How do you have a "terrorist" attack inside an occupied territory?

Or in a "war" zone? If Jews had bombed the German embassay in 1942 would that have been considered a "terrorist attack?" I know it was the UN building that was blown up but doesn't the US bear responsiblity for lowering the esteem and relevance of the UN world-wide by their policies and actions regarding the UN in the run up and aftermath of the Iraqi invasion?

Kill civilians uninvolved in military activities. Freedom fighters target military sites.

uninvolved in military activities.

I often questioned myself this. If an area is a warzone, why go there as a civilian. Especially an american civilian in current iraq seems very weird.

Put yourselfes in this role, that some country would invade and occupy your city or state and then fly in a bunch of civilians.. would they be offlimits?'

Im not sure civilians of the country or organisation supported by the occupying country would be offlimits for me if they actually WERE in my state/city

Or was she a military target?

Oh, it's Israel? Nevermind.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nuff said!!!

'nuff said

Tiananmen square, of the young man stopping a tank?

Would he have deserved to be rolled over as well?

nuff said!!!

OK, I edited the message you actually deserved to get.

Instead, I'll just say that I couldn't disagree with you more completely and I think you're a very hateful human being.

Thanks DisgustipatedinCA for your opinions on this. It's good to hear another voice coming from my state (California) on this. I can't believe people are so hateful when it comes to Rachel, like they think she wanted to get run over.

by fuckwad zionist illeagal occupation assholes. :)

My reply to this hatemonger is destined for deletion, so thanks for posting something that has a better chance of staying around.

and your own beliefs need careful reevaluation......

She seems to have been an idealist who just did not believe that anyone would commit such a heinous act.

She just stood there in front of that bulldozer.

Edit: thanks for catching that mistake

we see right through you.

"Their" is a posessive pronoun (plural).

"There" is an adverb, modifying the verb 'stood', in this case.

.

Hell she could have done it in so many other ways instead of tragically ending her life.

Maybe she was "mentally challenged" in the sense that, unlike most people, she was willing to die for her cause.

As a side note, that is not a personal attack, I just mean people in general. There are a lot of idealists I've met that are not willing to go that far, so I am speaking in general, not in specific.

Rachel Corrie put herself in the path of harm -- in front of a bulldozer.

Civilized (read as 'non-murderous') people don't run over other people with bulldozers.

i worked at a steel mill once. Two people were killed in the space of a year by being run over by a forklift. Nobody was trying to kill them, but they are still dead. Around moving machinery, you have to be careful, no matter how beautiful or idealistic that you are

She was standing directly in front of the driver, in plain view, wearing a bright orange vest. I know you want this murder to be an "accident", but you are going to have to face the ugly truth sometime.

reports, the driver claimed he didn't see her. Who the hell are you to call him a liar??

on a dirt mound just in front of the bulldozer (yes, with the vest). Whether she should have gotten out of the way, or the driver should have figured that she hadn't gotten out of the way, as others had done, we will never know for sure. Rachel Corrie was very idealistic and she was doing something that was much riskier than expected. The driver, if he couldn't be sure she was out of the way, should have stopped and at least gotten help to clear the way. This is the way tragedies happen. You don't know that it was murder and I don't know that it wasn't. A fuller investigation is in order.

I'm sure Dr. King would approve. The Civil Rights protestors 'put themselves in the way' of Bull Connor's dogs, too.

In the book Old and New Wars, Mary Kaldor claims that in war:

circa 1900: 1 civilian was killed for every 8 military

in WWII: 1 civilian was killed for every 1 military

circa 2000: 8 civilians were killed for every 1 military

Her book was written before Desert Storm so I don't know what the ratio would be there.

Nevertheless, given this breathtaking turnabout in what war is, it is difficult to see how there can be such a thing as "uninvolved civilians" in a war zone.

Just as the US has done in Iraq. In fact, they've gone further and defined it as opposition to the bush regime anywhere.

I'd like to read it.

Imperialism means never having to write it down.

What you have got is an opinion

Terrorism is defined as deliberately targeting civilians in an effort to change public opinion.

Actually our troops are in a peacekeeping role. Secondly I'd compare these attacks to Nazi leftovers attacking our troops when we occupied Germany after WW2. I wouldn't compare the Iraqi government to Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The Iraqi govt were in violation of serious UN mandates and are rightfully being occupied. How can you be an apologist for terrorists who attack a civilian UN building and then claim you don't support the terrorists? Of course you support the terrorists. Terrorism also includes attacks on troops in a peacekeeping role.

