First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
What or when is something terrorism?
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 10/1/10 , edited 11/20/10
Deleted by user to avoid redundancy. Edited version posted further on.
Posted 10/1/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

As always I see points on wich I agree upon, but also things I do not agree with, let's start.
Violence sure is tolerable when someone defends him/herselve or others, however, the violence should only be used to make sure the aggressor is no more a threat. In other words: Priority number 1: Keep yourself and others alive, Priority number 2, Keep the aggresor alive.



I disagree, for us amatuers, It's make sure I and those I'm protecting are alive. Full Stop.

I'm not John Wayne and won't pretend to be able to shoot guns out of hands or make an aggressor give up just by asking him if he feels lucky.

If some improbable event occurred where I had a gun in my hand and there was someone threatening me and/or mine with even a melee weapon. They would get 'double taps' to their centre of mass until they fell down and did not try to get up. Once I was sure I and those I was protecting were safe I might attempt first aid, but honestly, if you take up arms in pursuit of crime or harm to others the consequences are on your head.

If you are a security guard or police officer then you're held to a different standard. Just as the care a doctor or a nurse may give at an accident scene is held to a higher standard. You're expected to be cool in violant situations resolve them without violence if you can, and only escalate your own violence in proportion to the level of violance offer by your suspect. You can see a number of instances posted by weapon – 01 on this forum where officers have failed to meet this standard and it's nothing short of deplorable. But the consequence of that is that the security professional is always handing the initiative to the aggressor. Not something that would encourage a life insurance company to give you a disconted rate on your policy.

amersfoort wrote:

"Sleep with me, or you lose your job."

Which might be hard to prove or make stick after the fact, but to my mind is still Extortion ergo Terrorism.

I would see this too as a form of terrorism, but I would prefer to use the term blackmail.


Then your preferences would be incorrect. You may complain that I am nitpicking here but we are debating the meaning of a word here. Getting words right is important.

Blackmail – A form of extortion, in which the blackmailer threatens to reveal a past sin, crime, or other indiscretion and expose his or her victim to shame, criminal charges, or other unwanted, presumably fearful consequences. The Blackmailer doesn't necessarily control the consequences it is the victim's fear of their own past actions that gives the blackmailer his or her power.

All blackmail is extortion and terrorism, but not all terrorism is extortion, and not all extortion is blackmail.

“Give me a record contract or I'll post that naughty video you did for your boyfriend on the internet” Is blackmail.

The example I gave earlier implied that the extortionist had the power to make his victim lose her job without a prior indiscretion on her part.

amersfoort wrote:

1.I'm not sure, but do you support the needs of militairy here? Infact, do you support the idea of nations gaining anything using wars?


2.Depends entirely on what kind of war, some wars are simply done too eradicate the other, not for convincing that the other party has lost.


3.Churchill said afterwards: Have we become beasts?
Do you not think that the awnser should be yes?



(numbering; Mine)


1. If you accept the validity of states as entities. Or even if you wish to abolish nations in favour of a one world government, In the end you must recognise that violence it at the core of everything the government enforces. If an appeal to reason and altruism and a sense of community was all that was necessary there would be no need for government. All enforcement is ultimately backed up through an escalating chain of consequences by the state's ability to inflict violence. We obey regulations and laws because we don't want to be fined or otherwise penalised. We pay fines because we don't want to be arrested. We don't resist arrest because we don't want to be shot. Being a traitor would be shameful horror to the honour of many person but ultimately traitors are not common because of the threat, even in “no death penalty here” of being taken out into a courtyard one cold day after your trial and being shot or hung, hangs over the very concept.

So yes. I accept the state violence or it's threat is a part of the existence of states. It's ugly, but since I believe anarchy is worse I am perforce in agreement with it. Again, it's not so much an IF, as a when, how and why that defines it as Terrorism for me.


2. Even in ancient times, this was rare. The mongol hordes took captives, demanded cities surrender and allowed those who didn't resist their pillaging to live. The Romans were shocked and dismayed when the Zealots holding Masada chose mass suicide over surrender and whatever the Romans had planned for that rebelious organization afterward. And Rome is infamous for what it did to it's rival Carthage.

“Where they make a desert, and call it peace”

In more recent times we don't call that war. We call it Genocide. Catholicism is still viewed with opprobrium for doing it to the Albigensians at the turn of the previous millenium. While there are many scholars who would argue that the US 'winning of the west' was in fact a generation long war of gennocide against the native populations of that region, Mainstream American history still pretends the US was not even at war. Any modern war has specific aims. Even conquest attempts to make the people and land of a country property of another country not to irradicate them. Any time uniformed professionals have been at war with each other, there have been rules, and they have been obeyed. It's only in the last half of the 20th century that civilian populations have started bearing the brunt of the violence.

