Dad... What's a terrorist?

[Sadistictickler]

Recently I found this on some site. Imo it's rubbing in the hard truth in a very subtle way.

Excellent piece of work

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616260498.html

[Haltickling]

Brilliant! :cool:

[BOFH666]

How does it go?

"many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"

Sadly even in this day and age, when we have near instantanious access to views on (almost) every side of a particular issue people are still unwilling to open their eyes and at least try to understand their way through problems rather than bludgen them aside. The last few lines of this piece in particular are the most succicent way of phrasing this particular issue I've read in a long time:


Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.

What?

I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.

But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.

I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?


Perfect. Unfortunatley it's also very accurate, yet I gaurantee that when this happens in a few years time no-one will be willing to look at why it happened, or how the root cause can be dealt with. No, we'll just be looking for another quick fix, a placebo for the wounds of a nation.

[MrMacphisto]

What can I say? The majority of reality is perception. It's too bad this kind of examination of multiple viewpoints is extremely rare when it comes to Bush's foreign policy decisions.

[drew70]

Yet another reason not to have kids. :rolleyes:

[JoBelle]

Could be "brilliant" to make a point if you didn't really have to live it. For me, it's more like someone using the vulnerability of a child to defend a political view.

I have a 6 year old who engages me in this very type of conversation on a regular basis. The latest is "When we adopt, can't we adopt a kid whose parents were terrorists because they are all bad people and the kid shouldn't be living with people like that 'cause they might get hurt." How's THAT for "brilliant?"

It may be timely and it may be moving to see the next generation growing up with it, but it's no different than any time in history.

My father remembers asking his father why Germans and Japanese were "bad" when he was a kid. I remember asking my parents why black kids hated me and wouldn't play with me when I was visiting relatives in the central part of Alabama as a kid. My brother remembers wondering why our uncle died in Vietnam and asking why.

I'm sure in other countries there are similar stories.

All in all...the ugly side of human nature is bad enough. To explain it to the most innocent who can't comnprehend the nuances of the adult world, well...that's heartbreakingly difficult. It's also something only folks who love children should do. The others would likely do more damage than good anyway.

Jo :(

[WraithTickler]

Cute article, but a bit of a farce if you ask me and doing an unfair job portraying our soldier and leaders as petty terrorists.

Terrorism from a purely political science standpoint is a tactic of striking anywhere, anyplace, and anytime. Targets may be combatant or non combatant and no care is usually given for the safety and concern of innocent civilians. The Iraq war, despite the current fall out and problems, still might remain one of the single cleanest wars on record- targeting was almost surgical to remove the Bathists under Saddam.

The fact that soldiers are government troops and accountable to the government and national opinion makes them part of the ordinary system. Terrorists are for the most part extra system groups, even if they do have state ties and have no measure of accountability save force.

When Bush launched the Iraq war, it may have been protested, but was still done with popular support akin to a mandate from the people. It was seen as a correct thing to do to ensure our national security. Whether or not this turns out to have been correct or a misunderstanding, we are committed in Iraq and have an obligation to ourselves and the world to ensure stability there. For that we are doing our utmost best to restore order and give a healthy and stable government to the Iraqi people. Whether or not the means are as effective or planned out as they should be or should have been is again, up for debate.

I can say that it is in our interest to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people to avoid being hated and for that we are making a sincere effort. We may be rightly accused of falling short of success, but being called terrorists where any ends justify any means is both unfair and unjust.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by WraithTickler
The Iraq war, despite the current fall out and problems, still might remain one of the single cleanest wars on record- targeting was almost surgical to remove the Bathists under Saddam.

...When Bush launched the Iraq war, it may have been protested, but was still done with popular support akin to a mandate from the people. It was seen as a correct thing to do to ensure our national security. Whether or not this turns out to have been correct or a misunderstanding, we are committed in Iraq and have an obligation to ourselves and the world to ensure stability there. For that we are doing our utmost best to restore order and give a healthy and stable government to the Iraqi people. Whether or not the means are as effective or planned out as they should be or should have been is again, up for debate.

I can say that it is in our interest to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people to avoid being hated and for that we are making a sincere effort. We may be rightly accused of falling short of success, but being called terrorists where any ends justify any means is both unfair and unjust.

If, indeed, targeting was surgical, then please explain the 8,000 civilian casualties. Unless of course, you're telling me that all of them were Ba'ath Party members. Speaking of whom, there are plenty of wealthy Ba'athists who are funding families of the people blowing our soldiers up right now. If Bush really wants peace in Iraq, he should target these powerful individuals for prosecution and use their money to fund the infrastructure of Iraq.

By the way, the Iraq War has never been very popular. It might be popular among certain demographics (most conservatives, many military and ex-military types, the religious right, oil companies), but if this war was so popular, then how come so many people in this country are still protesting?

One thing I agree with you on though, is that now that we've gotten ourselves in this mess, we can't just pull out. If anything, this needs to become a global effort, because we can't afford it alone.

I think the point of the aforementioned article was not to label Bush or anyone else in our military or leadership as terrorists, but to shed some light on the perspective issue. If the situation is so obviously one-sided that a child sees through it, then surely, we did something wrong. We may not be terrorists, but we are imperialists....