the hero in the common man!

seeing the unrest and the terrible condition our world is in, the power stays in us and us only. the tragedy that struck in the form of 9/11 in new york, march 11 2004 in madrid, jul 7 2005 in london and now jul 11 in mumbai, it only goes to show that the real tenacity to live and to bounce back come what may only lies in the common men!

the resilience to bring life back to normal, to move on despite a regular threat everywhere we all are facing, the only factor that keeps us all go on is the brave will power to live on in us. kudos to the power of the hero in all of us. my heart goes out for everyone who suffered tragically in these terror acts.

Whoa there! If I can just bring a couple of things up? Pop me down the date of the Lockerbie disaster. Then factor in the Omagh bombings. Maybe even, for good measure, the Birmingham pub bombings. I could go on...

The big problem with terrorism is not with how it is carried it out, but with WHY. I hear so much talk of how terrorists are "just jealous of our freedom" out of the corner of the same mouth that says "they hate freedom". I'm sorry, but it can't be both, and yet once we're in the grip of the terror we don't seem willing to address the actual cause of it; we're happy to keep believing the corners of our mouth.

An act of terror does not provide shock value. An act of terror is done as an act of faith from a perspective we are in opposition to. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and the act of sacrificing one's own life in the name of a cause is no different for the misguided and brainwashed teenager driving a car full of explosives in Basra than for the pilot firing rockets into a refugee camp in Nablus.

Terrorism keeps us is fear. Which is right where our governments want us: Peace is security. War is terrorism.

Security is an illusion...
Terrorist = Freedom Fighter (Absolutely!)

Surely the question, rather than why which asks for justification, is what causes people, common or otherwise, to engage in acts of violence against the status quo?
Hmm, Ed, whilst I agree with you on most points... 'misguided and brainwashed'; according to whom exactly?

If the violence is against the recognised regime then it is described as slaughter/massacre etc... however if the violence is directed against a so called insurgent group the description transforms to victory etc...

Who are the brainwashed?

Anyone who drives a car of explosives into a group of people living their lives is misguided. According to who? According to the victims. Anyone who is willing to believe that violence will go any further to furthering humanity from any socio-political perspective is brainwashed. We have been killing, torturing and mutilating each other in the name of politics, religion, and territory for thousands upon thousands of years. It has solved nothing. We are no further away from the caves than Og was when he first hit Zog with a rock over a place closer to the fire.

On the website I run I am currently watching a topic where a number of right-wing leaning customers are whooping it up over the invasion of Beirut. I am just waiting for that one step too far towards typically Bush-based brainwashing before I hand out suspensions.

So then example. What are the guys in Checheny. Freedom fighters or terrorists? Russia considers them a terrorists. USA partly too, but just to justify their cause against their terrorists.
There is an objective view on all cases? No, Because each and every have to be looked from their particular situation - starting from the place and cause.

Freedom is a very hard thing to pin down, and freedom seems to be what most people are interested in killing and dying for. Chechen is weird. I went looking for their economic policy online a while ago. You know: so if they SHOULD gain independence by butchering people I could figure out how they will survive as an independent state. Oddly enough they have NO economic policy. Not one made public anyway. And let's face it, you can find anything online.

I look at it like this though: If someone came into my home, ate all my food, called me every name under the sun and tried to screw my wife and abuse my kids I would be kneeling on their chest smashing their face in so fast you'd think they were a drumkit.

:-)

If you would compare Chechnian rebels with American rebels then you're a little misguided.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9181/

Read ALL of that article first.

No freedom fighter would ever kill 200+ children (300 total civilian deaths in 3 days) in the act of freeing their region.

Washington was not regarded as a terrorist though the tactics of the American rebels were considered highly ungentlemanly. There is a huge difference between shooting officers with guerilla tactics and holding families hostage with demands that no one could deliver.

By England I would think you actually meant the United Kingdom, where there are still over 150 active terrorists in Northern Ireland. Not just the IRA (and their many many splinter groups) but also on the other side of the coin, the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force) and UFF (Ulster Freedom Fighters ironically enough fighting to keep their land free of Republican tyranny).

I had the misfortune of being in Derby when Sgt. Mike Newman was killed in '92. I was in the Coliseum pub around the corner from the careers office where the INLA killed him. We were kept there for 4 hours by armed police, apparently for our own protection. Earlier in '88 I had been stopped at the gate of the RAF base I was attending as a senior cadet corporal in the Air Training Corps at gunpoint while my car was checked for explosives. Terrifying moments.

