Dad ... what's a terrorist?
Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil.
Dad ... what's a terrorist?
Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.
Why do they kill them?
Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.
Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?
Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.
So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?
No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.
Good blackmail? What's that?
That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.
But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.
True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.
So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?
No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.
Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?
Yes ... just like him.
But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?
Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.
So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?
Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.
What uniforms do terrorists wear?
That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.
War has rules?
Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.
So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?
Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.
The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?
Technically speaking, yes. But ...
So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?
Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.
But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?
Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.
Is it a better place?
I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.
Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?
Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...
So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?
Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...
Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.
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?
Source: The Age
Topics: Conflicts And War, Iraq, Saddam Hussein
"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, religious, or political reasons".
I guess the author wanted to leave off ideological and religious reasons, for obvious reasons.
The article won't even define terrorism corectly for fear it won't fit in with his little diatribe, I give the author no credence.
Other than that it's a circular logic argument, and kinda corny.
Wake up from your American DREAM! I am sick of this beating around the bush nonsense. You are the one who needs to think outside of the box you have built in your head.
Well that would be the right thing to do but I might get hurt. And you dont want me to get hurt do you?
No, but that lady is in a lot of pain. She looks like she's crying and it looks like blood coming from her face.
It's OK son just dont look. Then you wont have to think about it. She can take care of herself. Besides the lady may not want any help. It's best if we keep driving and forget we ever saw anything.
(There is always more than one way to look at a situation. I guess some people would rather look out for themselves and not help others that are defensless.)
Please stop highjacking my comments. American's & Israelis feelings mean zero to me after I've seen this weeks horrible pictures. Let them know that sooner or later the true Muslims will reduce their empire to dust insha Allah!!!
Nationality : Japan
# of Hostages : 3
Captors : Iraqi civilian
Captors Name : Iraqi extermist or Iraqi terrorist
Nationality : China
# of Hostages : 8
Captors : Iraqi civilian
Captors Name : Iraqi extermist or Iraqi terrorist
Nationality : IRAQI
# of Hostages : 20 MILLION
Captors : US, UK, UN, EUROPE, AUSTRALIA
Captors Name : Liberators, peace makers. Leaders who love peace, freedom, democracy.
This is a kind of freedom, justice, democracy they want to establish throughout Arab and Muslim nations.
To All Americans,
you guys never experienced the evil and cruelty of occupation. Most of you guys enjoy humiliating others like what your army doing in Iraq. Look at the way the American humuliated Iraq POW's. Look at the hatred. Its disgusting and unimaginable. Worse than Nazis.
Excellent analogy l had read so far of the actual situation. the writer couldn't have done it better. a conversation of father and son and the simplicty of a child mind. thank you.
This time you got it Nick!
You are so right except for you did read the truth backward again "my friend" or are you still being snaky & sneaky as usual. Wake up Nick & read properly next time. Try harder to see that the real terrorists(America's Zionists & those Pro-Zionists that plagued with disgrace your American Congress & infested the White House, they will do anything evil the Zionists dictate to them as long as they promise them that they can firmly keep an office...)are sucking the blood of America's taxpayers to give them enough strength to devour more Palestinians, more Iraqis, the empoverished & the oppressed nations of the transvalian dragulan world they created.
I don't think it is in America's power to create a Palestinian state. But even if we did so and we removed our troops from Iraq, I don't think the threat of terrorism would end.
I would like to correct some of my typing mistakes...
(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or OFF duty"
That's exactly WHAT the Us governments have been doing sine Pear Harbor.
Ariel Sharon use of chemical weapons against Palestinian refugees in Lebanon's (SABRA & SHATILA),
The dirty list goes on for you disgusting unpatriotic losers, did you forget Henry Kissenger & the CIA huge assistance in Chile's OWN 9/11/1973 where over 3000 civilians were killed.
You Mebrocky please stop being apologetic..., it's a turn off! Nick, you call your governments & your "Christian Fundamentalists" supply of weapons to starving Christian Southern Sudanese guerrillas & separatists love. Your governments adds fuel to fire & call that love too as their militias use your country's weapons of "love" to kill Sudanese Muslim Northerners. Is that what you call love Nick.
instead of sending them food and providing them shelter, you send them automatic guns. That's Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell who have visited Southern Sudan many times & that's their version of Christian love that you bought wholeheartedly.
Dick and Colin, King George the 2nd and the 1st, the Negro from Bumbingham, Jack Ass Kroft etc
are all full pledged terrorists.
