why are people in iraq who fight against americans called "terrorist"

Because they usually don't go for US troops. They usually go for innocent Iraqis with remote detonated bombs. Sounds like terrorism to me.quiglythegreat

Agreed. Non-terrorists, don't attack innocents on purpose.

ok so lets say tomorrow Russia attacks the U.S and invades it, there is no army because the us in INVADED.

The Russian soldiers are raping american woman, killing innocent people and basically ruining our country just like americans are in U.S( and dotn tell me they dont rape or kill innocents people because its on the news all the time)

Wouldnt you fight, not for your president or the country, fight to protect your people, to get the invaders out your country, to get the life you had once back. The Russians came and bomboed your city, killed your friends, destroyed your life, you would fight them wouldnt you? All the rage that would be built inside you, what if they killed all your family, wouldnt you fight them, fight for the people of your country?

Now tell me why are these people you kill american soldiers who have invaded their country, ruined their lives, raped their women, killed innocent people and kill their family called terrorist? These people aren't terrorist they are freedom fighters who are fighting the people who have ruined a country they worked so hard to build.

I know if some country invaded the U.S. i would pick up my 22 and M1911 .45 and go to war, i would fight till im dead because either way you lose everything.

All i want to know is that WHY people call these fighters terrorist?

snoopeymaster

It's war propaganda. You have a very valid point but the government doesn't want us to know and think of it this way, so we stay on their side. Typical...

. You have a very valid point but the government doesn't want us to know and think of it this way, so we stay on their side. Typical...xenos4

No. He didn't state any facts. He has no valid point. The war is in the media...the government can't hidewhat's happening.:roll:

[QUOTE="xenos4"]. You have a very valid point but the government doesn't want us to know and think of it this way, so we stay on their side. Typical...LJS9502_basic

No. He didn't state any facts. He has no valid point. The war is in the media...the government can't hidewhat's happening.:roll:

It has been becoming more and more clear that we are fighting resistance fighters, and not Al Qaeda in Iraq. The evidence is only increasing on this behalf. Saying we are fighting terrorists in Iraq is highly inaccurate to the definition of terrorism.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="xenos4"]. You have a very valid point but the government doesn't want us to know and think of it this way, so we stay on their side. Typical...rimnet00

No. He didn't state any facts. He has no valid point. The war is in the media...the government can't hidewhat's happening.:roll:

It has been becoming more and more clear that we are fighting resistance fighters, and not Al Qaeda in Iraq. The evidence is only increasing on this behalf. Saying we are fighting terrorists in Iraq is highly inaccurate to the definition of terrorism.

What exactly are these "Resistence" fighters fighting against when they bomb their own people in crowded markets?

[QUOTE="jlh47"]

you do realize that sadaam killed his own people... 500,000 of them... and most of the people we are killing aren't iraqi's... they're terrorists that come from everywhere. so yeah get your facts strait. and stop saying women and children raped.. shut up

rimnet00

link?....

[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

you do realize that sadaam killed his own people... 500,000 of them... and most of the people we are killing aren't iraqi's... they're terrorists that come from everywhere. so yeah get your facts strait. and stop saying women and children raped.. shut up

jlh47

link?....

Type "Iraq Sanctions" in google, or just use wikipedia. It's well documented.

None of this would have happened if we would have just stayed out of there.

Now millions are dead and Iraq as a country will never recover. Ever

[QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="jlh47"]

you do realize that sadaam killed his own people... 500,000 of them... and most of the people we are killing aren't iraqi's... they're terrorists that come from everywhere. so yeah get your facts strait. and stop saying women and children raped.. shut up

rimnet00

link?....

Type "Iraq Sanctions" in google, or just use wikipedia. It's well documented.