Yet I don't know terror like the terror of oppression. And for that I am thankful.

As for American independence: different ballgame. If you put the same desire and commitment that the Americans had into the technological scenario of modern day Earth I have absolutely no doubt that what you would have is something almost identical to the current Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Seriously Ed, by your last definition of freedom fighting vs. terrorist, you just put every country on the side of terrorist.

No freedom fighter would ever kill 200+ children (300 total civilian deaths in 3 days) in the act of freeing their region
^^
No it gets worse than that when you start looking at the bigger scale "freedom fighters." The U.S. and all its allies in Iraq have killed boatloads more than 300 civilians. But the kicker is this. They're not doing it in an act of freeing their region. They are in a region that doesn;t belong to them. They are the power that the people in that region are trying to kick out, yet they are in there in th ename of fredom. God Bless them and their efforts. ( note the sarcasm). The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is history. You win then you're a freedom fighter because you get to write the history. You lose you are a terrorist because someone else is writing the history. Ho Chi Min (forgive spelling) was considered a terrorist type person into the U.S. in the 60s and 70s, but he Vietnamese loved him, idolized him. He was and still is a hero because he helped drive out all the foreign powers. He was a freedom fighter, even in the U.S. eyes he was. Why? Because he won.

well i couldn't agree more but we can't choose to ignore, infact the truth we have been in ignorance of, that the common man is the only one who suffers, the one torn in this political fiasco of the so called democracy and the ferocious attempt to establish peace. its foolish and downright scary to even feel that one could force one's idea of peace and developing freedom over another at the cost of several deaths, mostly innocent and not at all related to this on going war on terrorism.

we need to be honest and a little restrained in what amounts to be a response to the unrest those anti social elements have created. actually, that's what those organisations want... chaos and people running over each other and being this insane in our quest to find and bring the culprits to justice, all we merely end up doing is harming the basic principle of humanity- that is to be there for the innocent men. to protect them and establish peace for them. we are seriously off track.

Dwelt, I am so glad you brought up the Indians. If we look back into history with what the U.S. did to them, we find Andrew Jackson ttrying to tear apart some of the basic freedoms America had established in his so called christian manifest destiny. If one does research on him, then looks at bush, they'll see eye popping similarities. And undoubtedly these two are the worst presidents America has ever had.

And really, think of this. The common man is the only one who really comes close to terrorism.. It is the common man who acts out terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, but he never does anything himself. He always has other people do it for him, and he is not a common man. There is no way a billionaire can be considered a common man.

Common men hijacked planes, common people died form those hijacked planes. Think of it. Victims of terrorists and terrorists themselves are always common people. Why? cause non-common people (millionaires, billionaires, leaders of countries or terrorist cells, etc) can get the common man to do their bidding. They all know it is better to have someone die for you than die yourself. Yes thank goodness for the common man, but realize they're just pawns, on both sides.

Arunima, you're so right. If each country spent the effort to better themselves that they do trying to "fix" everybody else, then we would have one big garden of eden.

Outstanding post Cory. It's because the common man is common of thought, that the few who rule the many, can get away with such things as war by using them in their ignorance.

dwelt, as a retired soldier I'll reserve my words here. Everyone I've ever fought with upheld a little thing called the Geneva Convention. That's what separates us from so called freedom fighters. I don't think you'll see any National army holding a school full of children hostage any time soon. I don't think you'll see them blowing up pubs and clubs full of civilians during peak hours or blowing themselves up in planes, trains or automobiles.

Sure, civilians get caught in the crossfire, are targeted accidentally and sometimes, get hit along side military tagets. It's called human error, not human intention.

Thanks for putting people like me who fought and still fight for your safety in the same stead as Bin Laden, Al Zaqarwi, Bobby Sands, James McDade etc. But you know, we're puppets following orders, not people doing our best to keep our respective countries safe.

Do you have any idea how it would feel to kill a non-combatant or a friendy in blue on blue? I bet it will feel a lot worse than blowing up kids in a school with intent.

Bobby Sands: Anyone who organises a bomb designed to kill people without warning is a terrorist (or if you really want to say it, freedom fighter). Ok, evidence was dismissed but he still had a firearm on his possession proven to have been used in a shooting on police. He was an active member of the IRA and became their martyr after he starved himself to death.