I'm not the one on the defensive here. After all, you keep trying to attack Christianity claiming that the French are Christian. And now, you're trying to portray my government as a representation of Christianity. Since neither the French people nor my government are manifestations of my religious beliefs, I dismiss your tactics entirely.
Anyways, who said I wanted to arm Christian Sudanese against Muslims? You must be imagining things.
May the peace of my Almighty God be with you.
And Hostage is a person who is held in an area
against his/ her wish anywhere in the world without any access to outside world.
But there are different definitions/rules for different people in this world.
Americans for Control of New York"
Or just suppose you were told that you were free but that you could not choose the kind of government you wanted or who could participate in it and that you had no control over your natural resources or foreign policy. That this foreign power would establish and keep military bases in your country for an undetermined amount of time and actually run your country tell you what to think and how. Tell you whom you could trade with and whom you couldn't even set the prices for your goods and services. America was faced with such choices and headlines and out them grew the American Revolution, "remember give me liberty or give me death". To the British Nathan Hale was an insurgent to us a patriot and it wasn't until we kicked that foreign power out that we were able to begin to approach our destiny.
Now we are the Brits and the Iraqis the colonialist. No matter how you slice it that is the truth of it. Iraq should and does belong to the Iraqis it is their country We do not have the right no matter what to tell them what or how to think or how to govern themselves. America does not have a monopoly on common sense or love of country and culture. Nor does it have a lock on the ability to compromise and come to the common good.
Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.
One evening, when I was yet in my nurse's arms, I wanted to touch the tea urn, which was boiling merrily... My nurse would have taken me away from the urn, but my mother said 'Let him touch it.' So I touched it -- and that was my first lesson in the meaning of liberty.
Folks you don't impose democracy on people they either want it and work at it through trial and error or
so this article leaves out many things and seems to be a piece of propaganda to justify the war in iraq. we need to see the whole picture and stop being one sided. terrorism is wrong on both sides. it is not the method of the prophet for change.
As a fellow Muslim, I'm glad that you take such an interest in today's contemporary issues. Your views thoroughly make us all think in new ways. However, I disagree with the manner in which some of you criticize other Muslims and non-Muslims, especially Nick. To me, your tone can be harsh and sometimes un-Islamic, particularly the way you belittle those who hold different points of view. In one of your responses, you thoroughly trounced a Muslim replier by questioning his or her loyalty to Islam; as Muslims, the sin is on us if we falsely accuse a Muslim of apostacy without any proof. Just because Muslims hold different views from you doesn't mean that they don't believe; it just means that they see things differently. Also, if we truely believe that we should invite everyone to Islam, including Nick, then how successful do you think you'll be when you constantly assassinate his character? While Nick may not agree with your views, it doesn't give you the right to be venomenous in your replies to him. To be honest, I'm so tired of some Muslims who fume at the mouth but at the same time have their heads ducked in the sand like ostriches. Ideally, we'd all like to live under a truely Islamic government, but, unfortunately, we don't. Brothers, answer this question: would you rather live in the United States or in Iraq under Sadam Hussein, a Bathist? As Muslims, we forget that Saddam--and Syria for that matter--is Socialist, even what some call Stalinist. Did the Islamic world--did American Muslims--speak out against this Hitler who murdered our Muslim brethern and sisters both in Iraq and Iran? I know the US was an indirect accomplice to this slaughter, but why is it that we Muslims struggle to admit that some "Muslim" leaders have perverted our faith at catastrophic levels for their own evil intentions? Some may say that this phenomenon is a result of the puppet West. Honestly, that answer is too old. We need another answ
Good point Kovitz, let Mebrocky (the self proclaimed good American) & Nick Cameron know that by being defensive all the time, all you do is make people dig deeper to expose your country's hypocrisy & cover ups tactics. It's a loss loss situation because you too have too much to hide & a weak case to defend simply because the US governments that are supposed to be the world's role model are the leading terrorist governments on this planet. The US constitution in cremates itself by its own official definition of terrorism.
Definition of Terrorism
[Source: Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington: Dept. of State, 2001: vi]
"No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:
The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.
Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on U.S. interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.
(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or
Perhaps if we were less embarrassed to share "the rules" with an extremely under-informed public then even our adversaries (Allah bless them) might be more likely to follow these same "rules" - even if they did so for reasons of their own. Also, while I am not sure there could ever be any justification for "preemptive retaliation" for the murdered, it would seem reasonable to suppose there could be a grave penalty for those who exceed the limits, in matters of retaliation.