You mean "UN" sanctions. Which were the result of Iraq invading Kuwait and pillaging the country.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="xenos4"]. You have a very valid point but the government doesn't want us to know and think of it this way, so we stay on their side. Typical...Donkey_Puncher

No. He didn't state any facts. He has no valid point. The war is in the media...the government can't hidewhat's happening.:roll:

It has been becoming more and more clear that we are fighting resistance fighters, and not Al Qaeda in Iraq. The evidence is only increasing on this behalf. Saying we are fighting terrorists in Iraq is highly inaccurate to the definition of terrorism.

What exactly are these "Resistence" fighters fighting against when they bomb their own people in crowded markets?

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

rimnet00

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

You mean "UN" sanctions. Which were the result of Iraq invading Kuwait and pillaging the country.

Donkey_Puncher

The UN imposed the sanctions on the behest of the US, hence US-led. Considering out hand was in the porridge before the 1980s, there is no other way to say it. These sanctions lasted for well over a decade, into the war with Iraq in 2003. Over a decade. Summarizing the sanctions as simply being due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait does not give the situation justice.

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

You mean "UN" sanctions. Which were the result of Iraq invading Kuwait and pillaging the country.

rimnet00

The UN imposed the sanctions on the behest of the US, hence US-led. Considering out hand was in the porridge before the 1980s, there is no other way to say it. These sanctions lasted for well over a decade, into the war with Iraq in 2003. Over a decade. Summarizing the sanctions as simply being due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait does not give the situation justice.

And simply saying that the US "Killed" 500,000 thousand Iraqi children doesn't do it any justice either.

These sanctions would not have existed if the first gulf war hadn't taken place.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

Donkey_Puncher

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

Saddam had his people under control. bottom line there wouldn't be as many dead now if the US never .invaded their country illegally. Let's go liberate every country run by a dictator shall we

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

YeahYes

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

Saddam had his people under control. bottom line there wouldn't be as many dead now if the US never .invaded their country illegally. Let's go liberate every country run by a dictator shall we

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

Donkey_Puncher

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

Re-read the last line. I'm not comparing the two to be equal, but similiar when given the situations of a lawless environment and the socio-political nature of the region. If you still can't connect the dots, then I'll drop the statement so as not to open up another can of worms.

Once again, re-read the post, seeing as you didn't notice I differentiated the difference between those blowing each other up, adn the resistance we are directly fighting. Also, where did you see the statistics for IEDs versus civilian explosives? You are clearly attempting to make an assertion here with no backing, especially when you consider that our troops catch most of the IEDs, yet still are effected by them - once again, it being the biggest killer against our troops.

Your bottom line is naive to both the understanding of the region, and the war itself.

Call me what you wish at this point, but you are clearly just regurgitating empty statements at this point. Your statements are far from reality.

The reality of the situation is, this war is dirty. There are no winners. Everyone is to blame, including ourselves. If we can not admit we made a mistake, we will keep on making mistakes out of sheer arrogence. Unfortunately, our own President is not man enough to say, "I messed up".

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

YeahYes

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

Saddam had his people under control. bottom line there wouldn't be as many dead now if the US never .invaded their country illegally. Let's go liberate every country run by a dictator shall we

and do you know how they got them under control?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

read the "mass murder and genocide" section as well as about the various conflicts iraq was in and then tell me that iraq and the region would have been better off.

[QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

ItalStallion777

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

Saddam had his people under control. bottom line there wouldn't be as many dead now if the US never .invaded their country illegally. Let's go liberate every country run by a dictator shall we

and do you know how they got them under control?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

read the "mass murder and genocide" section as well as about the various conflicts iraq was in and then tell me that iraq and the region would have been better off.

According to that he hadn't done any genocide since 88 so yes it would be better off.

He was humiliated and deafeted soundly after the Gulf War, he was a threat to no one in the middle east and oh he was an enemy to many radical islamists so why did we take him down again?

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"][QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

YeahYes

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

Saddam had his people under control. bottom line there wouldn't be as many dead now if the US never .invaded their country illegally. Let's go liberate every country run by a dictator shall we

and do you know how they got them under control?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

read the "mass murder and genocide" section as well as about the various conflicts iraq was in and then tell me that iraq and the region would have been better off.