3. Sure, I'm not sure why you think it's relevant though. I've never pretended war was pretty or that other options would be preferable. It's consequence of premises that I do accept.


amersfoort wrote:

Throwing a grenade into a room during urban combat is not terrorism. Throwing a grenade into the middle of a crowded marketplace on sales day IS terrorism.

How is throwing a grenade in a room with people you do not know, and do not know their intentions not a act of terrorism?


1.because the grenade is not meant to terrorise others. It's thrown for one reason only. So the soldiers who enter the room on the heels of that explosion live long enough to kill the enemy soldiers they expect to face. Even if I accept the premise of your statement as valid. It's still not terrorism. Please. Do not misuse the word. There is No 'or else' here. There is no attempt to use fear to bully someone into a particular kind of behaviour. We've said that terrorism is a special case of 'do it my way or else'. A callous disregard of life may be distasteful but it's not terrorism. Treating it as such makes you as narrow minded as the conservative who says something is Liberal just because he or she doesn't like it.

2.And because I don't agree with the premise of your question “A room with people you don't know and don't know their intentions” If you throw a grenade into a room during houseclearing it's because you're in combat. Someone is already trying to kill you. When you enter a room during CQB you're probably entering an ambush of enemy fighters awaiting you with the intent of riddling you with bullets. No that's not guarenteed but I'll bet my life (and would have had I not been invladided out before all this got going) that it's case more often than it's innocent civilians. I'll grant you that the current insurgent habit of hiding behind the civilian population on whose behalf they claim to be fighting makes such an event more likely. But in that case any civilian death in my opinion can be laid at the door of those cowards who refuse to wear uniforms and stand up to fight.

I'm honestly... disapointed that I had to explain that to you. Your statement describing a basic component of every army's methods of fighting in built up areas. Which I went at some pains to describe in my original post as:

“How is throwing a grenade in a room with people you do not know, and do not know their intentions not a act of terrorism?”

Honestly makes me wonder if you've truly read what I've written, and indicates a degree of either niavete or oversimplification that I have trouble respecting.




amersfoort wrote:
This might not be a satysfing reply, my apologies for that, I have very litle time on my hands.

However, if any form off: Do it my way or else. is terrorism (wich it is in my eyes), then how is war not terrorism?
It's terrorism with rules, and ofcourse those rules will be broken.
Who made up rules for a action that involves murdering people? And when did that person think that ANYONE will follow those rules when their lives are in great danger?

Any war is terrorism, it uses fear, murder, and violence to get what that country wants. it is not a whole different situation then you being a thief in someone elses house.

Ofcourse if you are the defender, you should be able to defend yourself with the neccesery actions, however this means defending yourself on your own territory, a pre-emptive strike is a act of aggression and thus terror.

I'm so sorry for this excuse of a awnser, I honestly hope I can tell you more, but at the time I cannot.
(homeworkhomeworkhomework)



Again, I did not say ANY form of “do it my way or else” was terrorism. We are in disagreement at the first principal. I was VERY clear, giving plenty of examples, that weather or not something was terrorism depended on the 'My way” AND the 'or else'.

I also explored the idea that maybe there was no threatened 'or else'.

Ergo, war may be threatened as a form of terrorism and some specific acts during war could be labeled as terrorism but I disagree that war is “Terrorism with rules”

I also disagree that “Of course, the rules will be broken” In point of fact many of them often aren't. Or weren't prior to world war II. Hitler for example, for all his evil, never resorted to Chemical or biological warfare. And not be because he didn't have unscrupulous scientists developing battlefied toxins and weaponised diseases.

Your question about 'who made up the rules' and attributing them to a single person truly sounds extremely ignorant of history. War has cycled back and forth between two models in nature, predation and male mating contests. We have invented and discarded 'total war' and 'war as the judge of princes, the battlefield being the courtroom' time and time again. Soldiers have established their own codes and enforced them through rough field justice. Bullets designed to shred and tear flesh as opposed to penetrate armour are not only banned by the Geneva convention but have been an instant death sentence on any battlefield in the last 150 years. Similarly with putting barbs on your bayonet or combat knife. A unit with a reputation for not taking surrenders eventually get's slaughtered once the shoe is on the other foot.
Most recently early industrial wars in the United States (1863-67) and contemporary conflicts in Europe convinced the 'civilized' nations that they had to stick to certain rules. Up until that time, as long as you didn't have something some crude lowborn soldier wanted or were about a mile from the battlefield you were safe. Europeans realized war was changing into something that would swallow them all and created treaties to limit the horrors of war. Canada, The US and Europe have signed these conventions and do honour them. The most recent being an abandonment of the use of landmines. The US was facing a lot of international disaproval for it's treatment of fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq which it tried to weasal out of by claiming that it wasn't imprisoning soldiers but 'illegal combatants' Like every law, treaty and agreement you'll get violations and lawyer-ly disagreements but I'd argue this proves that those rules are in force, at least as much as any human rule is in force.