Assalamu alaikum (peace be unto you).
i've always thought this something, which clogs the functions of the christian ethic was something in their faith. an article of christian thought perhaps. but that's far too easy, i'd be like another falwell finding faults in scripture.
it isnt christianity, its the colonial mind. (which should be said, is found in christian minds proportionately more than others). the thinking that we can do what we want, when we want, to whom we want.
who's team is better? ours is. no moral equivalence here, just one a little tattered and insulted, and one that never existed. non muslims cant seem to comprehend the fact that there is no such thing as collateral damage in islam, ruined cities, innocents killed - killing a single innocent person in islam is akin to killing all of humanity. there lies the difference mebrocky. Its why islam is the fastest growing faith in the world. regardless of the incessant propaganda connoting muslims and islam with the visogoths, critically thinking people still see through the thin veneer of manufactured islamaphobia. don't bring up the "muslims are killing everywhere" mebrocky, regardless of what arab society tolerates today, the scripture is still pure.
thanks mebrocky for shifting the attention to diunity amongst Muslims by highlighting the article " When People Demean Islam" rather than appreciating the message from this article. as for Arab/Muslim disunity, there is no doubt that there is little unity amongst them.
i recomend you to check out the article about "What to do about Islam" where an 88 page report suggest how to divisionalise, prosecute and isolate Muslims from each other, i am sure that these things have happened in the past, i cant believe the cheek to publicly present such an article.
You say "we should be able to help each other regardless of our Religion or culture", im just wondering, who is helping who?, the only way you can help those poor Iraqis is buy letting them choose their own leader (not one of your puppets), let them rebuild their nations themselves through their contractors, and by letting the UN taking command and withdraw from occupation. only that way it would be fair and just. if that is the type of help you are talking about then sure we should be able to help each other regardless of our Religion or culture as you say.
Take Care, Salam
Mebrocky,in respond to your comments. How about talking about how to stop this horror...
How many time do I have to tell you, "Justice" is the key.
There is a very valuable lesson to be learned from thsi concept. It hits the root of the beliefs held by many Americans who ask such questions that don't beat around the Bush and are straight forward and direct. Something that is very lacking in the media and needs to be explored even further, it is called simplicity...I find question and answer to be hte best way to learn people's behaviour patterns, and this article says it all.
course, it can be sighted as a splendid example of just that, for the
purpose of debate, provided all the facts of the case are not deployed."
(Flashman and the Dragon by G. M. Frazer)
And that is what the author of the article "What is a terrorists" did. He
present certain facts in a certain way that presented one opinion.
But for the record. The word "terrorists" has been used far to much.
Secretary of Defense is now over using the words concerning the conflict in
Fallujah and those opposed to US occupation forces.
An `act of terrorism' requires two componets to be terrorist or terrorism:
The deliberate targeting of unoffending civilians and unlawful combatants.
If both of those components are not there then it is not an act of
terrorism by terrorist. For example the 9/11 attack was an act of
terrorism. The 1983 attack on the Marine HQ in Lebanon was not. The
attack against the US embassies in Kenya was an act of terrorism by
terrorists. The attack against the USS Cole in Yemen is not.
As of this date the best description of an act of terrorism by terrorists
is "The wanton, deliberate and premeditate targeting of unoffending
civilians by unlawful combatants."
It is not one that the Moslem Arab world wishes to accept. But it is what
Finally, One item that for what ever reason in the Laws of Nations and Laws
of War that have not been enforced since Lebanon in the 1980s is the
results of one side "raising the black flag." For example when one side in
a conflict -- ie lawful or unlawful combatants -- state that they will use
any meeans neccessary and without limits they have raised the Black Flag.
And before in conflicts and warfare that side has forfeited any appeal to
Laws of Nations, Laws of Warfare, etc. They have went beyond the pale.
For what ever reason the Arab Moslem world believes
This is a well written article.
It takes, sometimes, an innocent mind to
say things to make us all take a step
backward and go "hmmmmmm".
It's time that Bush adminstration answers us why they lied to us? Is it to give Halibarton and the gang all the business deals?
beautifully written. how unfortunate that it takes a dialogue between an adult and a child to portray the assinine position of the pro-war crowd. i've always thought the pro-war crowd was only marginally sane, now i'm sure.
Terrorist, according to the Oxford dictionary is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad...If it happened to the states, we call "Terrorist States" such as U.S. and Israel.
Muslims should find some "Magic Words" of their own like the Jews use the words "Holocaust" and "Anti Semitic" to get away from its barbaric acts the rule of international laws.