akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
If they attack us on our home soil, then yes, there really is no question about it that they are acting as a terrorist.
But to claim that anyone is a radical and extreme terrorist who attacks foreign soldiers on their soil who have destroyed much of their country and many of the people close to them in an "attempt" to liberate that country is taking a simplistic view of the situation. I am not saying the people in that foreign country should attack the foreign soldiers, but I can understand why they do it.
I'll just give an example. Say China helped us dethrone a dictator who had taken control of our government. But in the process China had destroyed a great deal of our land, and killed millions of innocent Americans while trying to depose the dictator. And then after that was all over they left troops here for a decade. Sometimes the troops would accidentally kill a bunch of innocent Americans while trying to root out any of the remaining followers of the dictator. Do you think Americans would hold it against other Americans who shot some Chinese troops who had killed their families or blew up some of the Chinese troops vehicles in an attempt to get them to leave? Are they terrorists?
|
I would... and yes i'd consider those Americans terrorists.
Since they would assumingly be keeping the troops here via the support of our now democratically elected government. (Since this is an Iraq paralel.)
If they kept troops here after the government told them to get out. Then we'd have a problem.
Until then they are no different then our own soldiers accidently killing our own people in the defense of our lands. Accidents happen sometimes.
|
That's perfectly fair, and they are terrorists, I agree. I can understand why those people would resent the foreign troops though and feel it was their duty to attack them, especially if they felt their very culture was threatened by the occupying foreign force.
I am not condoning terrorism, I just think it is actually an effective means of counter-terrorism to understand why those people would commit terrorist acts in the first place and that bridging the cultural gap can be just as important as suppressing the insurgents in terms of long term recovery and maintaining stability in a country. Even the military knows that, and if they forget it they are failing to do their job properly.
|
I wouldn't. I would think those Americans would be unreasonable. After all they wouldn't be an occupying force since they would leave whenever our government felt we didn't need their help. That makes them allied troops stationed in our lands. Not an occupying force.
I mean... I know why hinkly shot Regean too.. it doesn't really make any difference though.
When the options are "a few extremists hate the army protecting us" or "general chaos, disorder and anarachy throws out country into a third world civil war."
I don't see how it makes a difference.
