Friday, July 08, 2005

HOW ARE TERRORISM AND FREEDOM FIGHTING DIFFERENT?

I think about Sept. 11, 2001 every day of my life. It is a vow I made hours after terrorists rammed passenger jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington.
It was my private tribute to the hundreds of victims who died needlessly. That day affected me and many of you deeply.
My sadness turned to anger over the years. I am still mad about how people could plot something like this to harm human life.
Today, I am angered again. London now feels the same pain we did four years ago after a bunch of punks set four bombs off in their transit system, killing and wounding hundreds of people. I feel their pain and I wish Thursday's events could be reversed.
Acts of terrorism distracts me from sports. What happens on ball fields are no longer important this day.
Every waking day of our lives there is someone plotting against us. They want to kill us, destroy us, decapitate us and humiliate us.
I hate these people.
Here is my problem.
How is our government any different? Isn't George W. Bush a terrorist also? After 9/11 I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan. That is where Osama Bin Laden was given safe haven and we needed to go in, flex some muscle and try to capture him.
But this debacle in Iraq had me baffled from day one. I never felt we should have gone in there. We blew up their country a thousand times more than the bombings of London. We went in on a flimsy excuse of Saddam Hussein harboring weapons of mass distruction.
Well I am still waiting to see the first one.
Meanwhile, hundreds of men, women and children have been killed. And some of our best young people in the military are included. And yes I think of them every waking day. They should be home here celebrating Fourth of July's with their family, not holed up in the desert heat.
I hate what is happening in this world. My question today is why is what they do called terrorism and why are our bombings are called freedom fighting?
Isn't it all the same?

69 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terry

I have to disagree with you

Let's take 9/11 and Afganistan

9/11 terrorist aim was to inflict
injury to normal men and women that were just going to work. It also was aimed at harming the ecomomy by attacking some of the biggest financial firms of our country.

Our response to that was to take out thier save haven in Afganistan

We did not target the normal people, we targeted the taliban and al queda allies.

We dropped food in to feed refugues - did the terrorist on 9/11 provide any aid.

We allowed that country hold it's first election in it's 4000 year history.

If you do not see the difference that there is no way I can help

If you Look at Iraq, it is less clear.

The main fear there was WMDs. I know we did not find it and maybe another way could have avoided war but think about London's tube attack if there were WMD involved.

7:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have a little faith that those leading us know a hell of a lot more about the situation over there then we do.

I don't believe for one second that we care one iota about the "people of Iraq", or Iraq as a unique entity in and of itself. I think that it served to be a foothold and presence in what is still a nest of vipers.

If you believe as I do that terrorism cannot be ignored, or turned away from, then you have to brace yourself for one long ass and painful war against it. More incidents like this will occur, and some no doubt will be on our side of the Atlantic. Don't fail to keep the faith though! Never forget your base, or those poor souls jumping hand in hand from the WTC.

It will not be easy, or play out like some Hollywood script. You and I may never see the end, but maybe one day little B will reap the benefits.

7:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of m@ss destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of m@ss destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of m@ss destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of m@ss destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of m@ss destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan"

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of m@ss destruction and palaces for his cronies.."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of m@ss destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of m@ss destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should @ssume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of m@ss destruction! ."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of m@ss destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of m@ss destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of m@ss destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of m@ss destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of m@ss destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

8:31 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How come the oklahoma city bombers aren't considered terrorists?

Wasn't their mission to inflict terror, thus making them terrorists?

Isn't the guy who did the Atlanta Olymipcs bombing a terrorist also?

Terry, I know you're more of a sports writer, but how come people in the media don't call those guys terrorists? Because that's what they are. Same with the Unabomber, they guy who mailed anthrax to people, the Columbine Middle School people, they'e ALL terrorists.

oh, and I still don't understand how Iraq was more of a threat to us then North Korea. I don't get it.

Or, if we used all the troops we have in iraq in afgahnistan instead, I don't have any doubt that we'd have Osama in custody, along with all of afgahnistan would be free and that would've been better for everyone.