To most of us thinking individuals, we see the troops as forced "occupiers". Note the word forced so you cannot insinuate that I "don't support our troops" (whatever that means).

And BTW, the UN didn't sanction the "war". Convenient that the UN can be used to justify a war & then we can call the UN "irrelevant" in the next breath when they vote against the "pre-emptive" invasion.

I had an inkling of this yesterday; you've cemented it today.

Our troops are in a peacekeeping role? Sorta like the IDF, right?

So we killed approximately 55,000 Iraqis and now we've moved on to peacekeeping.

Just trot on over to Tom DeLay's Majority Leader website. I think you'll feel right at home.

If you disagree with a DUer you must be a Republican. U.S. troops are now in a peacekeeping role after a war I personally feel was justified despite being carried out incorrectly. Peacekeeping roles been the troops are acting as a police force as opposed to an offensive military role. That role ended when the Iraqi government was toppled. You doves really only have emotional arguments about occupation and the evil United States. I'm certainly not a Republican just because I think force against Iraq was necessary. Howard Dean has called our troops peacekeepers but once again you guys only have frantic emotional arguments.

What are you smoking? We attacked Iraq! I don't know any Dems myself who hate American troops. I certainly think the war is wrong but hating our troops--you've gotta be kidding.

AFAIR there were very few such incidents (I know of only one kidnapping) The whole "werewolf" thing was largely propaganda and ceased to exist shortly after the capitulation. Only Rumsfeld believes in it nowadays.
There were some diehard Nazis attacking allied forces, but no active organized terrorist network.

"and you wonder why people think Dems hate our troops?" Democrats (and almost every poster on this board) has no issue with the troops....we do have a real problem with unelected,criminal Republican administrations who use our military to further their own selfish, non-American agenda.

Our troops are in a peacekeeping role? There was no social breakdown in the Iraqi society until we declared war on them. Their real role has nothing to do with peacekeeping. It's about securing pipelines and new military bases. Secondly, we occupied Germany because Germany declared war on Europe and invaded other countries. I don't believe that Iraq declared war or invaded any country to justify our war of oil liberation. What violations of UN mandates were they in violation of? WMD? As far as who committed that act of terror, I guess we, as occupiers and controllers of the city security, must take ultimate responsibility. Given this administration's proven record of lying to the American people, why would you necessarilly believe that they didn't engineer the event?

Why would they do it? Maybe because they are desperate to get out of their self-inflicted qwagmire and they are now using this event as a reason to demand the UN and all countries "engage" in Iraq. Besides, this administration can't protect the oil spigot and continue the PNAC plan if we are pinned down in Baghdad fighting a growing guerilla movement of Iraqi freedom fighters and Islamic radicals.

I don't support George Bush, so please don't accuse me of supporting terrorists.

because there really isn't an official one.

the 'official' US one used to mean 'any sub-national group committing acts of violence for political reasons' which is pretty crap (but would clearly cover this), but bush may have changed it to mean 'acting against the immediate interest of president bush' for all i know. and it wouldn't surprise me.

Mostly because definitions of crimes tend by their nature to be about specific acts as opposed to perpetrators, with the exception of terms like patricide, etc.

None of the definitions of specific actions were acceptable to Israel or the US, since it is the policy of both nations to commit actions that they themselves call terrorism when committed by their opponents.

that it was because the Arabs wanted the Palestinian murderers to be given an exemption from being defined as terrorists.

Arab leaders were indeed among those who argued that an occupied people resisting an agressor should not be considered terrorists.

Israel and the US were among those who wanted an exemption for any action committed by a formal official UN member state, including any action taken by a state against an occupied people.

Just today I heard bu$h* helpfully explain it.

If someone else does it, it is terrorism!

When it comes to wars of resistance against a foreign occupier, there is no such thing as a political middle. For the Socialist perspective:

The Iraq quagmire
By the Editorial Board
21 August 2003

The Bush White House and the media issued ritualistic condemnations of “terrorism” in the wake of the attack. “The terrorists who struck today have again shown their contempt for the innocent,” declared Bush. “They showed their fear of progress and their hatred of peace.” He declared them “enemies of the Iraqi people” and “enemies of the civilized world.”

These denunciations are the height of hypocrisy. Iraq is a country occupied by a foreign power. The attack on the UN building was carried out in the context of a campaign of resistance to this occupation that enjoys the support of broad layers of the Iraqi population.

For Bush to accuse those who planned and executed the UN bombing of “contempt for the innocent” is brazen, to the say the least. He waged a war against Iraq in flagrant violation of international law. It is conservatively estimated that at least 5,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the US invasion, many of them killed as a result of US bombings of targets located in or near residential areas. At least 20,000 more suffered serious injury and are still suffering from the effects. Washington dismissed the carnage carried out against these innocent victims as “collateral damage.”

