Let's start with something as simple as the Boston Tea Party. If that wasn't an act of terrorism then I don't know what it would be classified as. Then, in the beginning of the war, the revolutionaries used more or less tactics that "terrorists" in Iraq are currently using. That is, inflicting as much psychological and physical damage with the least amount of casualties. Only when the ground was a little more fair, still not too advantageous of the States, did true battles start and cheap tactics ended.

Of course, the history books from the US would never tell you that, bu that's to be expected. As I stated, terrorism depends on a person's Point of View.

Thinking this way, every form of civil disobiedience for national reason or uprising can be seen as act of terrorism. I agree with majority of freedom fighters (the ones with realistic cause, and support of their people), people have a cardinal right to self determination.

What i dont agree is bunch of ridicilous religious loons, pissed off on a whole world because it is not shaped in the way they would want it. 

Thinking this way, every form of civil disobiedience for national reason or uprising can be seen as act of terrorism. I agree with majority of freedom fighters (the ones with realistic cause, and support of their people), people have a cardinal right to self determination.

What i dont agree is bunch of ridicilous religious loons, pissed off on a whole world because it is not shaped in the way they would want it. 

That's exactly what I'm saying. You say freedom fighters, they say terrorists.

Also I'm guessing that there are freedom fighters because they don't feel their world is not shaped the way they want it. Their inspiration was probably not religiously inspired, but the initiative remains.

I'm also willing to bet my left nut that if the religious fanatics in the US weren't fat and lazy they'd be right there killing Muslims, at least by the sound of it.

But they dont, i dont like any form of religious extreme but they dont even use similar rhetoric, they dont spread hate of other people, nor they trying to blame everyone else for their situation. 

And i agree "with one mans freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" but you cannot group all of them toghether. 

That's exactly what I'm saying. You say freedom fighters, they say terrorists.

Also I'm guessing that there are freedom fighters because they don't feel their world is not shaped the way they want it. Their inspiration was probably not religiously inspired, but the initiative remains.

I'm also willing to bet my left nut that if the religious fanatics in the US weren't fat and lazy they'd be right there killing Muslims, at least by the sound of it.

Watch Jesus Camp and come back and tell me that the fanatics in the US don't spread hate towards other people. Be prepared for a shock.

I can group all of them together easily. In fact, I just did. Just because you think some are different desn't change the fact that they are not. bjectively it always comes down to a smaller entity fighting a larger entity. That's it, not freedom fighters nor terrorists, but a smaller entity trying to gain more power by fighting a larger entity. Anything beyond that is your own subjective opinion, which is no more valid than the person who thinks of terroists as freedom fighters.

So in your opinion people that took part in Budapest Uprising of 1956 or Prague's Spring in 1968 are terrorist? People that tried to act against the most oppresive regime ever created, going against the soviet control puppet establishment? There are huge differences, you have to look at the context of every situation not just assume universal definition of terrorism.

@kasz216

Ok no proof but atleast some indication. But I still think that a government like USA shouldnt be tricked by anyone. Maybe the CIA is not as powerful as I thought. But even if he made it seem that he had Weapons of Massdestruction why the hell they just care in Iraq ? North Korea has them and nothing happens.

The USA said yes to the rules of the UN but the UN said there is not enough evidence for a war but the USA proced further. And even the US citizens think it was a mistake. And the USA is the leading Country in the world and want to stand for freedom democrazy and human rights. They are ofcourse measured completly different then a country like Iraq . They are the leader and have responsibilitys and they have to be BETTER then the rest of the world. The US superiority was always a moralic superirority atleast until the Vietnam war.


I think what vlad meant it was basically a terrorism against UK it was per definition really terrorism even if the motivation was another one.

I obviously dont agree with such a statement but i think Iraq war was a huge mistake and USA will have to pay long enough for it because it heated on terrorism and not calmed down it.





Had the US some real evidence for the war or was it just hearsay. Had they pictures from satelittes or from agents ?

And its the same you said why the hell I want a proof that bush is innocent. But the USA had no real proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They made a psyhcological profil from hitler and were able to predict some actions they made this for saddam hussein too but why the hell so they could have known he would make up such a shit to defend his country.