“Any war is terrorism, it uses fear, murder, and violence to get what that country wants. it is not a whole different situation then you being a thief in someone elses house.”

Sorry No, I disagree. Catagorically. And it should be apparent why.

“Ofcourse if you are the defender, you should be able to defend yourself with the neccesery actions, however this means defending yourself on your own territory, a pre-emptive strike is a act of aggression and thus terror.”

By that logic, the US should never have involved themselves in the European theatre of WWII since well... US soil was never attacked by Germany, Italy, or Vichy France. By that logic, Canadians should never have bothered driving the Nazis off of Dutch soil. (see my post immediately following the one you were originally quoting to be reminded as to what we actually did)

by that logic, when a cop sees someone draw a gun, he has to wait until the criminal shoots someone before he can stop the criminal. Even John Wayne shooting the guns out of bad guys hands is a terrorist.

Because a premptive strike IS NOT an act of terrorism. Aggression does NOT equal terrorism (just like regulation does not equal liberalism). If the enemy is massing troops on you border and threatening war. HE is the terrorist. If you take his army HQ and/or disrupt his supply chain and/or mess with his time table before he attacks how does that in any way resemble 'Do it my way or Else?”

You were right. Your replies were not up to your usual standard. I expect better of you in the future.

In sociology, a state employs an institution known as an agent of social control to enforce the letters of the laws within the state. And in most developed nations this system of governing always had to play catching-up with the rest of the society, because its policy-making process is one of modern utilitarianism morality. This means that it's a backward-looking system that analyzes itself only after the society had made its changes, and the subsequent results had played out to its fullest. In other words, it can offer ethical action guidance and conflict resolution, but only after an objectionable wrong had occur. And quite frankly, I wouldn't wanted any other way, when I have to consider the alternative: June 4th, 1989, the terror known as Massacre in Tiananmen Square.

This is why I see a preemptive strike without sufficient justification on the people's consents will always be wrong.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/20/10 , edited 11/20/10



amersfoort wrote:

As always I see points on wich I agree upon, but also things I do not agree with, let's start.
Violence sure is tolerable when someone defends him/herselve or others, however, the violence should only be used to make sure the aggressor is no more a threat. In other words: Priority number 1: Keep yourself and others alive, Priority number 2, Keep the aggresor alive.



I disagree, for us amatuers, It's make sure I and those I'm protecting are alive. Full Stop.

I'm not John Wayne and won't pretend to be able to shoot guns out of hands or make an aggressor give up just by asking him if he feels lucky.

If some improbable event occurred where I had a gun in my hand and there was someone threatening me and/or mine with even a melee weapon. They would get 'double taps' to their centre of mass until they fell down and did not try to get up. Once I was sure I and those I was protecting were safe I might attempt first aid, but honestly, if a person takes up arms in pursuit of crime or harm to others the consequences are on that person's head.

If one are a security guard or police officer then one held to a different standard. Just as the care a doctor or a nurse may give at an accident scene is held to a higher standard. A Police or Security professional expected to be cool in violent situations resolve them without violence if you can, and only escalate your own violence in proportion to the level of violence offered by your suspect. A reader here can see a number of instances posted by weapon – 01 on this forum where officers have failed to meet this standard and it's nothing short of deplorable. But the consequence of that is that the security professional is always handing the initiative to the aggressor. Not something that would encourage a life insurance company to give you a disconted rate on your policy.

amersfoort wrote:

"Sleep with me, or you lose your job."

Which might be hard to prove or make stick after the fact, but to my mind is still Extortion ergo Terrorism.

I would see this too as a form of terrorism, but I would prefer to use the term blackmail.


Then your preferences would be incorrect. You may complain that I am nitpicking here but we are debating the meaning of a word here. Getting words right is important.

Blackmail – A form of extortion, in which the blackmailer threatens to reveal a past sin, crime, or other indiscretion and expose his or her victim to shame, criminal charges, or other unwanted, presumably fearful consequences. The Blackmailer doesn't necessarily control the consequences it is the victim's fear of their own past actions that gives the blackmailer his or her power.

All blackmail is extortion and terrorism, but not all terrorism is extortion, and not all extortion is blackmail.

“Give me a record contract or I'll post that naughty video you did for your boyfriend on the internet” Is blackmail.

The example I gave earlier implied that the extortionist had the power to make his victim lose her job without a prior indiscretion on her part.

amersfoort wrote:

1.I'm not sure, but do you support the needs of militairy here? Infact, do you support the idea of nations gaining anything using wars?


2.Depends entirely on what kind of war, some wars are simply done too eradicate the other, not for convincing that the other party has lost.


3.Churchill said afterwards: Have we become beasts?
Do you not think that the awnser should be yes?