The claim that an attack on the United Nations is a particularly heinous crime because the international agency’s only aim is to “help the Iraqis” is false. No doubt, among those killed in the bombing were people who believed they were serving the interests of ordinary Iraqis. But more than a decade of bitter experience has proven that the UN is by no means an innocent bystander in the tragedy that has been inflicted upon the people of that tortured country.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/iraq-a21.shtml

Has anyone else wondered if that bombing was the work of the US intelligence service or is it just me? The UN seems a rather unlikely target for Iraqi freedom fighters or even AlQaeda terrorists, but seems perfect for a Bush attempt to win some support against these groups.

Suicide bombings is the trademark of Islamic fundamentalist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. The Baathists are secular, and they have no desire to commit suicide to spend eternity in some Varhalla.

This attack is the handiwork of Islamic fundamentalists!

So they're "freedom fighters," are they? What freedom are they seeking? And don't just answer, "An end to the illegal occupation," because that's not a "freedom," it's a means to an end. Do you seriously think that the people behind the UN bombing want "freedom" for the Iraqi people?

the want the US out, they want the UN out. they want to left alone to determine their own fate.

they are resisting tyrannical invaders who have come from the other side of the globe to subvert their culture, and steal their natural resources. just like you or i would.

If that's the case, why aren't they targeting MILITARY targets? When you set out to deliberately blow up civilians when there's no conceivable military value to such an attack, you're committing a terrorist attack.

The attack on the UN HQ was very similar to the murder of the Nuns in Central America in the '80s. The UN was there to try and help the Iraqi people.

I'm going to vomit.

The UN did not invade Iraq yet they were attacked and murdered. I hope the 'freedom fighters' repsonsible are found and punished accordingly.

after 12 years of UN trade sactions that kept the iraqis from rebuilding after the 1990 war. i'm sure there are many iraqi that view the UN as a repressive force in thier country, same way they see the US.

That they had a fricken dictator.

Let's pretend their problems were all the UN's doing.... I mean we'll do anything to justify terrorist murderers now won't we.

i oppose mass murder no matter who commits it.

and be cause saddam was a mass murderer is not justification for the US becoming a mass murderer.

revenge is not justice.

but feel free march onward christian soldier. i'm sure you will find a way to justify mass murder.

i oppose mass murder no matter who commits it.

So then you don't consider the Bombs that kills the UN people mass murder? Because you showed up when I had a problem with those killers being labeled freedom fighters.

and be cause saddam was a mass murderer is not justification for the US becoming a mass murderer

I haven't mentioned the US Cpt. Strawman. Nor have I attempted to justify this latest Iraqi war or the occupation. Nice try.

revenge is not justice.

No shit. Had you ever read my posts on the criminal justice system in the US you would know my stance on revenge being misused as justice.

but feel free march onward christian soldier. i'm sure you will find a way to justify mass murder.

Just had to get the Christian jab in there and follow it with a complete and complete LIE. I haven't justified shit, in fact the only thing I have done is shown dislike to those that are seeking to justify these killers by calling them freedom fighters.

Try reading next time instead of spewing a knee jerk reaction to my cross.

They are the freedom fighters.

We are the occupiers.

Chalabi & Co are our Vichy French.

We will lose this war!

Blow up the UN for Freedom! Please..... You may try to say the US is is involved in a occuptation but the UN was against this from the start.

Spare me your wishful thinking about our losses in this war. Such thoughts make me more ill then the freedom fighter comments. My friends are over there, and don't bring me that crap that you don't hope we lose, you just think we will. Your tone betrays you.

The more the US is mired in the Iraq quagmire, the more likely that Bush won't be able to attack another hapless country.

The quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan are saving lives elsewhere in a perverse sort of way!

If you really cared about the troops, you should be demanding their immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq.

Let the American Empire die here, and now! Long live the Republic!

But hey, as long as the terrorists aren't white people they aren't terrorists right?

He was the foreigner trampling on the people of another country that were fighting to rid themselves of foreign influence, as they did before against the French, then the Japanese, and followed by the French again.

It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Or do you subscribe to the view that the Almighty has chosen America, as it did the ancient Israelites, to carry some Divine mission (at the expense of everyone else, of course)?

Indiana We all get it..you hate America. I honestly cannot debate you, the things you say are just too ridiculous to be given any second thought. Can I ask how old you are? Are you over 30?

they even used the term ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.

peace

Had with Japan?

peace