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

Termyn8or -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:26:49 PM)
"The UN did consider the Arabs living in the area. The same resolution that created Israel created Palestine for the Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png " The UN and the Jews were taking into consideration what they thought the Palestinians should have. The Palestinians were elswhere and not [allowed] in the room. They made the decisions and that was that, and if the Palestinians didn't like it they were free to wage war against an immensely superior enemy, but apparently not using any unconventional weapons, the only kind available to them. Sounds fair to me. And now they can have all the country they want but the Jews can come and take any part of it they want whenever they feel like it. Wait until they come for your apartment. T^T

Real0ne -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:28:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: the question of the morality of all war or armed conflict, can we not all agree that this is an unacceptable tactic regardless of who or what type of combatant engages in it? Absolutely. Please don't get the impression that I'm trying to defend it. I'm not. I find it repulsive. I am trying to understand it. quote: For this purpose, I am defining "terrorism" as the deliberate targeting of non-combatant civilians with the aim of causing fear in the general populace in order to generate political pressure to favour the cause espoused by those behind the attack. Nor do I have any quibble with the definition you offered. I would note that using that definition, some conventional military forces would qualify as terrorist. Some non-controversial examples are be the Sri Lankan Army's recent activities up to the end of the civil war there, or the Russian Army's behaviour in Chechnya, both of which meet every condition laid out in your definition. I've been thinking about these issues for years. The only thing I am convinced of is that there are no easy answers, it's not black and white. There is a temptation to rely on simple generalisations, but these create as many problems as they solve, as the US discovered when it invaded Iraq. ETA: the last paragraph thats the problem when the deMOBcracy comes up with a new word to linguistically "terrorize" PUN INTENDED! There has never been a crime associated with terror. Its a big job trying to figure out how to define terrorism as a crime without stomping on other crimes already defined! So big the international community has to do it. I am sure they wil do fine just like other words they shredded for their agenda, like holocaust et al. screw linguistics and proper word structure. no money to be made in that!

Termyn8or -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:30:31 PM)
"From 1920 until 1947, the area was a mandate of the British Empire." Does the sun yet set on that MF ? People are getting tired of those assholes thinking the world is theirs to mete out to the people they see fit to rule. But you will fail to understand that because it is easier to just go with the flow and believe that "they" are right, that "they" are always right, no matter what. Easy way out. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:33:54 PM)
"For this purpose, I am defining "terrorism" as the deliberate targeting of non-combatant civilians with the aim of causing fear in the general populace in order to generate political pressure to favour the cause espoused by those behind the attack." The allies bombing of Dresden. Look it up. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:41:08 PM)
"thats the problem when the deMOBcracy comes up with a new word to linguistically "terrorize" PUN INTENDED! " Quit trying to make up words, nobody is impressed. You just obscure your point in doing so. This has nothing to do with democracy, it is something different, it doesn't matter if it is communist, buddhist or what the fuck. You need those labels, I hope there is help for you. This is in no way a partisan thing or political thing, and if you can't understand that I don't know what to tellya. T^T

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:44:00 PM)
quote: The allies bombing of Dresden. Look it up. Try to keep up. quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: some conventional military forces would qualify as terrorist. Absolutely!! That is why I included the "regardless of who or what type of combatant" bit.

Real0ne -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:46:19 PM)
ok ok, how about just "da MOB" fuck the cracktic part? I can terrorize words too!

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/27/2011 11:48:00 PM)
quote: Cool! I'm glad we're on the same page. OK, now can we further agree that there is a difference between that and "conventional" war, where the effort is, at least ostensibly, to target military objectives and to avoid or at least minimize civilian casualties.

tweakabelle -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/28/2011 12:23:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Cool! I'm glad we're on the same page. OK, now can we further agree that there is a difference between that and "conventional" war, where the effort is, at least ostensibly, to target military objectives and to avoid or at least minimize civilian casualties. Yes. This issue rarely arises where both parties to a conflict are 'conventional' forces using 'conventional' military tactics in a 'conventional' war where two States fight each other and doing their best to observe the Geneva Conventions. It arises most often where one side is a conventional State force (civil or military) and the other is irregular. The buzz word in the jargon is 'asymmetric' (brought to you by the same people who developed 'collateral damage'). Or where one side has such overwhelming force at its disposal that a conventional war would be suicidal for the other. Nor should it be assumed that the only response to terrorism is a military one. Several European and South American States carried out successful anti-terrorist campaigns in the 70s and 80s using civilian law and civilian security services. These tended to be internal national rather than international campaigns.

Edwynn -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/28/2011 12:40:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: I don't know what else to tell you. "I've decided to take an English composition course" would be a good place to start. Good thing that you decided that "I've decided against taking logic 101," being the lost cause that would in fact be obtaining thereupon. But don't let that stop you. You are in a large club there. "Company seeks like company," and all that. Even if in your own mind, such as it is. It's the net. There are people much better at the language than either of us who slip up every day regarding spelling and grammar, but grasp at whatever straws you like. Unless you are like that twit who actually did not get the joke about "a article" (and proceeded to bray quite loudly about it) because he needs everything blatantly laid out before him. Like the people who feel the need to state {sarcasm} alongside every such situation to bring the actual thinking behind it to attention to such dull wits as yourself. Go away.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/28/2011 12:47:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: I don't know what else to tell you. "I've decided to take an English composition course" would be a good place to start. [:D]Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/28/2011 12:52:38 AM)
quote: Yes. Perfect! If you agree then I am satisfied I have found the difference that I wanted there to be.

Termyn8or -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/28/2011 12:56:00 AM)
FR Bullshit. Firing a machine gun from a plane is nothing but a fucking driveby. Our pushbutton heroes are going to kill those kids before they grow up to be cowards who will GIVE their own life to kill the enemies (on suicide missions) who have killed their families and friends. Fox and CNN will tell you who is who. You mean Termy respects a suicide bomber more than a USAF pilot ? Even with USAF Men in the family ? FUCKING YES. Once you see what really is, you kinda wish you hadn't. T^T

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/28/2011 1:23:15 AM)
quote: Perhaps you should follow your own advice. [:D][:D][:D][:D]Already did my dear, that's why my posts make sense.

Edwynn -> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? (9/28/2011 1:52:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Perhaps you should follow your own advice. [:D][:D][:D][:D]Already did my dear, that's why my posts make sense. To you and your likewise delusional close circle. Congrats. Tough job that must have been.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875