Anarchist Discussion Forums

:roll:

what do you mean by "[i]our[/i] 'yes men'", are you meaning to imply that you identify with the neo-fascist american nationality?

[quote="Morpheus"][quote]I suppose the "unlawful" part of that last definition would exclude Bush tactics[/quote]

Many of Bush's tactics violate international law.[/quote]

sure, and who cares? the u.s. can and has thumbed its nose to the international community repeatedly.

how people like tony blair can believe that their opinion matters a single iota to anyone in the u.s. government is beyond me. their place is to be our "yes men", nothing more.

[quote]I suppose the "unlawful" part of that last definition would exclude Bush tactics[/quote]

Many of Bush's tactics violate international law.

I suppose you're right, by virtue of their tactics they are terrorists. But it's not the monolithic terrorist bogeyman Bush is talking about. Seems more likely to me that these are local, isolated groups who are probably not really working together to overthrow America and western democracy and institute fundamentalist Islamic theocracies everywhere. When Bush talks terrorism it isn't the tactic he's opposed to, since I can't find a single definition of terrorism that Bush's own tactics don't fit.

"the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

"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."

Well, I suppose the "unlawful" part of that last definition would exclude Bush tactics, but just because the government itself approves of the tactic it is employing of course doesn't make it any fundamentally different. He doesn't really oppose the murder of innocent civilians as a means to a political end, or dehumanizing and insulting the dead civilians with the term "collateral damage". He just opposes it when it's not in what he perceives as the US's best interests.

I think, personally, at this point in the game, the "resistance" does not speak for any significant number of Iraqi's. And at that point they would be terrorists.

Earliest I could find myself mentioning the Iraqi honeypot: http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71534

Didn't search when I posted as Y or anonYmous...

It never ceases to amaze me how shallow Bush's political insight is. I would love to hear his deluded ideas of what freedom is. I define freedom as the right to do whatever I please so long as I do not exploit or harm another person or another person's possessions. I don't define freedom by a numbered list of "rights" the government has agreed not to take away from me (but often will anyways, this flag-burning amendment being just the most recent example). Whatever it is, Bush's "tairists" aren't the biggest threat. The organization that is the single largest threat to true freedom on this planet is that with the most weapons and the most power to coerce people into following its will, i.e. the United States government.

I can't believe it hasn't occurred to him yet that maybe all the violence against the US occupation of Iraq is not due to some massive terrorist conspiracy to destroy freedom but maybe because the Iraqis don't want us there.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror. To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill -- in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. [b]Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.[/b]

[...]

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=4324
---

Of course, we all know there were no terrorists in Iraq, well, except for their dictator, but he was a predictable terrorist, not like the ones that blow themselves up in public markets and such.

From a purely fascist standpoint Bush's actions in Iraq were entirely predictable, and I predicted them nearly 4 years ago here and on other political related forums.

Iraq the Honeypot.

He's speaking now... what a fucking asshole.

Funny thing is that he basically just admitted what I've been saying all along. That the reason for going into Iraq was to make the Iraqi's target practice for terrorists. Because it costs a bit more money and is a bit harder to get something blown up in the US than it does to fund miserable people to blow themselves up in Iraqi mosqs and police stations.

The US needs some new terrorist activities (couple of high profile buildings blown up) or I'm going to think that the terrorists are wusses.

Oh wait, I already think that.