This is my own opinion, aren't those terrorists are mostly the same people who were torturing their own people????? They fought back not because they wanted to reconstruct the country for the better means; they wanted to have their power back. Right? :?Sigma wrote: But the old Republican Guare of Saddam, why they do? why they destroy they own country and kill their compatriots. for the faith that the Saddam can get out the jail and seize the power from interim government?No, it can't! The only way they go is to disarm and to reconstruct their detached country!
when will this terrorist attack stop?
Moderator: EC
-
MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
-
Sigma
- Rising Star
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:34 pm
- Location: China
Right, it's the power, the origin of all terrific attacks. In Iraq, these attacks are equal to civil war. The only one result is that, the more attacks, the more chaos, and the country will be more poor. and then the more countries want to invade it, at last ,there are more attacks. This is a vicious circle.They fought back not because they wanted to reconstruct the country for the better means; they wanted to have their power back. Right?
There is a saying of philosophy, the economic base depends the other over buildings(sorry, I don't know how to translat). it means the economy is most important thing in nowadays. why the US invade Iraq, it is the petroleum that propel the American Government.
For them, the most important thing is to stablilize the situation, devolop the economy,drive foreign army out of their land. If Iraq has the strong economic ability to build and buy everything, and with the plenty of petrolium as the foundation, which countries dare to attack them. Of course, the first one is Iraq can't invade other countries!
-
MissLT
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
- Status: Other
Invading, changing the system, then leaving and invading, changing the system, then staying to rule that system are two different things to me. The first one is helping without being asked. It's quite rude, but it's still better than colonizing, for it's the second one. Don't you think?Sigma wrote: Right, it's the power, the origin of all terrific attacks. In Iraq, these attacks are equal to civil war. The only one result is that, the more attacks, the more chaos, and the country will be more poor. and then the more countries want to invade it, at last ,there are more attacks. This is a vicious circle.
-
Danyet
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 779
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: USA
A big part of the problem.
A proposed U.N. convention against terrorism has been stalled since 1997. The holdup? How to define terrorism. But this is nothing more than a semantic trick. The Islamic states insist that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. Putting a bomb in a market or train or bus is not an act of terrorism, they say, if it is done for a righteous purpose; namely national liberation or resistance to occupation.
To say there is a problem of definition is to focus on a word. The real question is whether it is ever legitimate to target women, children and other noncombatants. For the Islamic states, the answer is yes.
Not only have they succeeded in blocking anti-terror resolutions, they have secured votes endorsing their approach. In 1970, the General Assembly adopted a resolution "reaffirm[ing] … the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal." This has been repeated several times by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. Everyone understands that the last phrase is a euphemism for terrorism.
Still, it had seemed that in the aftermath of 9/11, the bombings in Bali, Madrid and London and the shootings in Beslan, not to mention the continuing carnage in Iraq and Israel, that the time had come to turn a new page. Last year, the U.N.'s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change proposed to cut the Gordian knot by having the U.N. embrace this common-sense language: "Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
This proposal apparently enjoyed the support of the panel's two key Islamic representatives, Nafis Sadik of Pakistan and Amr Moussa of Egypt, who is the secretary-general of the Arab League. Annan embraced this language and included it in the proposals he sent to last week's summit. With Annan and the U.S. representatives working together, supported by other Western diplomats, and with Moussa having already signed on, it looked as if the new language would sail through.
But then Islamic states again dug in their heels, and these words were stripped out of the final document. In its place was a ringing denunciation of terrorism, which, however, leaves Islamic leaders free to insist, as leading Sunni theologian Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi did recently, that bombings of civilians in places such as Israel and Iraq carried out to "resist occupation" are not covered by this resolution because they do not amount to terrorism.
A proposed U.N. convention against terrorism has been stalled since 1997. The holdup? How to define terrorism. But this is nothing more than a semantic trick. The Islamic states insist that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. Putting a bomb in a market or train or bus is not an act of terrorism, they say, if it is done for a righteous purpose; namely national liberation or resistance to occupation.
To say there is a problem of definition is to focus on a word. The real question is whether it is ever legitimate to target women, children and other noncombatants. For the Islamic states, the answer is yes.
Not only have they succeeded in blocking anti-terror resolutions, they have secured votes endorsing their approach. In 1970, the General Assembly adopted a resolution "reaffirm[ing] … the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal." This has been repeated several times by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. Everyone understands that the last phrase is a euphemism for terrorism.
Still, it had seemed that in the aftermath of 9/11, the bombings in Bali, Madrid and London and the shootings in Beslan, not to mention the continuing carnage in Iraq and Israel, that the time had come to turn a new page. Last year, the U.N.'s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change proposed to cut the Gordian knot by having the U.N. embrace this common-sense language: "Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
This proposal apparently enjoyed the support of the panel's two key Islamic representatives, Nafis Sadik of Pakistan and Amr Moussa of Egypt, who is the secretary-general of the Arab League. Annan embraced this language and included it in the proposals he sent to last week's summit. With Annan and the U.S. representatives working together, supported by other Western diplomats, and with Moussa having already signed on, it looked as if the new language would sail through.
But then Islamic states again dug in their heels, and these words were stripped out of the final document. In its place was a ringing denunciation of terrorism, which, however, leaves Islamic leaders free to insist, as leading Sunni theologian Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi did recently, that bombings of civilians in places such as Israel and Iraq carried out to "resist occupation" are not covered by this resolution because they do not amount to terrorism.