclear weapons (all declaring such a capability) could actually be the key to all dismanteling their nuclear progams/nukes.

Israeli leaders are creating baseless fear, Iran is exasperating the situation with its comments (which most arabs do realise is just talk to rally regional support, Iran would never act on its threats, it is impossible realisticly speaking). Israel is not threatened by Iran, however, its ability to fight external wars was severly diminished by Iran's growing military power, which proxy groups in the middle east are inheriting. The last war with lebanon demonstrated just that, when Hezbollahs weponry struck Israel hundreds of times a day for the duration of the war, and nothing could stop it, and nothing can stop it apart from peace negotitations.

The key to peace is probably negotiations, regional ones. However, Israel has refused the 1967 borders, even though that in itself is minimal. Worse probably is Israels refusal to dismantale west bank settlements, which in essence denies the palestineans to a two state solution.

Where does Obama come into all of this? He has said he would talk directly with the Iranians. He has the bonus of being well liked already here, and a change from the typical "we'll destroy you" american policy, which only ever destroys the government system, and breeds a million insurgents, terrorists, freedom fighters etc...
Reply With Quote