RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not?

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:09:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome When I need random stupidity, I find it in Lucy's posts. Hint: Its not random.

Lucylastic -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:09:54 PM)
har de har, I put money on you being a twat thanks you just got me forty bucks:) MUWAH

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:16:40 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome The Democrats got us into Libya. Nato got you into libya Obviously not, Slavehandsome is right. They had started bombing Libya almost 2 weeks before they shielded themselves behind NATO. Hey Antipasto... we should fix you up with the guy with the shoe stuck in his neck, I mean since non of the women here will wipe their asses with you... Tell me Do you still have to defect to leave your country?

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:20:04 PM)
quote: Now Aggressive Terrorist Organization? It actually stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization ... and for decades, it existed almost entirely for the purpose of turning your country and all those around it to ash... back when you guys were 'the bad guys'

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:22:21 PM)
quote: When I need random stupidity, I find it in Lucy's posts. "hard to understand" doesn't translate to stupidity, random or otherwise

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:24:16 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome When I need random stupidity, I find it in Lucy's posts. Hint: Its not random. Shit... by page three I would think you two would be strolling down memory lane chatting about your days as birthers

erieangel -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:29:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I don't see much difference between a terrorist planting a bomb and an air force pilot dropping bombs on civilian areas from a height, or, say, the IDF firing artillery into Gaza. Just because someone wears a uniform doesn't mean they're not a terrorist. But that doesn't make terrorism right. In my book they're ALL wrong. About as wrong as a person can be. This. There really isn't much difference between a terrorist organization and a "standing army". Think of it this way, if the colonists had lost the Revolutionary War, every one of them who had fought the British army would have been considered not only a terrorist but treasonous as well. I read somewhere once that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We saw that in Afghanistan--they were first freedom fighters backed by the US against the Soviets and now they are terrorists, largely because of US foreign policy.

StrangerThan -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:44:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome So how is losing someone to war different from losing someone to terrorism? If for nothing else, the victims. People who go to war for the most part, choose, or at least chose at some point, to enter the military. Even if you enlist during peace time, you're trained and exist to conduct war. You may do other things, but you either go to war or support those who do. Terrorism victims have no such choice. They range in age from the youngest to the oldest. Some have lived full lives. Some haven't even started. Families are rent apart. There is no comparison.

erieangel -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 7:55:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome So how is losing someone to war different from losing someone to terrorism? If for nothing else, the victims. People who go to war for the most part, choose, or at least chose at some point, to enter the military. Even if you enlist during peace time, you're trained and exist to conduct war. You may do other things, but you either go to war or support those who do. Terrorism victims have no such choice. They range in age from the youngest to the oldest. Some have lived full lives. Some haven't even started. Families are rent apart. There is no comparison. Except that bombs launched by droid aircraft into heavily (or even not-so-heavily) populated civilian areas don't distinguish between military and civilian victims. If your comparison were anywhere near true, there wouldn't be "collateral damage" in war--which is exactly what the USA military has been calling all the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

StrangerThan -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 8:18:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome So how is losing someone to war different from losing someone to terrorism? If for nothing else, the victims. People who go to war for the most part, choose, or at least chose at some point, to enter the military. Even if you enlist during peace time, you're trained and exist to conduct war. You may do other things, but you either go to war or support those who do. Terrorism victims have no such choice. They range in age from the youngest to the oldest. Some have lived full lives. Some haven't even started. Families are rent apart. There is no comparison. Except that bombs launched by droid aircraft into heavily (or even not-so-heavily) populated civilian areas don't distinguish between military and civilian victims. If your comparison were anywhere near true, there wouldn't be "collateral damage" in war--which is exactly what the USA military has been calling all the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's always collateral damage, especially when those conduct war hide among civilians. To my knowledge, no war has ever been fought that didn't induce innocent deaths. Then again, if you're a fighter, who is putting your family more at risk? The drone you worry about, or you for going home after the fighting? What you're implying is that the military intentionally targets innocent civilians, and while I'm sure someone can dig up a case where it happened, that is by far not the case. Terrorists do.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 8:22:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome So how is losing someone to war different from losing someone to terrorism? If for nothing else, the victims. People who go to war for the most part, choose, or at least chose at some point, to enter the military. Even if you enlist during peace time, you're trained and exist to conduct war. You may do other things, but you either go to war or support those who do. Terrorism victims have no such choice. They range in age from the youngest to the oldest. Some have lived full lives. Some haven't even started. Families are rent apart. There is no comparison. Except that bombs launched by droid aircraft into heavily (or even not-so-heavily) populated civilian areas don't distinguish between military and civilian victims. If your comparison were anywhere near true, there wouldn't be "collateral damage" in war--which is exactly what the USA military has been calling all the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's always collateral damage, especially when those conduct war hide among civilians. To my knowledge, no war has ever been fought that didn't induce innocent deaths. Then again, if you're a fighter, who is putting your family more at risk? The drone you worry about, or you for going home after the fighting? What you're implying is that the military intentionally targets innocent civilians, and while I'm sure someone can dig up a case where it happened, that is by far not the case. Terrorists do. It goes further than that. A declared war by a government has the tacit approval of at least a good portion of its citizens.

