|
methikist
Mushroom Pirate.
Registered: 03/16/04
Posts: 138
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Iraq "war" ? edit/ to the point
#3391953 - 11/21/04 02:15 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Why does everybody keep referring to it as a war. By defining the invasion of Iraq as a war, you may as well legitimize the presence of the US in Iraq, as the term war is properly defined as a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Nations, states and parties have some level of organization and structure. If there was an organized army to fight, then you could call it a war. The fact is that I was addressing the importance of semantics within the framework of everyday conversation. The more the term 'Iraq War' gets repeated, the more those who aren't so informed about the situation believe it has a legitimate and organized opposing force. When in fact the factions of people the US are fighting are mostly disorganized armed civilians just defending themselves from an invading force. The definition for the invasion adapted by the US corporate media follows along the lines of the alternate definition of War. 'A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: such as the war against acid rain.' In this context, the US corporate media essentially reduce civilian lives and human importance to the term terrorism, in the often echoed phrase, "War on Terrorism". This is misleading, and indeed an incorrect definition of the actual invasion, as it leads the average media consumer to the assumption that the US army is fighting some entity, namely Terrorism, that resides in Iraq. The problem explicit in that is that Terrorism is not exclusive to what the media regards as "Iraqi insurgents". The truth is that Terrorism is a word that describes 'the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.' In this instance, the use of the term "War on Terrorism" itself implies again that the resistance in Iraq is an organized force with more goals apart from the removal of America from their homeland. Such is not the case, since Iraqi civilians are taking up arms simply because it is in their immediate best interest; they will likely be murdered if they do not take up arms anyways.. since telling a civilian from an "Insurgent", or "Terrorist" is as arbitrary and subjective as anything can get. Apart from that, it's more interesting to apply the internationally accepted definition of Terrorism to the situation and deduce by logical means the ones who fit the description given by the actual definition (from US army handbooks by the way). Hypocrisy, it seems, is very abundant in America. peace to all.
Edited by methikist (11/24/04 02:55 AM)
|
zahudulallah
Sexual Heretic
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: methikist]
#3391963 - 11/21/04 02:19 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It was an invasion. It's now simply a military occupation that must be resisted. When people call it a war, they are likely referring to the battle between the resistance forces and occupation forces. (Of course to less intelligent individuals it's a battle between "terrorists" and "liberators" )
--------------------
|
dr_gonz
Registered: 08/18/03
Posts: 44,654
|
|
.
|
question_for_joo
i'm left. youall can bite me
Registered: 04/30/03
Posts: 1,591
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: dr_gonz]
#3392344 - 11/21/04 06:27 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
well I'll say one thing for Arabs.... they don't take shit
-------------------- youi was a pig informatnt so you can go fuckyoruselfs
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: methikist]
#3393083 - 11/21/04 01:07 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Eh, to much BS in that post to even try and argue with you. Reading shit like that makes me sad about the ignorance and anger it causes in so many people in the world.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: methikist]
#3393406 - 11/21/04 03:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
swarms of brainwashed patriotic Americans with full automatic rifles against civilians who, if they do not defend themselves, will likely be killed anyways.
huh?
and it is a war.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 24 days
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: ]
#3393414 - 11/21/04 03:46 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Its definitely a crime.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: GazzBut]
#3393436 - 11/21/04 03:50 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
against who?
|
Great_Satan
prophet of God
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: ]
#3394200 - 11/21/04 07:00 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
America isn't over there at war with anyone. That's right. The media is just making it all up so they can make money. There isn't even a country called Iraq.
|
ricyjo
Registered: 07/22/02
Posts: 1,516
Loc: -53.121600, 73.763943
Last seen: 6 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: d33p]
#3394531 - 11/21/04 08:24 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said: Eh, to much BS in that post to even try and argue with you. Reading shit like that makes me sad about the ignorance and anger it causes in so many people in the world.
Thats exactly what I thought (for the most part) when I read that.
If posts are too lackin in any form of intelligence whatsoever I just skip it because, to most poeple, the posts speak for themselves regardless of the message contained therein.
|
compman
Stranger
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 150
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: ricyjo]
#3395764 - 11/22/04 09:02 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
A war is when two armies are fighting. So you see, right there, I think we can all agree it wasn't exactly a war." -- Bill Hicks
|
methikist
Mushroom Pirate.
Registered: 03/16/04
Posts: 138
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: compman]
#3396382 - 11/22/04 11:40 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
For those of you who disregard my post as nonsense you seem to miss the implicit point.
By defining the invasion of Iraq as a war, you may as well legitimize the presence of the US in Iraq, as the term war is properly defined as a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Nations, states and parties have some level of organization and structure. If there was an organized army to fight, then you could call it a war. The fact is that I was addressing the importance of semantics within the framework of everyday conversation. The more the term 'Iraq War' gets repeated, the more those who aren't so informed about the situation believe it has a legitimate and organized opposing force. When in fact the factions of people the US are fighting are mostly disorganized armed civilians just defending themselves from an invading force. The definition for the invasion adapted by the US corporate media follows along the lines of the alternate definition of War. 'A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: such as the war against acid rain.' In this context, the US corporate media essentially reduce civilian lives and human importance to the term terrorism, in the often echoed phrase, "War on Terrorism". This is misleading, and indeed an incorrect definition of the actual invasion, as it leads the average media consumer to the assumption that the US army is fighting some entity, namely Terrorism, that resides in Iraq. The problem explicit in that is that Terrorism is not exclusive to what the media regards as "Iraqi insurgents". The truth is that Terrorism is a word that describes 'the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.' In this instance, the use of the term "War on Terrorism" itself implies again that the resistance in Iraq is an organized force with more goals apart from the removal of America from their homeland. Such is not the case, since Iraqi civilians are taking up arms simply because it is in their immediate best interest; they will likely be murdered if they do not take up arms anyways.. since telling a civilian from an "Insurgent", or "Terrorist" is as arbitrary and subjective as anything can get. Apart from that, it's more interesting to apply the internationally accepted definition of Terrorism to the situation and deduce by logical means the ones who fit the description given by the actual definition (from US army handbooks by the way). Hypocrisy, it seems, is very abundant in America.
Thanks.
-------------------- Oh cmon, I'm a fun guy.
|
ricyjo
Registered: 07/22/02
Posts: 1,516
Loc: -53.121600, 73.763943
Last seen: 6 days, 13 hours
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: methikist]
#3396439 - 11/22/04 11:57 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
hrmm...
perfect punctuation, perfect spelling, lengthy, sensible, logical...
SPOCK WROTE IT!
you cut and pasting foo!
|
methikist
Mushroom Pirate.
Registered: 03/16/04
Posts: 138
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: ricyjo]
#3396447 - 11/22/04 11:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
hehe, you wish ya dang trecky.
-------------------- Oh cmon, I'm a fun guy.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Iraq "war" ? [Re: ]
#3396449 - 11/23/04 12:00 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
and it is a war.
How do you figure?
As Hicks said (quoting from Chomsky) a war is when TWO armies are fighting.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|