This is getting ridiculous - American troops now called terrorists

[RJF]

I haven't served in the military, but this pisses me off.

This is one of those “John Kerry Said What” moments:

Sen. KERRY: Let me–I–first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush’s policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he’s doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn’t been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.’ That’s the president’s policy, which hasn’t been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don’t agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you’ve got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You’ve got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not…


http://64.34.217.22/~politeen/video/kerrysaidwhat.wmv

[anthony240]

now i'm not political so i will give this my honest point of view.

after 9/11, the term "terrorist" has been used alot, so much so that it is now a political term. it was used to identify the bastards that ruin it for everybody. it was a term given by whoever started it, either Bush or the media, i dunno. it is used to indicate someone is a terrorist (noun)

now terrorist is also an adjective, used to describe a person/thing that terrorizes, brings FEAR to those he/she terrorizes.

a bully is a terrorist, a rabid dog is a terrorist, the monster in the closet is a terrorist. yes i'm serious.

I think Kerry either used the word "terrorizing" to indicate a point that will draw attention, or he's telling the truth about how he really feels. There are other words that could've been used, but it seems like he used that particular word to draw attention.

in my opinion, when he said terrorizing, i didn't immediately think that he's categorizing our soldiers the same as the real terrorists. but he left that shit wide open.

[SimpleSexy180]

in my opinion i dont think he was calling the troops terrorist in the same way. its like anthony said its to draw attention.

[RJF]

So, draw attention to our troops and possibly get more of them killed?

You don't think that clip will be played on Al Jezeera.

Our troops terrorizing Iraqi children

[theicecreamdan]

People in positions like his need to be VERY careful about what they say... this is one of those instances where he wasn't. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

[ALTRNTV]

He's just bitter that he didn't get elected.

[420sx]

you fell a victim to a political game. need an anti-political q-tip for this one.

[unwed_transient]

the problem is that democrats are all running around like their heads have been cut off. on one hand, you have the committee chair claiming the war in unwinnable, a veterna senator calling for immediate withdrawal of troops with the minority leader backing him up. now there's everyone else in the middle trying to come up with the statements that won't piss off their constituency and jeopardize re-election. Kerry, who has always gauged which was the wind was blowing, tried to follow the popular democratic consensus, or at least what his speech writers thought was the popular democratic consensus. not to worry though, by friday he'll do a press conference and say the opposite of what he said here. what can he say? he's a politician.

[Phlip]

I am disagreeing with you on this one, Bob... The difference in implied meaning is in the context of the statement being made. "Terrorized" had a different meaning before the word was trivialized, overused and dragged through the fucking mud.

Look at it this way: For a point of comparison, look up the word "terrorize," and then place yourselves into the shoes of one of these children being described in the statement. When taking the word in it's very meaning and in the context, as it applied to what was being described in Senator Kerry's statement, I do not see any reference to US troops as "terrorists," as we have come to understand a terrorist to be, just as individuals who have scared a few people in the course of doing what they are commissioned to do.

[unwed_transient]

Originally Posted by PHLIP

I am disagreeing with you on this one, Bob... The difference in implied meaning is in the context of the statement being made. "Terrorized" had a different meaning before the word was trivialized, overused and dragged through the fucking mud.

Look at it this way: For a point of comparison, look up the word "terrorize," and then place yourselves into the shoes of one of these children being described in the statement. When taking the word in it's very meaning and in the context, as it applied to what was being described in Senator Kerry's statement, I do not see any reference to US troops as "terrorists," as we have come to understand a terrorist to be, just as individuals who have scared a few people in the course of doing what they are commissioned to do.

I don't believe the word has been trivialized at all. Terrorism is a very real aspect of the modern world. It has become a very politically charged term, as we can see from bob's post. However, understanding the context of the word "terror" and what it has come to represent today, Kerry should have chosen his words more carefully.

[MEisGQ]

^
democrats only? you mean all politicians? republicans included. If you want to define terrorists as the type of people that we are fighting then yes, Americans are terrorists too... every last one of us. Regarding the drawing more attention post... How much more attention can they get? Troops are all over Iraq with Hummers and m16s. They're bound to get hit regardless.

[bobby2da3rd]

lets see, how many civilian deaths since the start of the war? I think i'd be terrified.

[airsoft]

How much do we know are actual civilians not partaking in terrorist activity?

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?

The world my never know.

[bobby2da3rd]

whatever the number is, i think we can both agree it would scare to live there, of both terrorists or foreign troops..

[unwed_transient]

Originally Posted by MEisGQ

^
democrats only? you mean all politicians? republicans included. If you want to define terrorists as the type of people that we are fighting then yes, Americans are terrorists too... every last one of us. Regarding the drawing more attention post... How much more attention can they get? Troops are all over Iraq with Hummers and m16s. They're bound to get hit regardless.

