<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>>Your over-simplistic use of the words "terror" and "terrorist" reminds me of the way that George W. Bush uses them... I leads me to equate your intelligence with W's in much the same way that you've equated several of my friends with terrorists.
If they are Iraq and part of the movement, then they are terrorists. Pawns of a terrorist regime (the occupation) who are killing civilians for that regimes purpose, are terrorists. If you are a part of a gang, and you are ordered to kill someone or else be punished in some form or another, that makes you a murderer all the same. It is not that my views are over-simplistic, it is that your views are warped because you actually are friends with some of the people who are tools of the occupation.
>I've known people who were sent to Iraq, they did not want to go. They did not agree with the war and they don't like George Bush. They've seen horrible things there, they've known people who've died. They've come back home only to be sent back again. Their families have been devastated by being torn apart. They did not want to go to Iraq, they only joined the military *before they knew there was going to be a war* because there aren't many options for the poor in the U.S. You see Seek, we don't have all of the social programs to help the poor that nations like Canada do. Thanks to Republicans like Bush, the only jobs that many people can get with health insurance and benefits are in the millitary... Maybe that's what Bush and Co. want? To hear you say speak about it, my girlfriend's step-father, and two of my good friends from high school are morally equivalent to an idealogue with a Quran and an AK-47 chopping someone's head off in the name of "al-lah". Well they're not, and that deeply offends me when you say that.
Is it more just to blow the heads off of many times more people in the name of this thing called democracy instead? Of course not. Do you recall revolutionary France's Reign of Terror? Well, the reign of terror going on in Iraq is much more bloody. Whether they are the poor in the US who are joining the military because there is no other way to support their families, or the poor in Iraq who have joined the insurgencies or para-military organizations because they have lost their families, it's all the same, they are terrorists. I don't think the people of the families of the 19 will find it less offensive at being called terrorists than you do by having the US troops shooting and bombing civilians terrorists.
>I can understand how many Iraqis could view the soldiers as terrorist, they're strange men with guns who've killed Iraqis... and who can forget the horrors of abu-grahib. The soldiers are not terrorists. They are just average men and women who got swept up in our delusional boy king's mid-life-crisis. They are just pawns in his little game. If they resist, they'll be branded traitors and will be thrown in prison while their families suffer. Admittedly there are a few bad soldiers in Iraq (again, look at abu-grahib) but it isn't a distinctly American problem. I think that Canadian soldiers in the same situation with leadership that encouraged such pratices would have fallen to the same mob-mentality (There's nothing morally superior about Canadian DNA). The problem is the leadership in this country. Until that is changed, we're going to keep having problems. Now go ahead, call George Bush a terrorist all you want. In the general sense of the word he *is*, but when you call my friends terrorists then you are crossing the line.
I am crossing no line. If my opinion offends you, then perhaps you need to grow up a little; my opinion is very realistic. As I said before, "pawns of terrorism" or "pawns of a terrorist" is just a euphamism for terrorist itself. Do you believe that the Nazi Storm Troopers agreed with Hitler after he declared war? I know for a strong certainty that most of them didn't, I have family in Germany; they were pawns of the nazis, and they were nazis themselves as a result of it, they were also ashamed of what their country did.
>You wonder about my "childish" words? Well what the fuck did you expect? You wrote that statement intending it to be offensive and it was taken as such. In my opinion flame-baiters are far more childish than someone who seeks to correct them. I told you what you deserved to be told and I called you what you deserved to be called.
Wrong, I wrote a statement intending to be the part of my reaction to the article that I chose to write here. Obviously you missed the point of my reply to your childishness, and that was that your childishness was irrelivant and just made you look immature.
>Think about this for a moment Seek: What if the Canadian government had backed the Iraqi invasion against your will. What if some of your good friends were sent over there? What if you were sent over there? Your sense of moral superiority wouldn't be as great, would it? Think about it! (although I doubt that you will). I can put myself in your shoes, I can see how this situation might appear to others and the misconceptions that they might have because of their perspective... and I'm doing my best to correct the misconceptions that many (like yourself) have about what's going on.
As I said above: I am not blinded from reality in the same way that you are. You do not know my position at all, otherwise you would not have reacted the way you did; you assumed that I intended to insult you, which is essentially proof that you did not understand that that is my belief. If my government declared war on a poor suffering country, give me prison, give me death, but don't make me a killer of civilians that did nothing to me and are no threat to my country.
My country is different from yours, the Prime Minister here had no authority to declare war even if he did have 200K battle ready troops to send over. Even if he did support the war with only 5,000 troops, he would have been out of office so fast that it wouldn't be funny. The country was very much against the war, and our representative, the Prime Minister, reflected that opinion.
>I'm going to be voting for John Kerry and the rest of the Democrats on Tuesday. I'm going to be telling my government what I think about their actions. Will this solve everything? Is John Kerry the perfect man for the job? maybe not... but at least it's a step in the right direction.
As I see it, Kerry is not a very good leader either, but he is much better than Bush. A good leader would tell the truth, that the money and lives have been wasted, that there is no way to win the war short of genocide or sending over 750,000 troops. We both know that your country won't accept someone as brutally honest as that, they would be called traitors, they would be critisized by all the people with a voice that matters in the country, the rich and powerful. Kerry is one step in the right direction. Yet if your country does vote Bush back in, is it any different than those people who choose to support terrorist networks? To you the US forces are not terrorists, to them the freedom fighters are not terrorists either.
>I mourn for every human being who has died in the fighting in Iraq and I hope for the conflict to end as soon as possible. I also understand that many of the insurgency truly believe that what they are doing is right and I do not fault them for that. I mourn their deaths as well.
They believe what they are doing is right because they want their freedom. What if European Forces invaded the US, ruined your cities, captured your president (even if you do hate him), and killed a million civilians (roughly the same percentage that 100,000 would be from Iraq). Your family has been killed, your house is broken down, it is not safe to go there, your possessions have been taken by looters. Women you once knew, dated, are now prostitutes, your girlfriend has been missing for a year, you have no idea where she is, maybe dead, maybe a prostitute in New York. You have nothing left except your free will and your anger, and your wish for justice, you have no future to look forward to, you have nothing to live for, but plenty to fight and die for; what would you do?
>Truth never damages a cause that is just.
--Gandhi
I see you quoted Ghandhi, well Gandhi himself chose to fight himself in the form of non-violent resistance, he was imprissoned, he was beaten, he almost died from his fasts. His family suffered all the same, as did the families of his followers. If you're going to quote Gandhi, then why don't you expect the American troops to follow his methods as well, and put down their guns even if it means imprisonment? You don't understand Gandhi well enough, don't quote him to emphasize your points unless you are willing to accept his philosophies.
Also; Don't claim that I don't understand your position and that you understand mine. I understand your position with absolute perfection. The only difference is that I don't have to suffer the burden of denial. Lastly, if you are offended by my use of the word terrorism, then there is something wrong; if you don't believe in its usage for anyone, then my use of it should be meaningless to you; if you believe that it should be used for Islamic killers and not US killers, then you are a hypocrite.</div>
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
