DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**scewDeasp** · 01-24-2007, 07:29 PM

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over). Now, if that is the case, then these men who committed these attacks were actually acting as legitimate soldiers, no different from any US soldier (except that the US is the aggressor and these guys are the defenders trying to oust them). Think about it. These men were obviously wearing US military clothing. But if the US is waging the war on terror, and a terrorist, by definition, would wear whatever he wants, then these guys were as much "in uniform" as any US soldier.

Let's break it down:

War: War on Terror
Factions: US vs. Terrorists

Uniforms
US: US military uniform
Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing)

Wow, could you be any more enthusiastic about your position defending terrorists?

And exactly how is the US the aggressor? Are we aiming our weapons and firing them into crowded markets and police stations randomly killing anyone we can? Oh no...that's right, it's the poor, down trodden terrorists who only want the simple life for themselves and their countrymen and if we would just leave them alone we would all be singing Kumbaya.

01-24-2007, 07:29 PM	#10
scewDeasp Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over). Now, if that is the case, then these men who committed these attacks were actually acting as legitimate soldiers, no different from any US soldier (except that the US is the aggressor and these guys are the defenders trying to oust them). Think about it. These men were obviously wearing US military clothing. But if the US is waging the war on terror, and a terrorist, by definition, would wear whatever he wants, then these guys were as much "in uniform" as any US soldier. Let's break it down: War: War on Terror Factions: US vs. Terrorists Uniforms US: US military uniform Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing) Wow, could you be any more enthusiastic about your position defending terrorists? And exactly how is the US the aggressor? Are we aiming our weapons and firing them into crowded markets and police stations randomly killing anyone we can? Oh no...that's right, it's the poor, down trodden terrorists who only want the simple life for themselves and their countrymen and if we would just leave them alone we would all be singing Kumbaya.
	Quote