I still don't get how this Don Rumsfeld guy keeps his job.

8:53 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

Okay Terry now you have pulled something I never thought you would and that was discuss politics. I think it is safe to say that we went into Iraq on false information. We were hood winked or bamboozled into tying Saddam with 911. We have lost close to 1800 of our soldiers over there based on this info. I know the diehards will say it was the right thing to do Saddam was a bad guy. I am positive if the reasons that are given now for getting rid of Saddam were given then we would not be there. I am troubled with us being there. On one hand I do recognize the ramifications if we pull out like we did in Vietnam At the same token I am not there on ground level and it would break my spirit If I knew I had to stay longer and for what reason. Even the diehards must admit things are not well and they must admit the killings that we have done as well by killing there women and children. As far as London I feel there 9/11 does not match up to ours especially when you look at there death toll. My heart does go out to that country as well. I do have family and friends there and Thank God that they are Okay. To answer you question if the We called what we are doing terrorism then public support (which is Low) would drop to zero. It would be the anti war guys during vietnam times ten. Also the troops have to beleive that they are doing good. So to me there is no difference death is a death is a death but the distinction will continue to be made especiallyy in the media

9:10 AM

 
Blogger Lone Ranger said...

OK, suppose you're a police chief and you get intelligence that there is a crack house at a certain address. So you send in SWAT and they batter down the door and storm the place. No crack house. It's a child porn scene with two missing children. Do you back out of the house apologizing all the way or do you seize everyone and everything in place? After all, you expected to find a crack house. Where's the crack? No, we didn't find WMDs in Iraq. But after diddling around with the UN for 18 months, is it any wonder? What we found was prisons filled with children, rape rooms, torture, mass graves and 25 million people living under the boots of the Saddams. Were we to turn a blind eye to all that human suffering, we wouldn't be Americans. We defend the defensless. We stand up for people who can't stand up for themselves. That's what we do, that's who we are. The WMD arguement is totally specious.
I'm constantly amazed at how the left in this country can turn a blind eye to human suffering, just using it as some abstract in their goofy intellectual discussions. We are the world's last hope. We are the only nation on earth that has the wealth, the power and the COURAGE to rescue those who need rescuing. Never in the history of mankind has a ruthless dictator been sweet-talked through diplomacy into changing his ways. You can't bargain with evil. You can't compromise with evil. Evil must be destroyed. And if a single totalitarian regime survives the 21st century, we should all be ashamed.

As for North Korea, all Kim Jong Mentally-Il wants is to be the god-head of his country. He knows that if he starts something, he won't last a week. But if we start something, he's just crazy enough to turn the region into a slag heap. That's if he has the capability. As a journalist working on the East Asia desk, I hear North Korean bloviating every day. Most of it is for the ears of the locals. It's much easier to keep a starving population in line if they think the government is the only thing standing between them and those American barbarians.

9:14 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

One more thing I know on the grand scale sports means nothing however it does give us a vehicle to take our minds away from everyday decisions. I also recognize that a terrorist have no regaurds for who they kill because of their convictions. However, the best way to get revenge is to still live your life and not live in fear

9:15 AM

 
Blogger kdog1 said...

George Bush isn't a terrorist. He's a guy who got into a war with good intentions and no clue how to win it.

Playing the moral equivalency game between Terrorists and the US government is real great Terry. I know you wouldn't be saying this if a Democrat was in the office. If you didn't know, know that all these terrorists are sponsored by nations like Syria and Iran and no amount of kissing their a$$ and pandering to them will stop them. Let's just start negotiating with them as a legitimate adversary, then we can make real progress.

9:17 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

Lone ranger come on now don;t fall into this right left deal. Both sides love the troops. Also the USA tends to be selective when it comes to defending freedom. Let;s not go to Africa. Also I am positive if Iraq did not Have oil or the strategic positioning it has in the middle east gauraunteed we would treat it like Darfur or Rowanda. Also who put Saddam in power we did. Let's look at Haiti we allowed The democratically elected president to get the boot from his and assisted in kidnapping him.