(numbering; Mine)


1. If you accept the validity of states as entities. Or even if you wish to abolish nations in favour of a one world government, In the end you must recognize that violence it at the core of everything the government enforces. If an appeal to reason and altruism and a sense of community was all that was necessary there would be no need for government. All enforcement is ultimately backed up through an escalating chain of consequences by the state's ability to inflict violence. We obey regulations and laws because we don't want to be fined or otherwise penalized. We pay fines because we don't want to be arrested. We don't resist arrest because we don't want to be shot. Being a traitor would be shameful horror to the honour of many person but ultimately traitors are not common because of the threat, even in places that otherwise have no death penalty of being killed after being found guilty. (Note: Canada likes to trumpet that it has no death penalty but this is incorrect, if found guilty and if the full penalty is given on sentencing, you can still do the high jump for treason.)

So yes. I accept the state violence or it's threat is a part of the existence of states. It's ugly, but since I believe anarchy is worse I am perforce in agreement with it. Again, it's not so much an IF, as a when, how and why that defines it as Terrorism for me.

2. Even in ancient times, this was rare. The mongol hordes took captives, demanded cities surrender and allowed those who didn't resist their pillaging to live. The Romans were shocked and dismayed when the Zealots holding Masada chose mass suicide over surrender and whatever the Romans had planned for that rebellious organization afterward. And Rome is infamous for what it did to it's rival Carthage.

“Where they make a desert, and call it peace”

In more recent times we don't call that war. We call it Genocide. Catholicism is still viewed with opprobrium for doing it to the Albigensians at the turn of the previous millenium. While there are many scholars who would argue that the US 'winning of the west' was in fact a generation long war of genocide against the native populations of that region, Mainstream American history still pretends the US was not even at war. Any modern war has specific aims. Even conquest attempts to make the people and land of a country property of another country not to eradicate them. Any time uniformed professionals have been at war with each other, there have been rules, and they have been obeyed. It's only in the last half of the 20th century that civilian populations have started bearing the brunt of the violence.

3. Sure, what Churchill said sounds apt. I'm not sure why you think it's relevant though. I've never pretended war was pretty or that other options would be preferable. Was is simply a lamentable consequence of premises that I DO accept.


amersfoort wrote:

Throwing a grenade into a room during urban combat is not terrorism. Throwing a grenade into the middle of a crowded marketplace on sales day IS terrorism.

How is throwing a grenade in a room with people you do not know, and do not know their intentions not a act of terrorism?


1.because the grenade is not meant to terrorise others. It's thrown for one reason only. So the soldiers who enter the room on the heels of that explosion live long enough to kill the enemy soldiers they expect to face. Even if I accept the premise of your statement as valid. It's still not terrorism. Please. Do not misuse the word. There is No 'or else' here. There is no attempt to use fear to bully someone into a particular kind of behaviour. We've said that terrorism is a special case of 'do it my way or else'. A callous disregard of life may be distasteful but it's not terrorism. Treating it as such makes you as narrow minded as the conservative who says something is Liberal just because he or she doesn't like it.

2.And because I don't agree with the premise of your question “A room with people you don't know and don't know their intentions” If you throw a grenade into a room during houseclearing it's because you're in combat. Someone is already trying to kill you. When you enter a room during CQB you're probably entering an ambush of enemy fighters awaiting you with the intent of riddling you with bullets. No that's not guaranteed but I'll bet my life that it's case more often than it's innocent civilians. I'll grant you that the current insurgent habit of hiding behind the civilian population on whose behalf they claim to be fighting makes such an event more likely. But in that case any civilian death in my opinion can be laid at the door of those cowards who refuse to wear uniforms and stand up to fight.

EDIT: Strike this
I'm honestly... disapointed that I had to explain that to you. Your statement describing a basic component of every army's methods of fighting in built up areas. Which I went at some pains to describe in my original post as:

“How is throwing a grenade in a room with people you do not know, and do not know their intentions not a act of terrorism?”

Honestly makes me wonder if you've truly read what I've written, and indicates a degree of either niavete or oversimplification that I have trouble respecting.
Replace with:


Okay perhaps you didn't understand what I meant when I said:

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

The point you miss is that warfare. has rules. both sides are supposed to be uniform. Both sides are supposed to leave the other sides non-combatents (usually not in uniform) alone. Civilians are supposed to get out of the way and let the soldiers fight.

When police enter a building they have strict rules of engagement that put them at a great disadvantage if there are armed criminals waiting, prepared to fight them. This is necessary because the police are there to serve and protect the very people they may encounter in the room they are breaching. Soldiers are not police.

When engaged in "Streetfighting", "fighting in built up areas" (FIBUA)," Close Quarters Battle (CQB)" or whatever it's curently called. They are engaged in the most hazardous and randomly lethal form of combat invented. The tactics used were developed in World War II when even the Nazis were decent enough wear uniforms and to leave the civilians out of the actual fighting. Even with the room prepped with a couple of grenades and the soldiers spraying lead as they clear the entry way, the first two soldiers in a room during CQB have the shortest lifespans in all of combat.