I've seen first hand an IRA terrorist released because a fellow soldier said he had used an AK 47. It was an AK 74 and therefore he was released. Does it make him innocent? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

I know Ireland, I served there.

The actions of the rapists is outrageous and I've stated somewhere already that I'd have them shot. The actions of three or four should not represent the actions of hundreds of thousands.

Brett, did you know that even though you are onorable and only follow orders that are given to protect and serve many of those orders break the geneva convention. I don't know all of the things the U.K. has done to break the treaties made during the Geneva Convention but I know of some the U.S. has done. Here is a few.

1. Using depleted uranium as armor piercing missiles to attank tanks and such. It has been outlawed to use nuclear weaopns of such sort; however the U.S. and its allies are using these in Iraq right now.

2. Chemical weapons were also outlawed all together, but guess what, they were sold and used by the U.S. on numerous occasions. Agent Orange ring a bell

3. The whole thing about allowing troops to come into direct contact wiht such chemical weapons is against U.S. law. So much so that our government denied having any troops coming into contact with Agent Orange. Also, the so called saving pills troops took during Desert Storm to combat against Saddam's chemical weapons were never approved. They caused more damage in the long run than ever doing any good. I'm pretty sure the U.S. ha laws against untested drugs that haven't been approved.

I could go on and on. Point is, even your orders are faulty. I could give you some of the orders that soldiers in Iraq were given to prove my point later, but right now I am off to play some board games.

Bret: Kudos to you for coming through the Irish tour though. When I was an air cadet on camp one of our officers found out his brother had been blown up there. If I remember correctly it was a bike with a mercury-switched tube of explosives that did for him. Just one of the many horrific boobtraps that didn't get a lot of press attention.

When I put my name down for active service in '87 (bearing in mind I would have been RAF) Ireland was 3rd on my list behind Germany and Belize! :-)

Someone argued with me recently that what made Islamic bombers worse was that they left no warnings, but what people (largely Americans -sorry but it's true) forget is that most of the attacks on pro-British activity in Northern Ireland went unannounced.

Anyway...

The British are moving a warship into the area to "possibly evacuate British civilians". Ahhh, nice. Sorry, but the cynic in me sees it being "rocketed by Hamas and Hezbollah" and ending up as casevac and ground support.

dwelt, I fail to see where the oppression was. The Army was only sent in to stop the infighting between Irish and Irish on Irish soil. I has been Northern Ireland for centuries (1801) and will be so for many centuries to come. The only oppression was in his head.

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot. there were many a scheduled beating of all Irish within British boarders.

Apologies for the sarcasm, I'll drop a few punts into the pot on my next trip.

Yes, Bret, but what you fail to realize is the Irish don't mind fighting against each other as they do with occupation by a foreign power. Just like Iraq right now. Yes they fight amongst themselves, but they will gladly team up to kick out a foreign power trying to rule their country. Why? Because they want to handle their country in their own way. Do you think Ireland would still be at war with each other if they had gotten their own country a long time ago. Guess what? nobody knows, why? Becuase it never happened. Whether civil war stops or not is up to the country. But people will never stop trying to fight to kick out foreign powers. History has taught us this over and over again, yet we don't seem to learn.

Corey, do you really believe I know nothing about Ireland and it's occupation by the British over the last six hundred years? My point was that the situation had settled and escalated back and forth over a long time and it wasn't politics or borders in the end, it was religion under the guise of politics and borders. How many protestant Irishmen were on the side of the IRA?

Dwelt and I may disagree on the subject but we know what we're talking about. I'd still buy him a pint of the black stuff.

The position on government whilst in service is (and should be) right or wrong, my country. The choices of the US government have been near on maniacal in my opinion when it comes to the middle east, but the troops are there and I'll back them to the hilt.

People always state the Oil thing, but it's not really that. When it comes to Bush its one very simple thing: finishing what daddy started. Everyone thinks Bush is a psycho-nut-nut but often for the wrong reasons.

Bret, not about oil, where have you been. Finishing what daddy started, and what did daddy start?

Daddy started a fued over oil. Think of desert storm, what did we do in there. Nothing. WE were asked to come in only if we took out saddam hussein. WE went in all right, but failed to uphold our end of the deal. We went in and stationed our troops around the oil fields. That is all we did, protect the oil fields. That is what George Bush did and now his son is doing the same thing. It is like the old saying goes, you want ot find who is behind everything you follow the money. Guess where the money leads to: oil. Guess who has there dirty little paws in oil, George Bush.

ok, so it's oil?