9:19 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

KDOG1 come on now. This is why we are the state we are in It does not have to be a right or left side. Think for yourself and don;t go into the bashing deal.

9:22 AM

 
Blogger hitman said...

Careful T, some of these "best young people in the military" that you "think of every waking day" will never find comfort in your support by calling their actions terrorism.

9:27 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

Terry,

I have to agree with you. We seem to be so far off course of really fighting Terrorism with this debacle in Iraq.

In the mean while, I can't imagine those 11 civilians that were killed in a US bombing attack in Afganistan feel that there is any difference between terrorism, and "freedom fighting."

9:39 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

lone ranger...

You forgot to apply your scenario with the appropriate comparison...

Before entering the alleged crack house, SWAT has relatives go in ahead and inspect. They report back that there is no crack, however, they need to search further. Like the Iraq situation, SWAT knows that the house is also a place of other crimes however, they will not be able to get clearance to entry based on those crimes.

SWAT then convinces the surrounding neighbors that the "Crack House" must be taken down to rid the neighborhood of drugs. They enter the house find no Crack but, kill several innocent children that have been subjected to child pornography. They teardown the infrasructure of the neighborhood and take forever to rebuild it.

To make matters worse, this particular SWAT unit was pulled away from working on a Child Pornography ring that was connect to the alleged crackhouse and could have saved the lives of the children and the infrastructure of the neighborhood.

This is a more realistic comparison using your scenario.

Bottomline, the war in Iraq is a departure from the original intent and has made this country and others less secure.

9:59 AM

 
Blogger kdog1 said...

We helped Saddam b/c he was the lesser of two evils at the time. I'm a person of Indian Origin. I see this country supporting Pakistan, who sponsors terrorism and is a huge islamic fundamentalist state. Do I like it? No, but we have to get in bed with despicable regimes to get the job done.

10:04 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

Anonymous...

To your comment, "Have a little faith that those leading us know a hell of a lot more about the situation over there then we do."

I continue to lose faith when the leaders are not upfront about what is going on.

This war has changed its purpose more than George Bush has fallen off his bike.

Clearly, this administration continues to look for justification for the war. One of which is to continue to talk about it in relationship to 9/11.

Sadly, the only thing it has to do with 9/11 is that it has increased the potential for another one.

10:10 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone see the movie "Bad Lieutenant"? There was a quote in it: "F--- that noise - how bout them Mets?"

In other words, let's stick to sports, eh?

10:20 AM

 
Anonymous anonymous1 said...

If I remember right, weren't most of the 9/11 terrorists form Saudi Arabia?

And aren't we big supporters of SA?

What we need to do is improve the worldwide perception of the United States. And destroying Afganistan and Iraq can't be helping it.

When a lot of the iraqis orignally supported the US in iraq, none of them thought it would be like this. While saddam was in power, they had power, water, buildings but couldn't vote.

Now, they don't have power, don't have water, the buildings are all torn apaort, and they get to vote for people who end up assisnated.

10:26 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

Kdog now even you must admit the reasons given to go into war now would not have passed back then. The USA has always allowed brutal Dictators to exist for example Idi Amin of Uganda. Now your trying to say it is okay to go in bed with despicable regimes. We as a country tend to try and rewrite history as we see fit. As for mr Anomynous who wants to focus on sports only sometimes it is good to digress every now and then. To me, I do like to see the depth of knowledge for sports bloggers outside of sports from time to time. I aggree with Real on the leadership peice however we are there now and what to do ???/// One more thing Kdog this is not a democrat or repulican issue We as americans are dying in Iraq and I think both sides of the aisle recognize that. Also which I see already with deep regrets what happens when we hit 2000 ? One more thing can We really fight terrorism since we are actually overextended.

10:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terry I'm 100% with you on this one. The war in Iraq is just a facade for something else that is unseen. There a other countries in the middle east that harbour terrorism WAY more than Iraq EVER did. And i dont buy this thinking of "Well we're here now, so we HAVE to stay." BULLSHIT! Two wrongs dont make a right. I dont know what we should be doing, but its not this! I think waging war on Iraq made MORE terrorists that hate us even MORE!

