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

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 11:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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 But it's not really. Does it really matter if you, or your loved one, is blown up by a guy in a turban on the street corner or by a guy in a uniform flying a plane. Dead and innocent is dead and innocent. This thread really bothers me, because I really want there to be a difference, and I swear there is, the more I think about it, the less difference I see. And that really disturbs me.

Termyn8or -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 11:26:13 PM)
FR NONE OF YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND A GODDAMN THING. I will tell you this once. There is only one difference between war and terrorism, and that is that one is condoned and the other is not. Anything anyone else has to say about that particular subject is a bunch of bullshit. Killing, killing for a cause. You don't define their cause and they don't define yours. And if the terrorism is sanctioned, it is war. If war is not sanctioned it is terrorism. It really is that simple. Convince yourselves of anything you want, but in all the death I have experienced in life, I have found that there are no degrees. No one dead person is any deader than another, or less dead than some other corpse. Stiff, iced, whacked. No matter what. Your brother in law beats the fuck out your sister and you go hurt him, it is a war to you but it is terrorism to him. TAKE MY FUCKING WORD FOR IT. I didn't get this name for nothing. The Jihad is a "holy" war. I don't buy the holy part, but to them it is a war. We call it terrorism because we don't like it. What we did to Iraq, how does that differ ? What Russia and us did to Afghanistan over the last bunch of decades, how does that differ ? Oh, we tried not to hit civilians. Yeah, so does the fucking IDF. The only one with the balls to really cross the line was McVeigh. He hit civilians on purpose. He was from here. You know what else ? The car bomb was invented in the US. Yup. Why do we have to start all this shit ? Because we are us. Take your definitions to the grave, where they belong. T^T

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 11:44:48 PM)
quote: NONE OF YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND A GODDAMN THING. I will tell you this once. There is only one difference between war and terrorism, and that is that one is condoned and the other is not. I hate to burst your bubble <well actually no, I rather enjoy it> but several people have already said just that.

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 11:49:33 PM)
quote: Haha... you see, my idea of a hero is much closer to the pilot of an airliner who crashes it into the WTC than to operator of an unmanned drone hiding in the safety of a bunker on the other side of the Earth and pulling the trigger and bombing from there, really. Those are both bad hobbies to have sonny... where can we send the gerbils and duct tape? It's time you got an avocation that suits your personality and character.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/26/2011 11:58:02 PM)
My problem is that I am having a very hard time seeing either of them as a hero.

tweakabelle -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 12:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather My problem is that I am having a very hard time seeing either of them as a hero. I'd say that's a virtue ..... the last thing I would call it is a problem. From where I sit, it would be a problem if you found one or other a hero. So why not think of it as a virtue? That's what it is.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 12:06:51 AM)
Because I want there to be a difference!!

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 12:09:37 AM)
quote: My problem is that I am having a very hard time seeing either of them as a hero. This doesn't even touch on the here layer for me... I just think the kid needs a hobby that has to do with his ass.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 12:17:03 AM)
OK, since you feel his premise is wrong, you must see a difference; so what is the difference?

tweakabelle -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 12:41:09 AM)
The only real difference that works in every instance is that one is State-sanctioned, the other is peer-sanctioned. (Differences of intent might apply to individual events) As the State can be seen as one form of peer group (fellow-citizens, fellow-<insert nationality/ideology/religion/cause of your choice here>) it boils down to which, if any, form of peer approval you value the most (or least as the case may be). My guess is that most people would prefer their actions to be State-sanctioned. But what if your State was occupied by a brutal foreign army, (different race, religion, language, culture, laws etc) that you and all your peer group loathed and hated?

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 12:42:20 AM)
quote: OK, since you feel his premise is wrong, you must see a difference; so what is the difference? Nah ... you're missing my point..... he's here to be a fucking weeny and the Dom in me won't play and would rather offer him a richard gere treat and tell him to fuck off. The killing and right/wrong elements are irrelevant. We're getting our chains pulled. But so as not to be cryptic, I have problems getting my head around any military response that isn't clearly defensive ... like if we were invaded. And anybody who just willfully targets unwitting people knowing they'll die... is a fucking coward. And a young man or woman who enters the service and say goes to war in a foreign land? Well they picked a life, They got deployed and they have to follow the orders or decide to be conscientious objectors. And honestly, knowing a few older guys who went to Nam, and a number of younger guys who went to Afghanistan and Iraq, and having seen the difference it made? I feel real comfortable saying WE have no business judging them. However, with other humans, your mileage and battery life may vary.

StrangerThan -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 4:16:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel 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. Of course we bombed Baghdad. The days when people wore red and blue uniforms and agreed to meet on the field at a hundred yards and shoot each other are long gone. I mean hell, think of the British uniforms during the American Revolution. Can you say, draw me a better target than a great big X right in the middle of your body? We bombed Baghdad because that's where Saddam and his loyalist troops were. It was not an indiscriminate bombing. We didn't nuke them like Hiroshima or fire bomb them like Dresden, even though we could have easily done either or both. As a side note to tweak, enter the year 2012. Things of the 40's will most likely never be repeated. If for no other reason, the host of lawyers that would descend upon the international courts armed with indignation and seeing dollar signs. It might different if countries set military bases out in the desert, away from population centers. But they don't, and you can't exempt every military target just because of its proximity to civilians. You can't exempt a military target based on the fact that when he or she is done shooting at you, he or she goes home to hang out with the family for the evening. In some cases, it's true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The issue is rarely about freedom however. It's more about who will be in control when it's all said and done. I guess the question I have for you is who do you want in control? A good many of us sit behind the protective net deployed by our respective military machines. We live in relative safety, relative freedom, and get to bitch and moan all day about points like these. We get to decry people like McVeigh and bin Laden. We get to denounce our leaders, sue religions, wander down to the market with little fear of it exploding while we're there. If you see no difference between a standing military and terrorists, then I'd suggest you get out from behind that safety net and experience some of the world. In particular, go to some of the places where religion has a strangle hold on hearts, minds and actions, and do the same things there, you do here. Shrug.