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 8:47:42 PM)
Since this is such a leaker of a thread I have no issues with a brief distraction there are significant updates being added to the wall street occupation

Fightdirecto -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 9:32:38 PM)
What actually constitutes "terrorism"? When I was a little kid, I was watching an old World War II movies with my parents. In the film "So Proudly We Hail" an American Army nurse (played by actress Veronica Lake) pretends to be surrendering to a group of Japanese soldiers and, when she gets close to them, she pulls the pins on two hand grenades hidden under her shirt and blows both herself and the soldiers up. In the film, she is hailed for her heroic act. (Clip of Veronica Lake's character being "Heroic") I remember asking my Dad wethere she really was a "hero" - and he had trouble answering me. A few years ago, when Iraqi and Afghani "suicide bombers" were blowing American and NATO soldiers and themselves up in Iraq and Afghanistan, that old film was re-played on cable TV and it started to make me wonder all over again about what is "terrorism" and what is a "heroic act against an invader". And I can't come up with a clear answer.

erieangel -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 9:43:45 PM)
It all depends upon your POV, FD. To those carrying the suicide bombs, it is an heroic act; to those targeted by such, it is an act of terrorism. As I said above, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

erieangel -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 9:47:28 PM)
quote: What you're implying is that the military intentionally targets innocent civilians, and while I'm sure someone can dig up a case where it happened, that is by far not the case. Terrorists do. I'm not implying that. I am saying it out right. When the war in Iraq started, the US bombed Baghdad, a heavily populated city of civilians. Face it, the USofA is responsible for far more civilian deaths than those men who flew the planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and into a field south of me in PA.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 9:54:14 PM)
A lot of people seem to confuse the issue, perhaps for political reasons. For myself, I see terrorism as distinct from paramilitary activity. Terrorism focuses almost exclusively on soft targets, typically civilians or civilian infrastructure to further political goals. There is a strong psychological dimension by hitting the more vulnerable targets in a given society.

tweakabelle -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 10:23:50 PM)
quote: What you're implying is that the military intentionally targets innocent civilians, and while I'm sure someone can dig up a case where it happened, that is by far not the case. Terrorists do. There are numerous well known examples of Govt forces deliberately targetting civilians. The bombings of Tokyo and Dresden are two. Nixon/Kissinger's carpet bombings in Vietnam and Cambodia clearly qualify. The ruthless tactics employed by the Sri Lankan Govt in its (conventional) war with the Tamils is a more recent example. There are many many more. There are also many instances where armies fail to differentiate between civilians and military forces/objectives. There are also many occasions where armies deliberately choose tactics that will inevitably result in civilian fatalities when other (less lethal to civilians) options are available to them. Firing artillery into a civilian area as part of a counter-insurgency/terrorist campaign is one example of this. So, any suggestion that conventional military forces are innocent in this area is questionable. On some occasions they are, on others they aren't. The distinctions here may not be as clear cut as your post suggests. In the law I live under, intent vs effect in homicides is the difference between murder and manslaughter. They are clearly different matters. But both are crimes.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 10:46:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel To those carrying the suicide bombs, it is an heroic act; to those targeted by such, it is an act of terrorism. As I said above, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Only in the fallacious world of moral equivalency.

tweakabelle -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 11:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel It all depends upon your POV, FD. To those carrying the suicide bombs, it is an heroic act; to those targeted by such, it is an act of terrorism. As I said above, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It also depends on whether a 'terrorist'/freedom fighter is successful or not. Mandela is one example of a successful 'terrorist'/freedom fighter who received a Nobel Peace Prize. Begin and Arafat both had 'terrorist'/freedom fighter histories. Sean MacBride (founder of Amnesty) was ex-IRA. That's just off the top of my head, there's probably quite a few more on the Nobel Peace Prize-winner list too ...... And then there's Osama bin Laden and his ilk who've been both too, (from the same POV) ......... Not to mention the numerous 'terrorist'/freedom fighter movements that now comprise Governments (eg South Africa's ANC, Sinn Fein/IRA, most Israeli Govts since 1949 ......) There's an interesting discussion in wiki on the definition of 'terrorist'. About the only thing that everyone in that discussion agrees on is that it's a pejorative term. Beyond that it seems to many to be pretty meaningless.

lovmuffin -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 11:16:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I don't see much difference between a terrorist planting a bomb and an air force pilot dropping bombs on civilian areas from a height, or, say, the IDF firing artillery into Gaza. Just because someone wears a uniform doesn't mean they're not a terrorist. That's just about as fucked up as the OP

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875