11:02 AM

 
Anonymous anonymous1 said...

I hate to change the subject, but has anyone else had problems with 1270's online stream?

I really wanted to hear the Kenny Holland press conference, but I couldn't get WXYT's stream to work, so I had to do with WDFN's online stream- Sorry T, but I had to go with whoever's stream works!

11:40 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

Anonymous,

I have had trouble with the streaming today as well.

11:42 AM

 
Blogger hitman said...

It is appalling how many here are willing to go as far as to say that America is acting as terrrorist in dealing with Iraq. More troubling is the implications that extend in that line of thinking - Essentially, our brave soldiers are terrorist carrying out terrorist acts. Casualties of war are not isolated to the war in Iraq (see Civil War, WWI, WWII etc.). They are sad for sure but if you refuse to distinguish them from terrorism then so be it. But the next time you see an active soldier or veteran anything short of spitting on them would be hypocritical. Do we really want to go there?

12:00 PM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

hitman...

My point is that it is a matter of perspective, from the innocent Afganistan citizens that were killed last week, I am sure it doesn't matter whether it was terrorist or freedom fighters who killed them.

From the innocent people in London or those affected on 9/11, to distinguish the perpetrators as terrorist or freedom fighters is also meaningless. Quite frankly simply classifing people as terrorist is dangerous. I allows those in power to simply catorize people and ultimately takes us away from the real perpetrators.

War is war. To classify the act of war as either terrorism or freedom fighting is meaningless. Both wage war by different means. The so called terrorists likely see themselves as freedom fighters, as do we.

The problem I have is that the so called terrorist are at war with us. Unfortunately, we are at war with _________.

Fill in the blank because I don't know at this point.

12:44 PM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

hitman...

Let's not forget that we have classified those states that aid terrorist as "terrorist states"

And yet we have supported some of those regimes.

Should we not spit in the face of America based on your synopsis.

12:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terry...Terry...Terry. Under your scenario and thought process then we should have just stuck to Japan because they were the one who attacked us and ignored the Germans, right? Fact is, the war on terro has many fronts and will probably take a century to win

1:44 PM

 
Blogger hitman said...

TRRW - Excellent points, however, we live in a world of classifications. To attempt to escape them is foolish. Logic and order is what makes us human. I'm not saying it is always right and may even be 'meaningless' at times but there is no escape from it. The problem here is not in the classification of terrorism but the definition. We must first come to an agreement on the definition before we can argue what is and what isn't (which was at the heart of T's question). You say the danger is in classifying terrorist but lumping all war participants together is just as dangerous. Distinguishing them may not be of great importance to you but it means the world to our troops and veterans.

1:56 PM

 
Blogger Christine Brannan said...

"Fact is, the war on terro has many fronts and will probably take a century to win "

Or.. lose.

2:22 PM

 
Blogger kdog1 said...

Iraq is a disaster. I agree. But I thought it was a correct war based on intelligence that seemed reasonable.

If it was about Oil, gas would be about 1.70/Gallon instead of where it is now.

3:20 PM

 
Anonymous Nathan said...

I don't think you get it.

The point isn't that lots of good has come from the war in Iraq. The point is that it was done on false premises. The ends do NOT justify the means. When you tell your country that your reason for going to war is to find WMDs, and you don't find any... you've really screwed up.

If this was a humanitarian effort, it should've been one right from the start. It hasn't been. When the mass graves were found, and the WMDs weren't, the story changed. We all know that.

The ends have been a positive in some ways. I don't think that can be denied. But to say that lying to your country is fine because of it? Or to say that the bad things that happened as a direct result of the war are okay because of it? That's not honest, and it's not fair to the families of those who are dead.

