myata

Aha - the bomb itself will distinguish who's the combattant to terrorize and who's innocent civilian to avoid. Alcaeda will like the idea.

Go and read your own post. Perhaps, you misconstrued yourself? The rest appears to be so thoroughly devoid of meaningful argument (just "oh" and "ah"), that it doesn't really merit a response.

And who cares (what they're saying their goals may have been)? Did you ever ask about Alcaeda goals, maybe they are all about salvation of humankind. The fact is that dropping a bomb on an apartment building full of civilians is bound to kill civilians and shelling densly populated area with high explosives is also bound to kill civilians. The intent or at least reasonable knowledge of the effect cannot be denied, no matter how much you squirt about the "moral" goals. You said nothing to prove otherwise. I can't care less why this is done that isn't. The result is clear: demonstration of hugely superior military might to force people abandon insurgency. Otherwise, they could have used police tactics and went after specific individuals. Thanks for the admission. I guess terror can be a useful tool when it serves your purpose. Guess lacking a better argument, the last resourt is pointing finger and insult.

Hi Scott, this is the last warning from me that this kind of posts will not be tolerated and from now on will be instantly reported as trolling. I'm normally far from being fussy, but I just don't like stumbling on garbage.

No, to clarify, I'm asking if bombing of Faluja (and the like) qualifies as terrorism. Because, it is: 1) killing 2) of innocent civilians 3) to achieve political purpose (i.e force population to abandon supporting insurgence) 4) via terror (hugely superior military force).

My, you really want to go nut picking here. Have it your way: deposing a ... (whatever you want to call him) by foreign invasion resulted in a civil war. Does that take care of semantical nuances. Now the real question: would such an act qualify as "terrorism" toward the part of population that supported Saddam and attempted to resist foreign invasion?

Yes, killing Saddam did result in huge casualties and all but full blown civil war despite massive occupation force, which was what the original poster said all along and what was obvious from the numbers posted on the site in your own link. Who's been obtuse?

You meant to say, once the american invasion has started? One can only agree with that (somewhat modified) statement - but wasn't it something what was said all along? - as the site you referred to (Iraq bodycount) only provides data since beginning of US invasion. Couldn't resist commenting on the addition: you mean, monstrous Saddam has been directing the insurgency for three years from his prison cell while innocent american GIs used their highly explosive ammos for ... help me with an example of an absolutely peaceful and innocent use of highly explosive ammo ... really struggling here. Perhaps, you can work on stretching it (the truth i.e.) even more, what do you think?

If so, you should be able to substantiate this claim with numbers.

Caught an interview with the US' former ambassador Galbright? on CBC this morning - he was talking about American propensity to "build it's enemies". Sounds true to the single point to me and looks like nothing has changed. Sad.

I guess you did not get it: the essential part of "politics of Victimization" involves claiming being a victim of (enter evil deed) when it suits one's needs denying it when it doesn't.

What else would be an acceptable use of killing? - sponsoring a group of military thugs to overthrow an elected leader, establish rule of "terror" and conduct mass killings of "civilians"; (Chile); - sponsor and train gangs of thugs to instill rule of "terror" by indiscriminate killing of "civilians" (Honduras, Nicaragua); - discourage "civilian" population from supporting one or another faction through use of superior military force, terror, and indiscriminate killing of civilians (Vietnam, Iraq). Note that all of the above involve killing of civilians to instill terror. Then, wouldn't an attempt to kill a leader of a country, with direct involvement of greatly superior power, look like a way to terrorize its people from resisting? The line is growing really thin. So thin one starts wondering - does it really exists?

Let's put it this way: on credibility, I'd give both the same (failing) mark. But given the size of propapaganda machine working for Bush, I'll give Ahmedinejad one extra millionth of a point for sheer audacity.

Ok, bombing, assassinations, hiring thugs and so on are legitimate methods for the greater good? Just unfortunate smell (look and act) that has to be put up with. Hail, democracy!

I'll take issue with that (i.e, your post) too: Bush & Co are on record with their never substantiated claims of WMD in Iraq, Al-Kaeda in Iraq and god knows what in Iraq and anywhere in the world they may have interest in. Claims of WMD programs in Iran are also emanating from the same source, UN commission on nuclear energy is far more cautious. So, on the basis of facts, president of Iran appears to be no less credible than that of the US (I wouldn't say more, because neither appears as a trustworthy source of information whom I'd take on their word). Sorry for for a disappointing conclusion, but it's better than to wake up in the middle of another bloody mess because you may have forgotten to think for yourself while jumping up on another patriotic bandwagon. And it's not just me: in a recent world poll on credibility (which I posted somewhere on this board) US tied neck in neck with Iran. Coincidence?

