Let's define "Pro-Terrorist / Pro-Enemy."

In another thread, I read a poster call another poster’s movie pitch as “pro-terrorist.” Though I agreed that it was clearly anti-Bush, I didn’t see any hint of advocating terrorism. But while the pitch didn’t advocate terrorism per se, it could easily be read to undermine American resolve by exposing corruption within the government. So I can only assume the other poster was equating “pro-terrorist” with “pro-enemy,” or “anything you do that undermines our resolve necessarily aids our enemy.”

In an effort to look at this objectively, let’s say — for the sake of discussion — that in 2013, President Hillary Clinton :smiley: addresses the American people to inform us that Kim Jong-il’s forces attacked several American Destroyers operating in Pacific international waters. She asks Congress for a declaration of war and is granted it. A few years into the war, intrepid journalist Bill O’Reilly uncovers proof that Clinton’s administration fabricated the whole thing at substantial loss of human life and stateside economy.

If O’Reilly reports this lie perpetrated upon the American people, it would compromise America’s resolve in the conflict, thereby bolstering North Korea’s resolve. Would doing so be “pro-enemy”?

No, actually the pitch was excusing terrorism, or perhaps ignoring it. The person in question was saying that the insurgents in Iraq were freedom fighters, fighting a justifiable war against an invader of their country. This is the purest of fantasies for several reasons:
1)A very great number of the insurgents are not Iraqi at all but jihadists from other nations.
2)A very great number of the insurgents do not give a crap about “Iraqi independence” or nationalism, but are motivated strictly by a religious hatred between the Sunnis and Shiites.
3)A vast majority of the insurgent attacks in Iraq are TERRORIST attacks—that is, they target innocent IRAQI civilians as the primary target of their attacks not for any tangible military goal but to spread terror and destabilize the government. That is the definition of terrorism.

So, when I say his script idea is pro terrorist, I mean exactly that. The majority of the insurgents are terrorists—they use terrorist tactics, targeting civilians not for any military reason (eg bombing Tokyo or Berlin to try to hamper their production of material for the war) but purely to spread terror.
This has nothing to do with whether you believe the US has any justification for being in Iraq or not. Whether we should be there or not, the people we’re fighting are indeed terrorists.


rjung’s reply to "How would you write a Captain America movie?

(Though I’d like to keep this thread focused on the OP rather than on rjung’s politics. Unless you think they’re one and the same.)

I agree. Not pro-terrorist. Nor excusing it, as far as I can see. Just not toeing the party line.

Prove it. Last I heard, only a tiny minority were from other countries.

Do you have any evidence of that ?

  1. Sorry to misinterpret your definition of “Pro-terrorist” in my OP
  2. The insurgency is composed of both Iraqis and foreign jihadists. If rjung’s script is wrong to paint them all as native freedom fighters, aren’t you just as wrong to paint them all as foreign jihadists with no regard for Iraqi independence?
  3. The script has the central hero fighting the terrorist insurgency from start to finish.

There have been many many accounts of foreign fighters in every pitched battle that has been fought in Iraq, from the invasion right through to the second battle of Fallujah. Then, of course, there is the late king of the insurgency, Zarquawi, who was a Jordanian…and the latest representative of Al Quaeda Iraq, who is an Egyptian. Read any full account of the two battles of Fallujah sometime…No True Glory by Bing West is a good one.
Also, one of my best friends spent a year in Iraq attached to the 1st and then the 3rd IDs, right around the time of Saddam’s capture. He ran into a LOT of foreigners.

Jesus Christ! Don’t you listen to the death toll from the country? The VAST MAJORITY of the victims of the insurgents are civilians.

No, because as I said, the ones who are not foreigners are not concerned with Iraqi nationalism or independence…they are concerned with Sunni preeminence and a restoration of power to the Sunni minority. To that end, they slaughter innocent Shiite civilians by the hundreds.

At any rate, I suggested that Hey You start these two threads so I could explain my position and I’ve done that. Now I will go back to the reason I hang out at SDMB, Cafe Society. Adios.

As far as i can tell, the jihadists are only a small percentage of the insurgency (although they are believed to account for about 20% of the explosions).

The rest sounds like we might be on the brink of a civil war.

A few, here and there. A few percent at most.

He was a minor, near irrelevant individual built up as a threat so the Bushites could scream “Al Quaeda !”, not the king of anything.

Why would I believe him ? If he’s willing to fight in Iraq, he is morally corrupt and his word is worth nothing.

What death toll ? We don’t bother to count the dead. You also assume it’s the resistance killing them, and not plain old criminals or us.

Y’know, all those suicide bombs? In the news? That kill people? And those people are Iraqi civilians?

I don’t know too many plain old criminals who engage in suicide bombings. No profit in it, y’know?

And I don’t see why Dick Cheney would order suicide bombers to attack Iraqi civilians either. How exactly do we gain by the bombings? The bombings make it clear that the US cannot control Iraq, they keep Bush’s failed war on the front pages.

So if Cheney were behind the suicide bombings, don’t you think he’d have called them off about now? So we could get on with the business of installing a puppet government and torturing Islamicists and stealing Iraq’s oil and moving our troops to the Iranian and Syrian borders?

This is pretty incoherent, even from you.

And how many are killed by IEDs, or guns, or death squads, or American bombs, or American troops, or criminals ? I see no evidence that the death toll from suicide bombs are anywhere near the majority of those deaths.

I never said he was; I just don’t consider them that important.

We already have a puppet government, we torture random people not Islamicists, we already have control of the oil, and we won’t attack Iran or Syria because Iraq has bogged us down, fortunately.

My enemy’s enemy is my friend is a very dodgy proposition

We sort of learnt that one with The Taliban

If at the peak of WWII, a journalist leaked that Roosevelt was tipped off about Pearl Harbour by Churchill, then I would consider the journalist irresponsible.

If the journalist did /not/ publish after the dust had settled, then I would consider the journalist very irresponsible.

Incidentally it is quite likely that Roosevelt was tipped off, but I think that deserves another thread.

It means whatever the people using it want it to mean, & nothing more.

Nothing more at all.

Cite? For the “vast majority” part.

Don’t forget there are Shi’ite insurgents too. See here.