3:38 PM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

KDog and Hitman I really hate to harp on you guys but since you guys are willing to put a name to toyur statements ( Kudo ) I must add in. Now hitman here you go adding to the divisive politics again. I don;t see any of the bloggers who disagree or agree with you calling to disrespect the troops. I don;t of any normal American who say let's dis or spit on the troops. On both sides of the aisle at the end of the day we want there safety. Now Nathan I am really hard pressed to find some positives. In Iraq there power is still of and on and let;s talk about there sewage. Their government was supposed to take over a long time ago. As far as the Middle East same ole same ole. They are getting fat off the Oil (61 dollars a barrell) YEah you have had some elections but from what I can see they have been a sham. Iran elected another fundmanetalist. Folks want to point to Syria pulling out but they still allow Terrorist to cross no probs. Look I am not saying cut and run however at what point do we say We must pull out and Hold our Noses while doing it just like we did in Vietnam.

4:39 PM

 
Anonymous Nathan said...

Billionaire,

The positives would be that a very volatile, and abused dictatorship was removed from power. This is never a bad thing.

The question is, do the positive results of this war outweight the negatives?

I think that is a question that can never be factually answered.

My opinion would be that no, the positives do NOT outweigh the negatives.

It's funny how politics change. Conservatives used to be the ones preaching isolationism, and now they're the ones beating the war drum. Liberals were the exact opposite.

There's nothing "conservative" about starting a foreign war with a country that has not attacked you, and has not shown the ability to do so.

4:56 PM

 
Blogger hitman said...

Billionare - You seem to be the one who is obsessed with 'divisive politics' constantly bringing it up, while I made no mention of the sort. In fact I have not even given an opinion on the topic of the Iraq war. T baited all of you by making a statement disguised in a question. I merely brought out a dangerous point in the line of thinking (voiced by numerous posters) that America is conducting terrorism. I merely warned to be careful because the logical end to that argument would be that our troops are terrorist no different than the Taliban/Al Queda. If you want to make explosive statements that is fine but understand what they logically imply and take responsibility for it.

5:00 PM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

hitman...

I must disagree, do you think our troops first determine that an enemy is a terrorist before engaging in combat. I think not. I think they kill those that are attempting to bring harm to them.

Because of the propaganda that this administration has broadcast, i.e. The War on Terrorism it might feel better to some that they are supposedly waging war against terrorism. But truthfully, this just makes some folks feel good about the failures and numerous errors connected with the War in Iraq.

I guess if I was putting my life on the line, I would want to feel good about what I was doing, rather than face the reality that I am involved in someones poor decision making and attempt to recover sunken cost.

Under these circumstances I guess I would agree with your position, as you stated, "Distinguishing them may not be of great importance to you but it means the world to our troops and veterans."

Personally, I think a more appropriate way to support our troops is not to buy into the propoganda, but to make leaders make the decisions that are right not the ones that save face.

5:29 PM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

kdog...

I agree with you that this war was not about oil, however, as much as the infrastructure has been damaged in Iraq, I am surprised gas is not $5.00/a gallon.

They were to pay for a great deal of the reconstruction from the oil, however, they can't pump oil let alone find some clean drinking water.

Sadly, I think this war was about a vendetta. If it was about oil, at least it would have a purpose.

5:36 PM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

I agree. The people who attacked America targeted innocent people. I believe we did the same in Iraq. We can show films of bombing military targets. You simply burn the ones that hit women and children. I have read Arab reports and American reports. They are like night and day. I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. But we are hurting their innocent also.

10:21 PM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

I did call the Oklahoma City bomber a terrorist when I wrote about it years ago. The newspaper sent me there when Timothy McVeigh was executed. Seeing the memorial for the victims changed me. All of these people are terrorists.

10:24 PM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

The United States has ignored torture before. It has done it in African and other places. If human rights is so important why is Castro still in power in Cuba?
I think the main culpret is oil. If we can get the oil hook up then we are all for it.
I read Tom Walsh in the Free Press today. He migh be right. If we can get rid of our oil jones we might be able to move forward.

10:27 PM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

HITMAN,
I am not calling their actions terrorism. I am calling the leaders terrorist. When you are in the army you do as you are told. If I were in the Army I would be doing the same thing. Why isn't it possible to support the troops but not their leaders?
i certainly fall in that category.

