Terrorists/Patriots

[zombiemarine]

In the late 1700's America was colonized by the British. They controlled us, taxed us, and the soldiers treated us badly. A few men rose up and started a rebellion. We began attacking British soldiers and demanded our independence. Those men were called patriots and heroes in today's society.

In Iraq we are controlling the citizens and treating them badly. We are imposing our government on them and trying to make things our way. A few men are rising up and committing terrorist acts by attacking our soldiers and demanding their independence. These men are called terrorists in today's society.

Anyone see anything wrong with that picture?

[John]

It's simply because that was how history played out. In retrospect, hypothetically, if the British were to be the victor in the American Revolution, the "heroes" of America would not be called heroes but traitors. Many of us view George Washington as a hero and one of the founding fathers of the United States. If we lost the American Revolution, George Washington would probably be called a traitor along with the others who opposed the British and desired to gain independence for America. History plays itself out rather smoothly and roughly. If one aspect is presumably correct, then it would continue on further generations until somebody or a specific group evokes defiance against a particular topic. In reality, America gained its independence from Britain and at this moment, they are a superpower. The U.S. grew from a colony of Britain to a nation where the U.S. currently has immense power.

Concerning the conflict in Iraq, many view them as terrorist just like how many of the British viewed Americans as traitors. History will play itself out and it could possibly repeat itself.

[Zack]

The American Patriots didn't plant bombs in British markets, mixing other Americans in there. They didn't attack soldiers and civilians at the same time, and they fought for their own country. Which, the Americans asked for several times for their own country but did not receive it. War was the last option.

Heres the difference:

We are TRYING to give Iraq its country back, trying to establish a government. But before anything happens, the voters and other members of the Iraqi government are blown up. The terrorists aren't interested in establish a country, they're interested in our demise.

A patriot doesn't kill his own countrymen, a terrorist can kill anyone deemed necessary.

[Ryan]

Yeah, the Patriots were level-headed people fighting against high taxation and being govern by a king that lives across a 2,000-mile ocean or however wide it is. They where fighting for independence, to establish a country with freedom and liberties.

However, the terrorists can declare anyone an enemy of Allah and have them killed. They blow up bombs in markets, killing women and children and anyone else standing there, believing they'll be given a golden ticket into heaven. They'll capture innocent journalists and behead them, because they're American or they're Jewish.

Big difference.

[David]

zombiemarine Wrote:In Iraq we are controlling the citizens and treating them badly.

I love how people say America is controlling Iraq. I think the problem is that they AREN'T controlling Iraq. Iraq's government is a joke, but not because of the US. No one over there can really get the reigns of power. The stupidity and the corruption with the Iraqi government is their biggest downfall next to the terrorism and insurgents of course. Like Zack said, members of the Iraqi government are blown up before anything CAN be done.

But don't say the US is controlling the Iraqi state and people. I think that's what should've happened when they went into Iraq in the first place. Total control, like the British once did. They’d go into a country/or region, set up government that was secondary and answered to England and the royals, and bang, a new British territory is born!

But, unfortunately, you can't do that anymore. So once you liberate a country, you must help them become self-sufficient, regardless of how stupid, corrupt, and unable as they may be.

Small question: Why is that? Why can’t you just takeover an area anymore?

[manix163]

Zack Wrote:The American Patriots didn't plant bombs in British markets, mixing other Americans in there. They didn't attack soldiers and civilians at the same time, and they fought for their own country. Which, the Americans asked for several times for their own country but did not receive it. War was the last option.

Heres the difference:

We are TRYING to give Iraq its country back, trying to establish a government. But before anything happens, the voters and other members of the Iraqi government are blown up. The terrorists aren't interested in establish a country, they're interested in our demise.

A patriot doesn't kill his own countrymen, a terrorist can kill anyone deemed necessary.

Too bad we can't really compare America's independence to the situation in Iraq. Sure, we might have control over their government, but not their people. They don't need independence, they're in a civil war. Iraqis fighting Iraqis. We're just supposedly there to help. Same thing in Vietnam.... The VC attacked innocent people and such, but it was a civil war, they did not like the Americans and even hurt their own countrymen to get rid of them.... Let me remind you that during America's civil war, we were not so nice to innocent people either. Yea, they didn't have suicide bombs back then, but still, the general idea was the same.

[Zack]

David Wrote:Small question: Why is that? Why can’t you just takeover an area anymore?

Civil Rights Activists.

Here's basically what I have to say, the world needs to stop telling a country like Iraq what they want. If Iraq wants to kill each other and blow each other up, well then, the U.S. shouldn't be blamed for their casualties.

Second, they are not patriots. A patriot fights for his country, Iraqi's don't unite as a country. Instead, they unite and band together as Shia Muslims, or Kurds, or whatever else that is in there. They don't much care for their own government, but rather what they think is it. Not really fighting for a united cause, wouldn't you think?

[David]

Zack Wrote:

David Wrote:Small question: Why is that? Why can’t you just takeover an area anymore?

Civil Rights Activists.

Here's basically what I have to say, the world needs to stop telling a country like Iraq what they want. If Iraq wants to kill each other and blow each other up, well then, the U.S. shouldn't be blamed for their casualties.

You're right. But the US would be blamed and will be blamed for all of Iraq's problems. It's bull.

[ireland88]

Individuals who resist an occupying force by attacking military targets and civilian INFRASTRUCTURE with minimal civilian casualties is indeed a patriot for their country. There are militias in Iraq that don't attack civilians, but do attack the "coalition of the willing", and personally I think they're totally justified. This does NOT mean, however, that I want our soldiers to die, but I would like to see all those who voted for the war strung up by their thumbs, for sure. It's not the soldiers' fault they are over there, it's the politicians and this horrid, tyrannical administration thats to blame.

[David]

Yeah...H. Clinton voted FOR war... just thought I'd mention that.