I already posted here on the questionable (from the high morality perspective) attitude of US administrations to Cuba - without being a fan of regime in Havana myself. This CBC documentary may give some further insights into the issue: CBC documentary: 638 ways to kill Castro. Not to mention the general question as to what exactly constitutes terrorism. If Iranian guards are labelled terrorists for alledged involvement in Iraq, what about CIA paying hired guns to kill another country's elected leader?

OK, the consensus seems to be building on this thread that "politics of victimization" is a valuable and acceptable diplomatic mean to achieve certain ends, and few states, big and small, democratic or otherwise, can claim high moral ground with respect to using it. In particular, the instances cited in the OP as exhibiting such (high moral ground) do not appear to stand the test upon the closer consideration.

Which is certainly within their might if not right, but then, how does that reflect on their claims of being entirely innocent victims of attacks (while occupying most of other people's land and btw speaking of victimization)?

What has also been present is the fact of massive foreign immigration while the territory was "under the protection" of the British mandate. To the extent that significally changed ethnic composition of the region. That of course never happened in the India / Pakistan story. To consider this as just another ethnic conflict is to not tell the whole truth. BTW now we call this activity "ethnic cleansing" and it's considered a crime against humanity; but someone could always come up with a very rational reason why it had to be done that way. To b.-c., yes sure there're similarities, but for once, it happened not 200-300 years ago but still in the memory of one generation; and secondly, here in the NA, there's at least recognition that injustice has happened and should be rectified. When the same comes about in Isreal, maybe there'll be time to seriosly think about a solution.

Oh come on. Not another "Israel good, Palestinians bad" thread. Or maybe you believe a very infamous individual who said "a lie repeated thousand times becomes truth"? Usually when people know they did something they know is wrong, they look for a rationalization (i.e. a reason why they had a right, cause, and so on, to do what they did). The truth of the matter is, of course, that Israel was created in a violent manner without agreement of the native population. That has created a major problem which will ripple through the region (and maybe outside it) for years and generations. No volume of talk will change it because its a fact of history. If people there were really good and wise as you want to paint them, shouldn't/wouldn't they have waited longer, maybe much longer, and eventually worked out some kind of a compromise with the natives. If they rashed and did wrong, maybe it's time to recognise and admit it, atone for the wrongs, and finally, work out some kind of a compromise with Palestinians?

And as I said before, I'll take it any time against having a clique of pseudo saints declaring eternal rules for everybody to follow. Rephrasing Chirchill, simply the matter of lesser evil.

Before somebody else jumps on the bandwagon without a having slightest clue - and as somebody already mentioned and not once - vaccination is not mandatory in this country (I've little idea about south of the border but I suspect it won't be imposed against the will of parent there either). Parents always have the right to refuse - all vaccinations. And too many do - which led to resurgence of some infections which were all but eradicated. That of course thanks to the fact that it (i.e. Church) lost the power to do so. Before this situation came about, things were'nt quite the same. Just mentioning that one may not be in total and perpetual fascination with the almighty could get them in deep trouble. Which eventually necessitated the emergence of the liberal state. So that at least, people have a choice - to go to the mass or not; to vaccinate or not; to use protection and so on. I really like it that way and forgive it many a scandal/mismanagement and so on just for this small liberty.

Poor us! Only imagine how different we'd fare under "control", no, no, gentle guidance, of the Church! Oh wait, haven't we already been there?

Surely you understand that "more research" means gathering statistics. Which is a direct function of time: 5 years, good confidence; 10 years, better, and so on. In the meanwhile, many of those entering sexual activity will get the virus; which according to the best of known research, will result, with certain probability, in cancer; which, to some extent, and again, according to the best of known research, could have been prevented. Then, surely, nobody is forcing it, it can be refused just as any other vaccination. And indeed, there're few absolutely certain things in this life, so we're all "guinea pigs" in some sense. The question is, of whom and for what. I'm OK being a guinea pig of reasonably well researched science to improve the health of my child; being a guinea pig of an outdated belief system for what? hope of future salvation? - I don't know. If the god is gonna punish people for trying to protect their children, something must be terribly wrong out there.

This vaccine has been approved by Health Canada, so I'll go with their word vs some web site I know nothing about. If I were to mistrust all experts, I would be insane to drive my car; fly on a plane; use cell phone (risk of unknown illness); Internet (risk of psychological damage reading all kind of cr.. one can find there), and so on. So yes, barring confirmed side effects or issues with the vaccine, I'd have my child vaccinated (if I had one). I don't quite understand though how it works. It appears that it's important that it's administered before the body is exposed to the virus. Somehow, it appears that vaccination of already infected does not have the same efficiency.