Antikapitalista -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 6:05:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Terrorists are cowards. They have no problem targeting innocent people, children included. Really? So, cowardice or heroism is defined or at least closely related to guilt or innocence? How are enemy soldiers guilty? Note that soldiers have no problem targeting innocent people. In fact, they must have no problem doing that. Essentially, they are like slaves. They are not to judge guilt or innocence. They are to carry out orders.

Antikapitalista -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 6:12:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper 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? Hey, you are so special and unique in your comments...! I thought the Neanderthals died out some 25000 years ago... but evidently not.

Antikapitalista -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 6:21:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan 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. Really??! I thought that one enlists for a terrorist quite willingly... Victims of war usually have no such choice, either. In fact, both groups (victims of war and victims of terrorism) are roughly on the same level. And most of you seem to be falling for the false and, first and foremost, completely irrelevant dichotomy between guilt and innocence, while completely ignoring the existence of the often massive and relevant group of "little Eichmans".

Fightdirecto -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 6:35:15 AM)
If some foreign power invaded the United States and occupied it, I would fight back with explosives, a gun, a knife, my bare hands - and I know that, by doing so, the government, the military and the civilians of that invading and occupying power would classify me as a "terrorist" for doing so.

SternSkipper -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 7:00:14 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper 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? Hey, you are so special and unique in your comments...! Oh, that's EASY, I'm COOL and Understandably, you're not... Now back to business... Where do we send the gerbils? quote: I thought the Neanderthals died out some 25000 years ago... but evidently not. Well you can sort that out yourself easy enough... have over on the mantle should be a picture of your parents there.

Aneirin -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 7:12:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto If some foreign power invaded the United States and occupied it, I would fight back with explosives, a gun, a knife, my bare hands - and I know that, by doing so, the government, the military and the civilians of that invading and occupying power would classify me as a "terrorist" for doing so. But if that foreign power invaded the US and made your life better, ended the worries you have now, be they economic or otherwise would you still fight them ? As to be fair, what exactly is this nationhood thing, if it is not a machine the minority have and use to better their situation ? I say that because it is the citizens of any country that pay for military actions anywhere with their taxes and their blood, whilst those that cause the conflict you will notice stay at home out of harms way. It isn't usual that terrorists fund their activities from the public purse, they do what they do from other sources of income. Now I believe many nations set up professional armed forces to defend their country, their people, their ways and what they have, but of those armed forces, how often have they been used for actual defence of one's country. This issue does make me question, because I know full well the British Navy was set up to protect trade, and if that still stands, what of other parts of the military and for that matter, the military in whatever country, as to remember just what defines protecting trade, does that mean people or commerce. All through history various military have been used to enhance wealth, look anywhere in history, any empire you like to choose, the model is the same, it is still being enacted today, but perhaps now we have gone one better, world communication, the global economy has enabled war to be fought through finance, and with that comes financial terrorism. But if a military is set up to protect the interests of commerce and those commercial actions do what to weaker countries in their desire for trade, can anyone blame non professionals for fighting back ? As that is what it seems to be, professional military funded by and supplied by a county's population and controlled by officials who keep out of harms way as opposed to an amateur military supplied and funded by those who sympathise. Again one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but what are a professional military in all this ? What gives a country the right to wage war on another, you, the people ? And what do you get from allowing your country to wage war ? More freedom, or less ?

Anaxagoras -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 7:18:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Of course we bombed Baghdad. The days when people wore red and blue uniforms and agreed to meet on the field at a hundred yards and shoot each other are long gone. I mean hell, think of the British uniforms during the American Revolution. Can you say, draw me a better target than a great big X right in the middle of your body? It might different if countries set military bases out in the desert, away from population centers. But they don't, and you can't exempt every military target just because of its proximity to civilians. You can't exempt a military target based on the fact that when he or she is done shooting at you, he or she goes home to hang out with the family for the evening. War won't just disappear if one side becomes more ethical. There are times when it is an act of necessity, and justified no matter how ugly it is. When two nations are at war a military target is a military target. Civilians will almost always constitute a significant component in the surrounding environs even if a base is outside a city but allowing said target to continue would probably endanger your own forces and civilians. Thats been the reality of war for a long time now. There are definite elements in war that will terrorise a populace but a sharp distinction has to be made between focusing on legitimate military targets that result in civilian casualties, and targets that have no military legitimacy, for which an army can be brought to task over. As a result there should also be a sharp distinction between legitimate military targets that oppose a force, and terrorists who consistently focus on soft civilian targets to inflict the maximum psychological pain.

lovmuffin -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 7:23:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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 But it's not really. Does it really matter if you, or your loved one, is blown up by a guy in a turban on the street corner or by a guy in a uniform flying a plane. Dead and innocent is dead and innocent. This thread really bothers me, because I really want there to be a difference, and I swear there is, the more I think about it, the less difference I see. And that really disturbs me. There is no difference in terms of grieving for your loved one. Whether or not they were killed by a terrorist or a uniformed combatant the hurt is still the same. The difference lies in the fact that there is no moral equivalence between the two as was stated by Willbeur, if there is no difference it's "Only in the fallacious world of moral equivalency"

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875