Originally Posted by deedee

According to many politicians and people Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, but in a war, there is no such thing as a terrorist. You will probably ask yourself now:' But what war? There wasn't a war going on before the 9/11 attack,' well that might not be true. According to history there was a war but it was covered up by media and the press. American government is responsible for that day, not by doing it themselves like some people claim, but by lying to their people, and deceiving from them what was really going on. Here are the facts and prove me wrong if I am:

More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (U.S. sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its nation. (This is back from 1996, imagine what the number is now)

The Americans are continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless.

Despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the American - Jewish alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

The aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

The British handed over Palestine, with American help and American support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and America is the leader of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime.

Some of you will probably claim that Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. With that said it is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

Americans attacked Muslims in Somalia; they supported the Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon.

Americans steal their wealth and oil at paltry prices because of their international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

American forces occupy Muslim countries; they spread their military bases throughout them; they corrupt their lands, and they besiege their sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of American pillage of their treasures.

American government has starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of American sanctions, and America did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of American people died, the entire world rose and has not yet sat down.

American government has supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move their embassy there.

These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of American governments oppression and aggression against the people of the Middle East.

You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack penetrate lands of the Middle East. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against the Muslims in the Middle East.

The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack them.

This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against them.

American government used their force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure their interests and profits. The government who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have they carried out? So much for 'freedom.'

However, history will not forget the war crimes that the American government committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those they have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that they will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind them of their latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. They are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of their prisoners through suffocation and thirst. God alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of them and their agents. Their planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into their faces.

All these crimes committed by the Americans were and are a clear declaration of war.

So yes, a war was going on before 9/11 and after that day it has only worsened. In other words, it has gone public. If the American government wanted to 'free' Iraq and it's people then why are millions of them in graves and why are they taking it's riches away from it's people. It is clear that this war has nothing to do with democracy, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This war is a deception to divert from the Jewish occupation of Palestine, and to rob the Iraqi people of all of their natural resources. To weaken the Middle East and get them to accept Israel as a state.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Thanks for proving that you are engaging in "hate America first."

As to the rest of your post try rereading for comprehension:

The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation. ...
www.readycolorado.com/glossary.php

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to ...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

Since the war in Iraq PROVES that the US uses direct confrontation as a matter of (ill conceived) policy the first definition does not apply.

The second is eliminated because the US government is neither a clandestine group nor is it a sub-national group.

The third definition does not apply because the use of force (in Iraq and Afghanistan) is LAWFUL. It's part of an ill conceived and badly implemented policy but it is LAWFUL.

Originally Posted by deedee

You are totally ignoring the facts. Read this more carefully, especially bolded red sentences:

Regarding this:

That's incorrect.
Source: SANCTIONS



So now your claim: , totally diminishes.



Lawful because who says it's lawful? The media?

Originally Posted by deedee

According to many politicians and people Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, but in a war, there is no such thing as a terrorist. You will probably ask yourself now:' But what war? There wasn't a war going on before the 9/11 attack,' well that might not be true. According to history there was a war but it was covered up by media and the press. American government is responsible for that day, not by doing it themselves like some people claim, but by lying to their people, and deceiving from them what was really going on. Here are the facts and prove me wrong if I am:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

You are wrong, and I will address your points in my refutation in detail. In your specious thesis statement you argue: that there is no such thing as a terrorist in a war; that history shows that the attack of September 11, 2001 was an act of war and not an act of terrorism; that the media and the American government are responsible for the attack of September 11, 2001, and by implication other attacks, because they deceived the people about what was “going on. You then proceed to make an unfounded allegation that the war is somehow connected to some vast, covert, American-Jewish agenda, and proceed to attempt to exculpate the attacks by alleging they are justified as a form of “de-facto self defense” predicated by previous American wrongdoing.

The argument that the attack of 9/11 was an act of war, and not an act of terrorism, requires that there be some common understanding the respective terms. To that end it is first necessary to understand the terminology being used. A state of war is said to exist when one or more nation states enter into a state of hostilities. This condition may be the result of a formal declaration of war or through some other lawful means, such as the Authorization to use military force. The, generally accepted, definition of war is “an armed, large scale, organized conflict between countries or nations. These conflicts, traditionally, involve military units that are deemed lawful combatants under the Geneva conventions.