According to that he hadn't done any genocide since 88 so yes it would be better off.

He was humiliated and deafeted soundly after the Gulf War, he was a threat to no one in the middle east and oh he was an enemy to many radical islamists so why did we take him down again?

if hitler dismantled the concentration camps before we entered the war would that have made hitler any better of a leader and fit to stay in power? saddam was a dangerous and ruthless dictator and iraq is much better off with him.

[QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="ItalStallion777"][QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

Yes, because that is all that is happening there? More US troops die by IEDs. IEDs have one specific purpose, to blow up tanks. How many civilians drive around in tanks, not many.

I'm not doubting the fact that there is sunni/shia conflict going on in Iraq right now. It's expected given the circumstances. However, we are not directly fighting these particular people, but it is the lawlessness in Iraq derived from the conflict between us and the resistance forces that is creating this civil war conflict. As the US troops fight the "insurgents", the back and forth civilian attacks is giong on in the background. The situation parrellels many of the lawless similiarities in Katrina.

ItalStallion777

Uh, the citizens of Katrina weren't killing each other by the hundreds of thousands with bombs. How the hell can you even compare the two?

For every IED out there there's an equal number of bombings in civilian sectors. How exactly can you call anything like that a resistence? It's flat out terrorism.

Bottom line, the death toll of this war that many people spit out is the result of the Iraqi people KILLING each other.

Saddam had his people under control. bottom line there wouldn't be as many dead now if the US never .invaded their country illegally. Let's go liberate every country run by a dictator shall we

and do you know how they got them under control?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

read the "mass murder and genocide" section as well as about the various conflicts iraq was in and then tell me that iraq and the region would have been better off.

According to that he hadn't done any genocide since 88 so yes it would be better off.

He was humiliated and deafeted soundly after the Gulf War, he was a threat to no one in the middle east and oh he was an enemy to many radical islamists so why did we take him down again?

if hitler dismantled the concentration camps before we entered the war would that have made hitler any better of a leader and fit to stay in power? saddam was a dangerous and ruthless dictator and iraq is much better off with him.

Hitler Declared War on The US and a Hitler/Saddam Comparison is laughable anyway

if hitler dismantled the concentration camps before we entered the war would that have made hitler any better of a leader and fit to stay in power? saddam was a dangerous and ruthless dictator and iraq is much better off with him.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]Because they usually don't go for US troops. They usually go for innocent Iraqis with remote detonated bombs. Sounds like terrorism to me.Xx_CYC756_xX

Agreed. Non-terrorists, don't attack innocents on purpose.

killtactics

if hitler dismantled the concentration camps before we entered the war would that have made hitler any better of a leader and fit to stay in power? saddam was a dangerous and ruthless dictator and iraq is much better off with him.

in my opinion it is because we were never directly attacked on our soil by iraq. that is still why many people disagree with this war. "if we weren't attacked then why did we go to war?" i know germany never attacked us on our soil either but it was when we were attacked on pearl harbor that we entered the war. would we have gotten involved if we weren't? probably, but since that's not how it played out we will never know.

this war should have never happened as this should have all been done during the first gulf war, and it was much closer to the time when saddam was committing these acts of atrocity. we were there, their army/navy/airforce had been decimated, and we could have took him out of power but unfortunately we didn't.

[QUOTE="killtactics"]

ItalStallion777

if hitler dismantled the concentration camps before we entered the war would that have made hitler any better of a leader and fit to stay in power? saddam was a dangerous and ruthless dictator and iraq is much better off with him.

in my opinion it is because we were never directly attacked on our soil by iraq. that is still why many people disagree with this war. "if we weren't attacked then why did we go to war?" i know germany never attacked us on our soil either but it was when we were attacked on pearl harbor that we entered the war. would we have gotten involved if we weren't? probably, but since that's not how it played out we will never know.

this war should have never happened as this should have all been done during the first gulf war, and it was much closer to the time when saddam was committing these acts of atrocity. we were there, their army/navy/airforce had been decimated, and we could have took him out of power but unfortunately we didn't.