Cost of Iraq rebuilding project: $100 billion. (not including any monies spent on garrisoning troops or general cost of war which is already over $300 billion)

Crude oil

Daily oil production worldwide: 68 million barrels

Daily Iraq oil output: 2.5 million barrels, a whopping 1.7% of global daily output.

Daily US oil output: 5.4 million barrels (7.5 million including refinery grain for E85)

Top sources of US imported oil: Canada (1.61 million bbl/d); Mexico (1.59 million bbl/d); Saudi Arabia (1.48 million bbl/d); Venezuela (1.29 million bbl/d); Nigeria (1.09 million bbl/d)

Iraq doesn't even make the top 5 of the list that gives oil to the States.

How much oil does the the States get from Iraq?

444,000 (four hundred and forty four thousand) barrels per day.

So, if oil is the reason for attack, why not just invade Venezuela or any of the other third world south American countries that are in the same hemisphere and therefore easier to use for oil importation?

links:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5117170.stm

http://www.solcomhouse.com/usenergy.htm

You've slipped into a trap Bret. You've categorized Iraq's production as a seperate entity to the whole. Economically it doesn't work like that. Remember on the news the other day when they reported oil prices had dropped to a 12 month low? The reason: increased production in Iraq. It is not about the independent production of any nation, it is about the reserve available as a marketable commodity.

Plus, with your references to the costs of the war you are ignoring (perhaps deliberately?) the economic gains of the investment groups behind the US arms industry - an oft-forgotten factor in gauging the viability and cost certainly of certain global functions, of which war is obviously the top priority.

I know exactly what you mean, fella.

I was just pointing out the black and white oil thing that consumes Corey so much as the sole reason for war. In your reply you inadvertantly (perhaps deliberately? *grins*) backed my argument for it not being about oil.

I guess my point is that war has always been economically viable. The best example of this being WWII.

Bret, if you kept up better with our president then you would know that when he was elected for the first term of office, not more than a few months in, oil was discovered in a south American country, and within two weeks U.S. troops were stationed in that country near the oil fields. These things do not make the news because they are hushed. Haliburton is suppose to get the contract to rebuild Afghanistan and run massive pipelines through it. Pipelines for what? What does a middle eastern country offer that would possibly need massive pipelines that the U.S. would be interested in?

Dwelt is absolutely right. Control. You control supple then you control price. Right now we control supply in several countries not our own. A few happen to be in South America. Afghanistan is another, Iraq is another.

Your whole argument that Bush is finishing what daddy started is not true. It has nothing to do with what daddy started. Daddy really didn't start anything with Saddam or Iraq. We merely used Saddam as a pawn to do what we wanted to in Kuwait. Look into it. We could have done anything in Iraq we wanted to but Bush sr. didn't choose to.

Dwelt, one of those ten motives you mentioned is to focus everybody's attention onto Iraq while he tries to strip individuals of some of there freedoms given by the constitution. He is using the whole Iraq and terrorist thing to do it too. He is also using it to give more power to his own office and big government. My point, is that George Bush is a giant frickin terrorist himself. He is a terrorist to his own country, and we are too busy concentrating on other things that we don't see it.

Wasn't that from "The Usual Suspects" in reference to Kaiser Sousa?

Corey, I tend to look beyond what one man is doing, even if he's being used, and look at what the world is doing.

It may be about oil, it may not be about finishing what daddy started (which as you admitted was getting the toe-hold in the middle east in the first place) but it certainly is about control.

It's about control and power. I would start the whole Israel thing (because gaining ground and deploying troops in the middle east protects Israel), but that gets highly religious in its background and reasoning and there's the whole separation of church and state crap...

dwelt, movie wise the devil quote is from The Usual Suspects which was released 6 years before and used subsequently after in Exit Wounds. And it's a far better film.

I knew the quote was old as dirt, but didn't have the energy to google it, hence my qualifying movie wise statement.

Israel is a mess. 'nuff said.

Anyone know who it was that said Israel would've worked out OK if they'd put it in California?

Oy vey!

No, seriously fella... it was an American comedian. Not Lewis Black, but someone Jewish. Maybe it was Jon Stewart.

It'd rock if it was me, but for all my efforts I swear I am just not that visionary!