If an enemy insists on mixing with the civilian population and refuses to wear a uniform. or engages in other violations of the Geneva convention (Chemical weapons, fighting on after surrender, killing prisoners of war etc.) My sympathy is with the soldiers trying to play by the rules.


I assumed you had some knowledge of military operations. The grenades we are talking about are thrown, NOT, at unknown persons in a peaceful circumstance. They are thrown into a room you are attempting to breach where you believe someone is waiting in a prepared condition to KILL YOU. They are thrown not as an 'OR ELSE' or as an attempt to provoke a terror response they are thrown for the one reason only. To hamper or remove another persons ability to KILL YOU. Lethal though they are, all they reliably give the you, first two soldiers entering a room in CQB, is a vital half second to Kill the person trying to KILL YOU. This is not terrorism, not in my book. Nor in the books of every professional military force in the world. No, it's standard practice. Something soldiers on the defense expect and try to compensate for. If that expectation leads someone to put a bunch of the non-combatant people he purports to fight on behalf of in a room that he knows is going to get grenaded surely the real terrorist is the guy who did that. He is terrorizing his own people AND he's traumatizing the soldiers who are NOT there to blow up civilians. You need to lose this bias of soldiers as bloodthirsty savages. They're just a bunch of guys and girls trying to do a job they believe in. I find it ironic that the more people hate soldiers they more they love and act as apologists for terrorists


amersfoort wrote:
This might not be a satysfing reply, my apologies for that, I have very litle time on my hands.

However, if any form off: Do it my way or else. is terrorism (wich it is in my eyes), then how is war not terrorism?
It's terrorism with rules, and ofcourse those rules will be broken.
Who made up rules for a action that involves murdering people? And when did that person think that ANYONE will follow those rules when their lives are in great danger?

Any war is terrorism, it uses fear, murder, and violence to get what that country wants. it is not a whole different situation then you being a thief in someone elses house.

Ofcourse if you are the defender, you should be able to defend yourself with the neccesery actions, however this means defending yourself on your own territory, a pre-emptive strike is a act of aggression and thus terror.

I'm so sorry for this excuse of a awnser, I honestly hope I can tell you more, but at the time I cannot.
(homeworkhomeworkhomework)



Again, I did not say ANY form of “do it my way or else” was terrorism. We are in disagreement at the first principal. I was VERY clear, giving plenty of examples, that weather or not something was terrorism depended on the 'My way” AND the 'or else'.

I also explored the idea that maybe there was no threatened 'or else'.

Ergo, war may be threatened as a form of terrorism and some specific acts during war could be labeled as terrorism but I disagree that war is “Terrorism with rules”

I also disagree that “Of course, the rules will be broken” In point of fact many of them often aren't. Or weren't prior to world war II. Hitler for example, for all his evil, never resorted to Chemical or biological warfare. And not be because he didn't have unscrupulous scientists developing battlefied toxins and weaponised diseases.

Your question about 'who made up the rules' and attributing them to a single person truly sounds extremely ignorant of history. War has cycled back and forth between two models in nature, predation and male mating contests. We have invented and discarded 'total war' and 'war as the judge of princes, the battlefield being the courtroom' time and time again. Soldiers have established their own codes and enforced them through rough field justice. Bullets designed to shred and tear flesh as opposed to penetrate armour are not only banned by the Geneva convention but have been an instant death sentence on any battlefield in the last 150 years. Similarly with putting barbs on your bayonet or combat knife. A unit with a reputation for not taking surrenders eventually get's slaughtered once the shoe is on the other foot.
Most recently early industrial wars in the United States (1863-67) and contemporary conflicts in Europe convinced the 'civilized' nations that they had to stick to certain rules. Up until that time, as long as you didn't have something some crude lowborn soldier wanted or were about a mile from the battlefield you were safe. Europeans realized war was changing into something that would swallow them all and created treaties to limit the horrors of war. Canada, The US and Europe have signed these conventions and do honour them. The most recent being an abandonment of the use of landmines. The US was facing a lot of international disaproval for it's treatment of fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq which it tried to weasal out of by claiming that it wasn't imprisoning soldiers but 'illegal combatants' Like every law, treaty and agreement you'll get violations and lawyer-ly disagreements but I'd argue this proves that those rules are in force, at least as much as any human rule is in force.



“Any war is terrorism, it uses fear, murder, and violence to get what that country wants. it is not a whole different situation then you being a thief in someone elses house.”


Sorry No, I disagree. I disagree categorically. And it should be apparent why.


“Ofcourse if you are the defender, you should be able to defend yourself with the neccesery actions, however this means defending yourself on your own territory, a pre-emptive strike is a act of aggression and thus terror.”


By that logic, the US should never have involved themselves in the European theatre of WWII since well... US soil was never attacked by Germany, Italy, or Vichy France. By that logic, Canadians should never have bothered driving the Nazis off of Dutch soil.

instead:

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

An example of the good will being finite and blood being the coin. Is the relation between your nation and ours.