10:29 PM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

I remember when Colin Powell showed those slides and said this was Iraq moving weapons of mass distruction. Most of the nation bought it. I did not. I said this could be trucks moving good from Wal-Mart to K-Mart. That did not prove anything. You noticed Powell wised up and got out. He knew he was being made a fool of.

10:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I agree. The people who attacked America targeted innocent people. I believe we did the same in Iraq."

Certainly, innocent people have suffered casualties due to our bombing. But do you really believe we purposely *targeted* innocent people? Or that we are indiscriminately bombing the country without regard? I am not prepared to believe the men & women serving our country are capable of that.

Do you not distinguish between the intentional killing of innocents in terror attacks versus accidental deaths incurred in strategic offenses? Or does intention become irrelevant once someone has been killed?

Please clarify your statement. I'm sure I am reading it wrong, and if so, I apologize.

10:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Knowing that innocent people will die in war is all the more reason to insure war is a last resort.

I think you hit the nail on the head Terry.

We can support the soldiers but not the leaders. The leaders knew how flimsy the basis for war was and still elected to move forward. I understand why many consider that an act of terrorism.

1:55 AM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

I guess my point is this. Why are we in Iraq? And when you bomb a country with missles and bombs you know innocent people are going to get killed.
Are we deliberately trying to kill women and children? No.
But if we stayed at home in the first place on one would be killed or injured.

5:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a tiny detail lost in a far larger debate. But ...

How can someone who works for a major daily newspaper write the headline, "How IS terrorism and freedom fighting different?"

8:32 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

I will defend Terry on the question how can a journalist who works for the so called major daily ( check the circulation numbers are way down ) write such a question? First this is a blog. Governed by nobody other than the writer aka Terry penning his thoughts and we responding and us adding our own two cents. There is no need to be grammatically correct we get the point. I have the caught the Det News make errors as well. Keep on Brother Terry.

9:07 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

billionaire...

I agree with you, a blog is not a newspaper. I often respond out of emotion, and immediately post. When I go back and read my post, I think why didn't I proof read that.

The point is in the message not some minor grammatical error.

I think Terry's reputation and credentials speak for themselves. Quite frankly it is refreshing to see people bring up topics and positions that others won't touch.

10:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kiss his butt all you want, boys.

I write for money myself, and would be profoundly embarrassed to make such a childish gaffe in a public venue. Quality in small matters of your trade ARE how you establish "credentials."

10:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make that, IS how.

See? Embarrassment. The mark of a true professional. :)

10:37 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

It continues to amaze me how people in support of the war have a double standard as it relates to terrorism.

The reaction to the bombings in London are certainly justified, however, many of those that are so appalled by the London terrorist attacks don't even bat an eye to the daily bombings of innocent people in Iraq.

This war has created a state of lawlessness in Iraq where innocent people are dying daily. How many reports of dozens of people being found executed will it take those in favor of this senseless war to treat Iraq casualties with the same grief as people in London.

Perhaps those in favor of the war find concilation in their hidden bias of what a terrorist looks like, or thinking that this war is pay back for 9/11 regardless of innocent life lost.

10:39 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

You certainly don't establish credentials by hiding behind an anonymous identity.

Particularly when you profess to be such an accomplished person in your profession.

Perhaps it is jealousy on your part, or maybe rather than adding substance to the debate you are on that just totes the standard company line.

10:45 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

To anomynous who says " write for money myself, and would be profoundly embarrassed to make such a childish gaffe in a public venue."
How about the columnist who express their views on Television or use Inappropraite language.
You know what Real I agree with you on the folks that sign in as anomynous and hide under that. Granted our names are not real per say but at least we can address each other. Check this double standard you've got Bill Oreilly now trying to say that Europe should now help us out in Iraq because this will help end terrorism. Last I checked terrorism is something that will never be stomped out because you will always people willing to die for what they believe in.

10:55 AM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

billionaire,

That is the funniest thing I have heard today. Bill O'Rielly who couldn't talk enough about how strong the coalition was.

I thought they were satisfied with the strength of the coalition. What a bunch of numb nuts. They change their position at every turn in this "Debacle In Iraq."

11:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was copied from the Metro Times website.


