Terrorism

It is real easy:

A terrorist goes and intentionally murders unarmed, defensless civilians so as to TERRORIZE them. Thus, the name TERRORIST. Our military men and women are heros who kill the terrorists with the intention of protecting the innocent civilians. Sometimes, in the fog of war, innocent folks get caught in the crossfire. But, they do not do so to TERRORIZE them. Thus, they are not TERRORISTS, but LIBERATORS, just as they were in WW2.

Understand?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Delivered,

No offense. But after looking at your church's website, I understand why you are so confused.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

Stupid quote but helps illustrate this:

A freedom fighter is a person that decides that he and his family will no longer tolerate their lives being dictated, they who wish to follow their faith without it being law, and is generally considered a peaceful people. They will do whatever is necessary to ensure their freedoms are protected. The fruits of this endeavor come as what Ive come to know as blessings.

A terrorists sits and watches with a baleful eye the freedoms and blessings this person enjoys. This is pure envy. This lifestyle that is envied is preached against in their societies. They are told to kill this free person, anywhere they may do it, using anyway they can find. This is what is taught in schools and in what we would normally define as church. What do terrorists want? Death and destruction. They want to win. They want to be the only rule on earth. They do not realize that this hatred they fuel themselves with, should they become successful and kill the freedom fighters off, will only provide them with an excuse to turn against one another. Fatalistic. Civilization as they know it, will cease to exist.

Our government (the United States of America) inspired by freedoms as being truths that are self evident, will continue to back the idea of the freedom fighter. After all, the only reason America exists today is because a group of people stood up and committed treason long ago. What we enjoy isnt just for Americans only - it will work in any society that allows for tolerance.

For your 'killing of innocent civilians' remark, I am unsure what you are referring to exactly.

It is true that bombs explode and kill people who are not the intention of the target. It is true that many are swept up in the efforts of war and perish. However, our government does take huge steps to prevent that.

When I was in al Fallujah, Iraq last summer we sent local nationals into the streets telling the residents that the American troops were coming, four days prior to our arrival. Those innocent civilians were escorted out of the town and refugeed into camps until things calmed down enough to re-enter their homes, which by the way, if not inhabited by insurgents, were still standing in the condition they were left. Those that did not leave the city were considered combatants and got what they got. That which you may think as innocent were also the same ones shooting at us.

 

1. We have not killed more civilians than the terrorists. Ask the Kurds. Saddam and his terrorists have tortured, raped, imprisoned, and brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of their own citizens. Now they are out of power and can no longer do that.

2. Many times, liberals and terrorists themselves count actual terrorists as innocent civilians. They have used this defamation against the state of Israel for years. To learn more about this, check out Alan Dershowitz's book, The Case For Israel. He talks about how the terrorists have perfected this idea to turn political pressure against Israel, and now America.

3. Lt Calley was the exception instead of the rule. War Criminal Kerry and Hanoi Jane the traitor used these lies about Americans being terrorists to betray their nation and they are scum of the earth for doing so. America, by far, does more good than it does bad. Anyone who disagrees with that is either a terrorist or has a mental disorder.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Delivered,

My 11 year old daughter can answer that question and answer it with zeal. Please... If that is the attitude of most folk in this country then we don't deserve to win the war on terror. I would tell folk that ask you that stupid question to move to Iraq for a few months and see if they can figure out the difference.

 

Who started this war? Why?

 

Who started this war? Why? </font>[/QUOTE]The terrorists did because they hate us, because we are the opposite of everything they believe in.

 

This is also a very easy question to answer: Because they are terrorists.

Joseph Botwinick

 

And I have said the same thing Joe and you know what, I get "but we supported Saddam" while this God awful mayhem ocurred.
I recently heard that Hanoi Jane experimented with Lesbianism, I pray for her to get well. </font>[/QUOTE]If we did, we made the wrong choice. Now, we are correcting it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"Would the terrorists that took our hostages in Iran in 1979, consider themselves freedom fighters? I haven't got a firm grasp of the history of it all, but it has been mentioned to me that the Shah Of Iran was installed by the USA as a dictator. I really can't believe that could be true."

Iran was going through a revolution in 1979.
The people held hostage were simply Americans doing embassy work. A few were members of the military, which by way of taking THEM hostage, is an act of engagement of war - as is attacking an embassy is akin to attacking on U.S. soil (soveriegn territory). Hostilities abound. If they did not want an embassy on thier land, why not take peaceful steps to remove it? They didnt want peace, they didnt want freedom, they wanted to force foriegn policy. Taking hostages does not do that, as we do not negotiate with terrorists. We make no deals.

The "Shah of Iran" is a term like saying "President of the United States". Here is what I found at the Presidential library of President Carter:

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, began his reign in 1941, succeeding his father, Reza Khan, to the throne. In a 1953 power struggle with his prime minister, the Shah gained American support to prevent nationalization of Iran's oil industry. In return for assuring the U.S. a steady supply of oil, the Shah received economic and military aid from eight American presidents.

Early in the 1960s, the Shah announced social and economic reforms but refused to grant broad political freedom. Iranian nationalists condemned his U.S. supported regime and his "westernizing" of Iran. During rioting in 1963, the Shah cracked down, suppressing his opposition. Among those arrested and exiled was a popular religious nationalist and bitter foe of the United States, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Between 1963 and 1979, the Shah spent billions of oil dollars on military weapons. The real price of military strength was the loss of popular support. Unable to sustain economic progress and unwilling to expand democratic freedoms, the Shah's regime collapsed in revolution. On January 16, 1979, the Shah fled Iran, never to return.

The exiled Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran in February 1979 and whipped popular discontent into rabid anti-Americanism. When the Shah came to America for cancer treatment in October, the Ayatollah incited Iranian militants to attack the U.S. On November 4, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and its employees taken captive. The hostage crisis had begun.

Terrorists:

I learned this knowlege up close and personal in the hole called Iraq. My job is to deal with detainees. It must be their worst nightmare come true when a woman, wearing pants without her face covered makes them go where she wants them to go. Let us just say they expressed their extreme dislike in many ways.

The people who left to go to refugee camps went willingly, because the insurgents used them as bait.

 

Who started this war? Why? </font>[/QUOTE]The terrorists did because they hate us, because we are the opposite of everything they believe in. </font>[/QUOTE]Good point Joe, if they don't believe what we know as the absolute truth, then their fate is extermination. I can't see any other alternative. </font>[/QUOTE]1. This is true, when it comes to tyrannical dictators like OBL and Saddam, who are desperately holding onto their grip of power at all costs. There is no negotiating with them. They must be captured or killed.

2. There are times, however, when those who have been brainwashed by the dictators, can be turned. Take for example, the accounts of Judge Al Hitar in Yemen:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/18/3208.html?

If they can be turned away from hatred and terrorism, then that is only going to make our job easier. I understand that this is not going to always work, but it is something that should, IMO, be considered when dealing with Islam as a whole and with terrorists who have been captured and detained.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Delivered,

Have your friends also told you that we took our eyes off the ball because we went into Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11, OBL, or terrorism? Next time they do, show them this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/3242.html

Joseph Botwinick

 

Did you happen to see the photo of the terrorists sawing off the head of a Jewish Nicholas Berg while giving praise to Allah? Look. America is not perfect. But there is no moral equivalency that can be found between the American Military and terrorists unless you are a terrorists or you have a mental disorder.

Joseph Botwinick