Canadian Soldiers where the bulk of the troops and also (avowed by many, including Montgomery and Patton) to be the best troops involved in freeing Belgium and the Netherlands from the Nazi grip. In addition we hosted your royal family and even alienated a lot of land outside the hospital where your queen was born so that she could be born purely Dutch. As a nation we, payed in blood and land for your freedom and to this day your government sends ours so many tulip bulbs that there is now an annual Tulip Festival on the Banks of the Rideau Canal. (In Ottawa).

But I get the impression (perhaps mistaken) that your generation doesn't remember that. or at least isn't as embarrassingly profuse in it's gratitude and welcome.

That good will was earned in blood. But with time and perhaps the friction that occurs between two sovereign nations that good will also get's used up.


The above is also an example of Canadian 'Terrorism' against the Nazi's by your definition.


by that logic, when a cop sees someone draw a gun, he has to wait until the criminal shoots someone before he can stop the criminal. Even John Wayne shooting the guns out of bad guys hands is a terrorist.

Because a preemptive strike IS NOT an act of terrorism. Not necessarily anyway. Aggression does NOT equal terrorism (just like regulation does not equal liberalism). If the enemy is massing troops on you border and threatening war. HE is the terrorist. If you take his army HQ and/or disrupt his supply chain and/or mess with his time table before he attacks how does that in any way resemble 'Do it my way or Else?”

You were right. Your replies were not up to your usual standard. I expect better of you in the future.

(edit: Added italicized clarification. To further clarify: Aggression is not equal to terrorism. it may be a part of terrorism, it may be unpalatable but it is a different thing. stating that All and any acts of war that could be called a 'preemptive' are terrorism is wrong and over simplified. While specific act that might be defended as 'preemptive' strikes might indeed be terrorism. Preemptive strikes are not intrinsically nor by definition terrorism.)

PS: Personally, I have no problem with the concepts (as long as they aren't abused) of:

"Stop trouble before it starts"

and

"If you HAVE to fight, do it on the other guy's real estate."

(edited for minor grammar and spelling errors and to bring Amersfort's attention to my reply, Amersfort, If you're not going to bother Just SAY so.)

Re-posted to get a specific someone's attention. At least tell me you're not bothering to read or respond to my posts.
While I'm at it I did a major re-edit







6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 11/22/10
First of all, Sorry for replying this late, yes I know.

Second I will keep this reply short and briefly, first of all because I suspect you of being right, wich annoys me naturally but I have to deal with that.

Also I don't want this to turn into a incredible long post, because I myself have a hard time dealing with such things.

That said, I still think that any act of war/violence is terrorism, because it's using violence in a way to get what you want.
In this vision I now even consider defense as a way of terrorism, because it still is getting what you want by using violence.
But in that case terrorism wouldn't be a evil thing persé.

After reading your post I realized that you have a very realistic view upon terrorism, while I have a very unrealistic view upon it, I suspect that being the differences in our opinion.

75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/22/10

amersfoort wrote:

First of all, Sorry for replying this late, yes I know.

Second I will keep this reply short and briefly, first of all because I suspect you of being right, wich annoys me naturally but I have to deal with that.

Also I don't want this to turn into a incredible long post, because I myself have a hard time dealing with such things.

That said, I still think that any act of war/violence is terrorism, because it's using violence in a way to get what you want.
In this vision I now even consider defense as a way of terrorism, because it still is getting what you want by using violence.
But in that case terrorism wouldn't be a evil thing persé.

After reading your post I realized that you have a very realistic view upon terrorism, while I have a very unrealistic view upon it, I suspect that being the differences in our opinion.



Thank you for your reply, I don't consider myself a realist but perhaps my extra twenty years of life has included experiences that make me approach this matter differently from you. The problem you're having with Terrorism as you define it is that it expands to the point of vague meaninglessness. This is not unique. Terms like Liberal, Fascist, Justice are similarly affected by so many different spins, that they too sometimes fail to resemble the thing they were originally meant to name.
1176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / recycle bin
Offline
Posted 11/27/10
i think simply terorist is when u fail in your so called ''mission'' but when u succeed in the ''mission'' u are now a freedom fighter..
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/27/10

deadspirit01 wrote:

i think simply terorist is when u fail in your so called ''mission'' but when u succeed in the ''mission'' u are now a freedom fighter..


So, the terrorist are successful in bombing the Twin-Towers, are they 'freedom-fighers' now?

A villian by anyother name would still be as vile and hateful a man.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/27/10

deadspirit01 wrote:

i think simply terorist is when u fail in your so called ''mission'' but when u succeed in the ''mission'' u are now a freedom fighter..


No I can't agree. Read my rather lengthy and multiple posts on the subject if you actually care why I disagree. Oh and please, "You" is a three letter word. Come on, how hard can that be?