26 million

Population of Iraq

5,000

Estimated number of insurgents in November 2003

16,000

Estimated number of insurgents in May 2005

150,000

Total number of U.S. troops in May 2003

135,000

Total number of U.S. troops in June 2005

74

Number of U.S. troops killed in April 2003

76

Number of U.S. troops killed in June 2005

16

Average number of hours of electricity available each day in March 2004

9.4

Average number of hours of electricity available each day in June 2005

.6 percent

Rate of inflation in July 2004

11.4 percent

Rate of inflation in February 2005

4,500

Estimated prewar number of Internet subscribers

147,076

Estimated number of Internet subscribers in March 2005

0

Number of independent newspapers and magazines prewar

170

Number of independent newspapers and magazines in May 2005

.1

Typical length of gas lines in miles, July 2003

1

Typical length of gas lines in miles, January 2005

17

Percentage of Iraqis who said they support Coalition forces in August 2004

23

Percentage of Iraqis who said they support Coalition forces in February 2005

18

Number of car bombs in June 2004

135

Number of car bombs in May 2005

16

Number of daily attacks by insurgents in July 2002

70

Number of daily attacks by insurgents in May 2005

137

Number of U.S. troops killed before Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003

1,607

Number of U.S. troops killed after Bush declared an end to major combat operations

67.7

Percentage of Iraqis who say they are hopeful for the future

8:50 PM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

Anonymous...

Interesting post.

The last figure is pivotal, if things don't get better and the Iraqis lose hope it will get uglier.

I pray it gets better because a lose of hope would put our troops in a detrimental position.

9:59 PM

 
Anonymous sportsfroma2 said...

Hi, I am sportsfroma2, I used to have blog here but I forgot my password, so Sometimes when I comment, I comment as anonymous or sportsfroma2 when I remember to change it at the bottom.

Anyways, I find it incredibly funny how such an incredible journalist like anonymous over there has time to look a blog of his competitor, then comment on the grammar in it.

IT'S A FREAKING BLOG!

As for embarrasing journalism moments, I still can't get over Don Shane (channel 7 sports director), while having an interview with David Stern during the NBA finals, must've had a major brain fart and called him the wrong name! Instead of "Thanks David", he said like "Thanks Kevin" or something totally wrong. And Don Shane was my favorite sports anchorperon (remember those dare don days?). LOL.

People who complain about the grammar in blogs shouldn't be in blogs in the first place- I don't think BLOG is even a "real" word yet (technically this is a web log, right?) so mister Grammer Expert shouldn't be here anyways.

10:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

T Foster said...

"....But if we stayed at home in the first place (no) one would be killed or injured."

By our hands.

But what about those killed by Hussein's regime? I thought Lone Ranger made a good analogy 50 posts back with his crack house scenario.

Innocent people are dieing, yes, but I believe innocent people would still be dieing had we not invaded. And I believe the opportunity still extists for something good to come out of this for the whole region.

Considering how long conflict has been going on in that region, it's unrealistic (duh) to think it could be resolved with one simple offensive by the US. But doesn't it seem like that's what our government was thinking? My *naive* hope is that Iraq's fledgling democracy will some day take root and spread across the region. By someday, I mean decades & decades from now, well beyond my lifetime. Hey, I'm a dreamer.

11:56 PM

 
Anonymous dream on said...

Anonymous...

A crazed man who fathered an illegitimate baby and also was infamous with his gramatical errors once said something that continues to make sense.

"KEEP HOPE ALIVE"

12:54 AM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

ok let me clean up my headline. I am glad it kept the debate rolling. I guess I will have to be more careful in the future.
But then maybe not. It is fun reading the posts it created.

8:14 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

57 posts wow It goes to show how we are able to recognize what;s real and what is not. Too many anomnynouses. Here is something that hit me. What if GB had backed out of Iraq would they have been hit. Spain got hit and ran but nothing has happened to them since. Is this a case to why we should do what we did in vietnam or should we continue fighting in Iraq. and that is the true dilemna. I am sure our leaders may say things like we will not run and hide to keep Morale high for the troops but I am sure those thoughts have run across there mind. If the Iraqi people loses their trust in us Gameover.