While the media has popularized the use of the term “war” in other contexts, such as the “war on poverty”, the term is actually being misapplied to refer to an organized, long term, program to address a problem that is popularly viewed as being injurious to society. The media has also, incorrectly, used the term “war” to refer to sectarian conflicts. It is then possible to posit the following question: if, the definition of war requires a declared or undeclared condition of hostilities between nation-states, and it additionally requires that the participants be lawful combatants, then can a state of war exist between the United States and Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden? Since, by definition, neither Al Queda nor Osama Bin Laden meet the criteria, (they are neither nations nor lawful combatants) no state of war can be said to exist between the United States and these entities. Thus the argument that the attack of 9/11 was justified by a pre-existing state of war is false.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

The argument that the attack of 9/11 was an act of war, and not an act of terrorism, requires that there be some common understanding the respective terms. To that end it is first necessary to understand the terminology being used. A state of war is said to exist when one or more nation states enter into a state of hostilities. This condition may be the result of a formal declaration of war or through some other lawful means, such as the Authorization to use military force. The, generally accepted, definition of war is “an armed, large scale, organized conflict between countries or nations. These conflicts, traditionally, involve military units that are deemed lawful combatants under the Geneva conventions.

While the media has popularized the use of the term “war” in other contexts, such as the “war on poverty”, the term is actually being misapplied to refer to an organized, long term, program to address a problem that is popularly viewed as being injurious to society. The media has also, incorrectly, used the term “war” to refer to sectarian conflicts. It is then possible to posit the following question: if, the definition of war requires a declared or undeclared condition of hostilities between nation-states, and it additionally requires that the participants be lawful combatants, then can a state of war exist between the United States and Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden? Since, by definition, neither Al Queda nor Osama Bin Laden meet the criteria, (they are neither nations nor lawful combatants) no state of war can be said to exist between the United States and these entities. Thus the argument that the attack of 9/11 was justified by a pre-existing state of war is false.

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

Do you argue that our invasion of Iraq was an act of terrorism? I see it as just that.
It fits the pure definition of the word "Terrorism".

Originally Posted by johnlocke

No. It is an ill conceived and poorly implemented war of choice. The reason it's not terrorism is that it does not meet the criteria FOR terrorism. The invasion was lawful (even though it was the wrong enemy, at the wrong place, at the wrong time). The invasion was a state of hostilities between countries using an organized and recognized military (lawful combatants.)

Originally Posted by johnlocke

If no state of war can be said to exist, between the United States and Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden, then the next question arises, specifically does the attack of 9/11 constitute an act of terrorism? Once again it is, first, necessary to define the term being discussed. Research, on the world-wide-web discloses the following definition for terrorism: “ The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” terrorism: Definition and Much More from Answers.com The question, then, arises: Does the attack of 9/11 meet the definition of terrorism? The answer is an unqualified yes.

The attack of 9/11 is a terrorist act because it is unlawful in nature. The principals and their agents seized, or caused to be seized, aircraft by means of coercion, fear and intimidation (hijacking). This hijacking was done with the specific intent of causing the planes to be used as weapons that would be used against the World Trade Center (WTC), the Pentagon building, and other targets. The primary effect of such usage would be to cause the murder of persons, both on board the aircraft and at the designated targets. Further, the complexity and timing of the actions, necessary to successfully perform the attack, is indicative of pre-meditation and conspiracy to commit crimes, both of which are unlawful. Thus the attack of 9/11 meets the criteria for being a criminal act and thus is not an act of war.

Although the attack of 9/11 was criminal in nature, the question arises: Was it the specific intent of the principals and agents to influence the policies of the United States government and to coerce and intimidate American society for ideological or political reasons? The answer to this question is yes. On November 11, 2001 Osama Bin Laden made a statement, to the media, in which he claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11/2001. “In the video, bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml

Bin Laden continues on December 26, 2001by saying “"Our terrorism against the United States is worthy of praise to deter the oppressor so that America stop its support for Israel…” the intent being to allegedly change the political policies of the United States and to coerce and intimidate the American people for ideological reasons. Timeline: the Osama bin Laden tapes | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited Since this is, in legal parlance, “a statement against interest” there is EVERY reason to believe it to be true and little reason to discount it. Thus, by the admission of one of the principals, the attack of 9/11 was ALWAYS intended to be an act of terrorism. Given that both the stated intent and the effect were to engage an unlawful act which would coerce and intimidate Americans for ideological and political reasons the attack of 9/11 is properly classified as an act of terror.