1176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / recycle bin
Offline
Posted 11/27/10

longfenglim wrote:


deadspirit01 wrote:

i think simply terorist is when u fail in your so called ''mission'' but when u succeed in the ''mission'' u are now a freedom fighter..


So, the terrorist are successful in bombing the Twin-Towers, are they 'freedom-fighers' now?

A villian by anyother name would still be as vile and hateful a man.


but thats the thing the media portray it in a different way...
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/27/10

deadspirit01 wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


deadspirit01 wrote:

i think simply terorist is when u fail in your so called ''mission'' but when u succeed in the ''mission'' u are now a freedom fighter..


No I can't agree. Read my rather lengthy and multiple posts on the subject if you actually care why I disagree. Oh and please, "You" is a three letter word. Come on, how hard can that be?




sorry i had written in text form i ddnt know it was quite a crime ......


I haven't flashed a badge at you, you're not in jail, so NO not a crime. But I find it hard to take anyone who massacres the Queen's English seriously on a forum that purports to be about intelligent debate.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/28/10 , edited 11/28/10

deadspirit01 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


deadspirit01 wrote:

i think simply terorist is when u fail in your so called ''mission'' but when u succeed in the ''mission'' u are now a freedom fighter..


So, the terrorist are successful in bombing the Twin-Towers, are they 'freedom-fighers' now?

A villian by anyother name would still be as vile and hateful a man.


but thats the thing the media portray it in a different way...


It is not the media to blame- it is nothing but the fact that they are using terror as a tool to achieve what they want. That is a terrorist.

Do you want me to go into details on why Al-Qaeda, Bin-Laden, and his lot are, in no way, 'freedom fighters', even if they are successful in destroying the west?


A Freedom Fighter is a person who struggles against a group perceived to be oppressing that person, his community, or some other community that he holds sympathy with. As such, men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Simon Bolivar are considered 'Freedom Fighters'. Freedom Fighters may sometime engage in terrorist tactics, as with the Basque Liberation Movement, the Irish Nationalist, or the French Resistance.

The Fundamentalist Mahometans of the Middle East are not Freedom Fighter because they already have the right to worship their religion in our secular society, and allotted the rights that every freeman should have- they don’t want people to live in a Secular Society, no, they are enemies to freedom, what they want is to subject the world under the banner of Mahometanism as they perceive it should be- Burkas, female circumcision, and stoning included.

It is an absolutely ignorant thing to think that there is a possibility that they are freedom fighters when they want their religion and laws exulted above all other religions and laws, and to bring back the savagry most civilisations (including their own) abandoned centuries ago.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/28/10

longfenglim wrote:


It is not the media to blame- it is nothing but the fact that they are using terror as a tool to achieve what they want. That is a terrorist.

Do you want me to go into details on why Al-Qaeda, Bin-Laden, and his lot are, in no way, 'freedom fighters', even if they are successful in destroying the west?


A Freedom Fighter is a person who struggles against a group perceived to be oppressing that person, his community, or some other community that he holds sympathy with. As such, men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Simon Bolivar are considered 'Freedom Fighters'. Freedom Fighters may sometime engage in terrorist tactics, as with the Basque Liberation Movement, the Irish Nationalist, or the French Resistance.

The Fundamentalist Mahometans of the Middle East are not Freedom Fighter because they already have the right to worship their religion in our secular society, and allotted the rights that every freeman should have- they don’t want people to live in a Secular Society, no, they are enemies to freedom, what they want is to subject the world under the banner of Mahometanism as they perceive it should be- Burkas, female circumcision, and stoning included.

It is an absolutely ignorant thing to think that there is a possibility that they are freedom fighters when they want their religion and laws exulted above all other religions and laws, and to bring back the savagry most civilisations (including their own) abandoned centuries ago.


To be fair, While I'm inclined to agree with that assessment regarding the subject of your argument, They themselves and the people who support them probably do not agree. I'm sure there's many Palestinians who, erroneously perhaps in yours and my view, believe themselves oppressed by the west via it's proxy Israel. or maybe oppressed by Israel which is aided and abetted by the west. Likewise, I'm sure there's injustices in other parts of the "Mahomtan" world that are being laid at the door of the west. Those who blame the west for those sins and crimes, would perhaps see Bin Ladin and his ilk as, indeed champions of justice. I'm not saying I agree with this point of view. After all, hard core Hitlerites saw the Jews as threats and oppressers and would have claimed members of SS einzatzgroups to be champions. And I don't agree with that latter point of view either.

I AM saying that from some points of views (which I don't happen to share) Bin Laden and his ilk might truly be perceived as 'freedom fighters. This is the same point of view that labels suicide bombers as matyred heroes after all.


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/9/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


It is not the media to blame- it is nothing but the fact that they are using terror as a tool to achieve what they want. That is a terrorist.