9:10 AM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

wow. i think this is a world record post for a single subject. I am sure some of the Larry Brown and Pistons stuff got up here. This is good. I like this. Lets do it again.

12:01 PM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

My final word on this topic...maybe.

I read an article on Tony Blairs view on terrorism and how to address it.

All I can say is, while I don't agree with everything Blair has said, it is good to hear a leader that can think beyond the entrenchment of the current focus on dealing with terrorism. It is also refreshing to hear a leader clearly articulate the same.

We have reached a point that the Bush administration is so bent on saving face that they value saving embarassment more than protecting our troops and this country.

It's time to quit adapting the justification of going to war as an effort to fight terrorism and really begin to fight it.

1:55 PM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

You know Real I can never tire of commenting on this war because we still have our soldiers fighting in that 120 degree heat. I do agree that Bush and his cronnies aka Fox news needs to stop trying to explain the justifications and folks on the left need to stop bring up the truth that ev1 knows even the right knows as well. I pray that God shows the leadership whatever is his way on this because I am totally lost on a solution and If claims to say they have the key then they are lying. I do wonder if 61 posts is a record on blogspot.

2:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The facts are that is we knew then what we know now, fewer Americans would support the invasion of Iraq. To attempt to draw a connection to Bin Ladin and Sadaam was foolish. One lives in caves and the other lived in palaces. Their approaches to politics were different. One bombed us and is still plotting against us, the other is locked up but his country is now a powder keg because were were incompetent. If we are so noble about protecting the world, lets go into Africa and help.

What would the world be like if we had dedicated ALL of our attention to Afganistan? It is obvious now that Bush had Iraq on his radar screen long befor 911. Our ignorance provided him with the reason to attack a country that was not a threat to us.

The truth is that we are not going to win a war on terror by attacking countries like Iraq. Terrorist do not wear a particular uniform, contrary to popular beliefs do not have a special skin pigmentation, and cannot be defeated by cluster bombs and bunker busters. We need awesome intelligence to bust us terror cells and to define the mission of the culprits.

And yes, we have domestic terrorist like McVeigh, or the individuals who burned crosses on the lawns of a Trenton couple this week, or vandalized a home in Warren. The KKK called themselves Christians and were certainly terrorists, and we did not brand all Christians as hateful people. All people in the Arab world are not a threat. We need to leave Iraq and focus on answering one major question: "Where is Bin Laden?"

3:26 PM

 
Blogger T Foster said...

I am glad someone brought up the Klan. The Klan to me and my ancestors were terrorists. To many others they were freedom fights there to keep white rights high and to degrade and keep the black man down. I guess that was the point of my entire blog.
What is a terrorist?
What is a freedom fighter?
It all depends on what side of the fence you sit on. The United States is a freedom fighter here. Terrorist to others.

6:56 PM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

If we cut and run how will it look world wide. It would be vietnam time ten all over again because folks would say we can't stand the heat I think. I also recognize that it is easy for me to say it considering i am not there suffering through the 120 degree heat. I am not the one who has to sleep with one eye open or be vigilnet 24/ 7 .

9:03 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

I also aggree with your take on the KKK

9:15 AM

 
Blogger billionaire said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:15 AM

 
Anonymous Nathan said...

You'd think that the mothers of all of our political leaders would've taught them two simple rules of life that I think most of our mothers taught us:

Treat others how you want to be treated.

Two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

Simple, but true.

10:02 AM

 
Anonymous Art Regner Imposter said...

Avs = terrorists
Red Wings = freedom fighters

Gooooooo Wings!

2:13 PM

 
Blogger The_Real_Right_Way said...

The London bombers were home grown. I have not seen what they look like, but this certainly backs up my point on the obsession to classify, "terrorist."

It's like the story about the store security guard following some young kids through the store because they fit the stereotypical view of a shoplifter.

In the mean time granny is cleaning them out without any attention.

Along the same lines, we are knee deep in Iraq and the enemy is still plotting against us. In some cases they are operating without obstruction.

1:12 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home