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"][QUOTE="killtactics"]

killtactics

if hitler dismantled the concentration camps before we entered the war would that have made hitler any better of a leader and fit to stay in power? saddam was a dangerous and ruthless dictator and iraq is much better off with him.

if ppl care so much about what Saddam did then why did't this invasion happen 20 years ago? when Hitler started the concentraion camps did ppl wait 20years to stop then?

in my opinion it is because we were never directly attacked on our soil by iraq. that is still why many people disagree with this war. "if we weren't attacked then why did we go to war?" i know germany never attacked us on our soil either but it was when we were attacked on pearl harbor that we entered the war. would we have gotten involved if we weren't? probably, but since that's not how it played out we will never know.

this war should have never happened as this should have all been done during the first gulf war, and it was much closer to the time when saddam was committing these acts of atrocity. we were there, their army/navy/airforce had been decimated, and we could have took him out of power but unfortunately we didn't.

so what your saying is... no one cared.... until that is, it was convenient to...

convenient? i'm not quite sure where you're going with that.

i'm just saying it is a lot easier to go to war when you are retaliating and not the aggressor.

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"][QUOTE="LOLuMADzz"]

Hey, America wants oil, Iraq has oil, America invades Iraq. Then they call Iraqi patriots who defend their country with their soul and blood"terrorists".

Who is the invader, and who is the defender? answer me americans? who had Iraq first and who came and raped BUT GOT RAPED~!

jlh47

so much intelligence in this thread.:|

my iq is literally dropping.

I hear ya. My head is actually starting to hurt...

how could anyone be so narrow minded and say that? just because a couple soldiers did that stuff does not mean the military as a whole does that. there are bound to be a few nuts in every group. they are over there putting their lives on the line and you're dishonoring them by calling them rapists and saying they murder innocent civilians? you disgust me.shoeman12

Its similar to the idea that the rest of the world has about americans being stupid, sure they are some stupid people in the world, just like in every other country. People just hate the one's with power...

ok so lets say tomorrow Russia attacks the U.S and invades it, there is no army because the us in INVADED.

The Russian soldiers are raping american woman, killing innocent people and basically ruining our country just like americans are in U.S( and dotn tell me they dont rape or kill innocents people because its on the news all the time)

Wouldnt you fight, not for your president or the country, fight to protect your people, to get the invaders out your country, to get the life you had once back. The Russians came and bomboed your city, killed your friends, destroyed your life, you would fight them wouldnt you? All the rage that would be built inside you, what if they killed all your family, wouldnt you fight them, fight for the people of your country?

Now tell me why are these people you kill american soldiers who have invaded their country, ruined their lives, raped their women, killed innocent people and kill their family called terrorist? These people aren't terrorist they are freedom fighters who are fighting the people who have ruined a country they worked so hard to build.

I know if some country invaded the U.S. i would pick up my 22 and M1911 .45 and go to war, i would fight till im dead because either way you lose everything.

All i want to know is that WHY people call these fighters terrorist?

snoopeymaster

[QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

ok so lets say tomorrow Russia attacks the U.S and invades it, there is no army because the us in INVADED.

The Russian soldiers are raping american woman, killing innocent people and basically ruining our country just like americans are in U.S( and dotn tell me they dont rape or kill innocents people because its on the news all the time)

Wouldnt you fight, not for your president or the country, fight to protect your people, to get the invaders out your country, to get the life you had once back. The Russians came and bomboed your city, killed your friends, destroyed your life, you would fight them wouldnt you? All the rage that would be built inside you, what if they killed all your family, wouldnt you fight them, fight for the people of your country?