Do you want me to go into details on why Al-Qaeda, Bin-Laden, and his lot are, in no way, 'freedom fighters', even if they are successful in destroying the west?


A Freedom Fighter is a person who struggles against a group perceived to be oppressing that person, his community, or some other community that he holds sympathy with. As such, men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Simon Bolivar are considered 'Freedom Fighters'. Freedom Fighters may sometime engage in terrorist tactics, as with the Basque Liberation Movement, the Irish Nationalist, or the French Resistance.

The Fundamentalist Mahometans of the Middle East are not Freedom Fighter because they already have the right to worship their religion in our secular society, and allotted the rights that every freeman should have- they don’t want people to live in a Secular Society, no, they are enemies to freedom, what they want is to subject the world under the banner of Mahometanism as they perceive it should be- Burkas, female circumcision, and stoning included.

It is an absolutely ignorant thing to think that there is a possibility that they are freedom fighters when they want their religion and laws exulted above all other religions and laws, and to bring back the savagry most civilisations (including their own) abandoned centuries ago.


To be fair, While I'm inclined to agree with that assessment regarding the subject of your argument, They themselves and the people who support them probably do not agree. I'm sure there's many Palestinians who, erroneously perhaps in yours and my view, believe themselves oppressed by the west via it's proxy Israel. or maybe oppressed by Israel which is aided and abetted by the west. Likewise, I'm sure there's injustices in other parts of the "Mahomtan" world that are being laid at the door of the west. Those who blame the west for those sins and crimes, would perhaps see Bin Ladin and his ilk as, indeed champions of justice. I'm not saying I agree with this point of view. After all, hard core Hitlerites saw the Jews as threats and oppressers and would have claimed members of SS einzatzgroups to be champions. And I don't agree with that latter point of view either.

I AM saying that from some points of views (which I don't happen to share) Bin Laden and his ilk might truly be perceived as 'freedom fighters. This is the same point of view that labels suicide bombers as matyred heroes after all.




I can concede that I was wrong, that he can be construed to be a Freedom Fighter, but, so are the IRA or the Quebec Liberation Front, &c.- Freedom Fighters need not be a good thing. Some may see those as heroes, but, in the end, there is very little to like in them, the IRA have a long history of bombing Churches and killing civilians, the Quebec liberation front were responsible for the kidnapping Mr Cross, and Al Queda for killing their enemy in the most brutal ways possible.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 12/9/10

longfenglim wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


It is not the media to blame- it is nothing but the fact that they are using terror as a tool to achieve what they want. That is a terrorist.

Do you want me to go into details on why Al-Qaeda, Bin-Laden, and his lot are, in no way, 'freedom fighters', even if they are successful in destroying the west?


A Freedom Fighter is a person who struggles against a group perceived to be oppressing that person, his community, or some other community that he holds sympathy with. As such, men like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Simon Bolivar are considered 'Freedom Fighters'. Freedom Fighters may sometime engage in terrorist tactics, as with the Basque Liberation Movement, the Irish Nationalist, or the French Resistance.

The Fundamentalist Mahometans of the Middle East are not Freedom Fighter because they already have the right to worship their religion in our secular society, and allotted the rights that every freeman should have- they don’t want people to live in a Secular Society, no, they are enemies to freedom, what they want is to subject the world under the banner of Mahometanism as they perceive it should be- Burkas, female circumcision, and stoning included.

It is an absolutely ignorant thing to think that there is a possibility that they are freedom fighters when they want their religion and laws exulted above all other religions and laws, and to bring back the savagry most civilisations (including their own) abandoned centuries ago.


To be fair, While I'm inclined to agree with that assessment regarding the subject of your argument, They themselves and the people who support them probably do not agree. I'm sure there's many Palestinians who, erroneously perhaps in yours and my view, believe themselves oppressed by the west via it's proxy Israel. or maybe oppressed by Israel which is aided and abetted by the west. Likewise, I'm sure there's injustices in other parts of the "Mahomtan" world that are being laid at the door of the west. Those who blame the west for those sins and crimes, would perhaps see Bin Ladin and his ilk as, indeed champions of justice. I'm not saying I agree with this point of view. After all, hard core Hitlerites saw the Jews as threats and oppressers and would have claimed members of SS einzatzgroups to be champions. And I don't agree with that latter point of view either.

I AM saying that from some points of views (which I don't happen to share) Bin Laden and his ilk might truly be perceived as 'freedom fighters. This is the same point of view that labels suicide bombers as matyred heroes after all.




I can concede that I was wrong, that he can be construed to be a Freedom Fighter, but, so are the IRA or the Quebec Liberation Front, &c.- Freedom Fighters need not be a good thing. Some may see those as heroes, but, in the end, there is very little to like in them, the IRA have a long history of bombing Churches and killing civilians, the Quebec liberation front were responsible for the kidnapping Mr Cross, and Al Queda for killing their enemy in the most brutal ways possible.


No disagreement here.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.