No, republicans seem to be more united regarding the war than democrats. American soldiers are not terrorists. Their goal is not to instill fear in the Iraqi people to achieve a political end, nor do I think it Bush's goal to run around scaring the shit out of everyone (although if you can imagine Bush physically running around scaring kids by making wierd faces or saying unintelligible nonsense, it would be kind of funny). Besides, most scholars agree terrorism can only be commited by non-state actors.

[TurDz]

Originally Posted by airsoft

How much do we know are actual civilians not partaking in terrorist activity?

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?

The world my never know.

...because of f*ckin news censorship/manipulation in almost all news broadcast and publications.

[Drifter757]

This is the stupidest thread I have ever seen in 9 years of web surfing.

[steve shadows]

your the dumbest sn i have ever seen since i first farted after comnig in your mom

[dct223]

all i have to say is that, dispite the freedom of press and what not, the news we see here in the US is extremely censored, especially the stuff on iraq... Go to another country and you will see another side of it.

we only see the good side of the war, not the "collateral damage" because of it.

[sykikchimp]

you KNOW that Kerry did not call the troops "terrorists"

This has been a very common republican distraction tactic for some time now. Smoke and mirrors... Don't look over here at all the FUCK UPS we've made becaue of horrible decision making by incompetent leaders.. lets take ONE WORD from ONE pretty much neutered senator and blow it COMPLETELY out of proportion while demonizing an entire party.

rediculous how frivilous you republicans are.

if even 1 republican showed a glimmer of sensitivity by focusing on things that actually matter, hell would freeze over.

[420sx]

terrorising someone doesnt automatically make someone "a terrorist" in the kind of sence that you are interpreting. people dont be so narrow minded. there is more than one meaning to that word, besides meaning a militant, and just to say those other meanings have many sinonyms like disturbing, bothering, harassing.

[axiomatik]

Sterotypical republican tactic: "Let's take this one word out of context, distort its meaning and blow it completely out of proportion, then we'll get 40 people on national tv condemning the person for using that one word!"

Kerry, 08/05/2005, speaking to conference of minority journalists:
"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Cheney, 08/12/2005, ridiculing Kerry:
"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive,"

Bush, 08/06/2005, speaking to same group Kerry spoke to:
"Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is—we need to be very sensitive on that."

That's funny, why didn't Cheney ridicule Bush for saying we need to be sensitive about how we fight terrorists?

And that link to Limbaugh's site is just asinine. Kerry didn't say that American troops have done nothinggood in Iraq. If those pictures were completely representative of interactions between troops and civilians, all the troops would be doing in Iraq is giving out flowers and hugs. As the Bush administration is quick to point out, we are in a war, and in a war, civilians will be scared by the military, especially when they can't communicate. A friend of mine from high school and my cousin have both done tours in Iraq, and guess what, they didn't spend the whole time there hugging kids.

[dct223]

i couldnt have said it any better

[Cashizslick]

Originally Posted by bobby2da3rd

lets see, how many civilian deaths since the start of the war? I think i'd be terrified.

Terrorists are civilians too. Its either us or them; i say let em fry.

[kazuo]

Hey, RJF, reading comprehension.

He obviously wasn't referring to American troops as "terrorists," in the way that most people associate "terrorist" with suicide bombers and the like, nor did he say the word "terrorist" specifically.

He said terrorizing.

If I say my little cousins are running around my room, breaking shit and being obnoxious and irritating, essentially terrorizing me, does that mean I am calling my little cousins terrorists?

I'd call American soldiers, breaking into the homes of Iraqi citizens in the middle of the night, looking for shit that may or may not be there, terrorizing them.

No, now stfu with your fucking right wing republican bullshit, always looking for every opportunity to piss on liberal America, and anyone else who doesn't agree with your blind follow the leader lemming ass opinion, for that matter.

Grow up

[420sx]

yes. i suggest a revolution and new United Socialistic Republics of America

[FaLKoN240]

I realize that this is an off topic forum. People have different political parties, and different beliefs.

But Nitpicking and pointing fingers at politicians from other parties is a very low tactic. His statement came out of the idea that we are disturbing the Iraqi's former way of life by occupying their living space; while waging war on those whom we disagree with.

I agree that America should stay and finish what they've started. To avoid another desert storm incident. BUT I do agree that being there for so long is unneccesary. I lost a friend in this war, and it fucking sucks. But just packing up and leaving is not the solution.

[Buttasc0ttch]

screw democrats, look at how they handled the Rwanda situation back in 1994. Allowing another holocaust to happen after so many jews were persecuted, and than stating that they would never let it happen again, when it did, thats F'd up.

[airsoft]

welp, thats politics for yah

[bobby2da3rd]

Originally Posted by Cashizslick

Terrorists are civilians too. Its either us or them; i say let em fry.

hahaahaha, you were joking right?