Now tell me why are these people you kill american soldiers who have invaded their country, ruined their lives, raped their women, killed innocent people and kill their family called terrorist? These people aren't terrorist they are freedom fighters who are fighting the people who have ruined a country they worked so hard to build.

I know if some country invaded the U.S. i would pick up my 22 and M1911 .45 and go to war, i would fight till im dead because either way you lose everything.

All i want to know is that WHY people call these fighters terrorist?

notconspiracy

oh noez,he phales?:lol:

[QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="ItalStallion777"][QUOTE="LOLuMADzz"]

Hey, America wants oil, Iraq has oil, America invades Iraq. Then they call Iraqi patriots who defend their country with their soul and blood"terrorists".

Who is the invader, and who is the defender? answer me americans? who had Iraq first and who came and raped BUT GOT RAPED~!

Peanut51594

so much intelligence in this thread.:|

my iq is literally dropping.

I hear ya. My head is actually starting to hurt...

i'm about to laugh at larry the cable guy jokes... and then go cry.

Since when was the US Army raping women and killing innocents? I'd LOVE, just LOVE to see you walk up to an Iraq veteran and say that he raped women and killed innocent people. I'd LOVE that.Cube_of_MooN

Exactly. We all know several people in the armed service did things like that, and they're being prosecuted for the crimes they committed. But including ALL of us in with that small number of dirtbags is so disrespectful it makes me laugh. CubeMoon's right too, try saying that to a veteran and see the reaction you get. :lol:

Because they usually don't go for US troops. They usually go for innocent Iraqis with remote detonated bombs. Sounds like terrorism to me.quiglythegreat

Exactly

Since when was the US Army raping women and killing innocents? I'd LOVE, just LOVE to see you walk up to an Iraq veteran and say that he raped women and killed innocent people. I'd LOVE that.Cube_of_MooN

ok so lets say tomorrow Russia attacks the U.S and invades it, there is no army because the us in INVADED.

The Russian soldiers are raping american woman, killing innocent people and basically ruining our country just like americans are in U.S( and dotn tell me they dont rape or kill innocents people because its on the news all the time)

Wouldnt you fight, not for your president or the country, fight to protect your people, to get the invaders out your country, to get the life you had once back. The Russians came and bomboed your city, killed your friends, destroyed your life, you would fight them wouldnt you? All the rage that would be built inside you, what if they killed all your family, wouldnt you fight them, fight for the people of your country?

Now tell me why are these people you kill american soldiers who have invaded their country, ruined their lives, raped their women, killed innocent people and kill their family called terrorist? These people aren't terrorist they are freedom fighters who are fighting the people who have ruined a country they worked so hard to build.

I know if some country invaded the U.S. i would pick up my 22 and M1911 .45 and go to war, i would fight till im dead because either way you lose everything.

All i want to know is that WHY people call these fighters terrorist?

snoopeymaster

Sign by Dealighted - Coupons and Deals

Read the book "Terror Attacks". The first part of the book does a very good job explaining things. I'll even read you a little excerpt for our amusement.

'Yet, when we look closely at contemporary terror attacks, we find that they do not always fit this pattern: often, terrorists have no mandate from the peoples they profess to fight for; they may even kill members of their own community or religious group; and, interestingly, they may even be well-off, wealthy individuals who have little in common with the oppressed peoples they apparently represent'.

Ah... here is what I was looking for:

'Secondly, the overblown, abstract rhetoric of the Bush administration has done nothing but cloud the issue; indeed, many feel that in exaggerating the scale of the problem for his own political purposes, Bush has created a profound rift between the Western and Islamic worlds. Similarly, the response of the political left has, in many cases, been over-simplistic: terror attacks aroudn the world do not occur soley as the result of America's oppressive military, cultural and economic imperialism, although that is evidently a factor, but are a much more complex response to the modern world, in which individual psychopathology seems to play a large part.'

MattUD1