|
Aswad -> RE: Does it bother anyone else the Boston terrorist is 19? (5/1/2013 1:44:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
it expresses support for the opposing side that engages in terrorism by calling tha justified military pursuit of terrorists terrorism & putting obama on tha same moral plain as osama bin laden.
1. Defining the means being used as unacceptable doesn't imply defining the goals as undesireable.
2. I disagree with your assessment that the justifiable, legitimate military targets you pursue are being pursued in a justifiable manner, and assert that the means you are employing are de facto terrorism.
3. BHO and OBL both chose to engage in what I contend is terrorism, in pursuit of their respective goals. That puts them both on the wrong side of the line.
quote:
there will be no retraction & there was no projection. ya do it & ya know ya do it. i looked back a little & heres 1 example where ya justify pizza parlour attacks if nothing else is available to hit http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4317127
Let's not complicate this with apples to oranges comparisons. The Israel-Palestine situation is a mutually genocidal war in which the military value of attirition is absolute, the support of the Israeli population for the conflict is near absolute, and a good argument can be made that the entire civilian population of Israel is in occupation of Palestinian territories, making that an insurgency (or, more accurately, class/ethnic warfare/revolution). To boot, the asymmetry there is one more along the lines of "frequent bomb threats with occasional deaths" versus "frequent bombings with high lethality".
Simply put, there is no parallell to the sort of terrorism we've been discussing here.
If you keep expanding the scope, we'll be left with a dissertation to take into account all the different factors.
quote:
what of yr repeated offensive bs others here would easily b terrorists? ya did tha same to me saying i was tha same as fundamentalist terrorists. is that much less offensive than saying ya support some terrorists? nah it isnt so quit complaining.
I'm not concerned with offense, mine or yours, nor do I intend any.
I'm concerned with accurate perception and portrayal of views; you're misrepresenting my opinions.
And, again, I don't support the sort of terrorism we were discussing here. Insurgency under occupation is a quite different matter (though usually still terrorism, just a different sort). There, too, targetting civilians is the last resort, but ultimately tolerable, as a matter of survival and/or territorial sovereignty, neither of which are comparable to e.g. the Boston marathon bombings.
quote:
funny then that ya spend so much time blaming tha west aint it?
How the hell am I blaming the west?
quote:
nonsense. ya said tha west was exactly tha same as tha terrorists not just in some "areas".
Yes. We're human beings. With human characteristics. In that respect, we're exactly the same in different situations.
Then I broke it down into greater detail, which apparently confused some readers.
quote:
nah. more strawmanning. theses little talk of "pointless vengence". i talked about just punishment & trying to understand it.
Don't be so literal. The point is the problem solving approach. If I were to set out to punish everyone that ever did me wrong, I would need a fuckin' nuke. It's not constructive, and essentially amounts to pointless vengeance, no matter how carefully you mete it out. As a goal, it is worthless. As a means, it can sometimes be a useful part of a greater whole. But for dealing with enemies, we're back to it being worthless.
quote:
nah yr backtracking. ya said there aint a clear difference between intentional & unintentional targeting of civilians http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4433838 when i talked about intent & accident.
Clear, it is not. Not in the sense you were trying to use it. It's not at all clear that there wasn't intent by BHO and/or his military; quite on the contrary, I'm of the opinion that they've crossed that line, in the sense of setting one foot on the other side of it (hence "straddle"). That there is a clear difference, conceptually, between the primary and auxillary damages and casualties, however, is self evident.
quote:
another objectionable thing ya keep saying is that terrorists havent options in asymmetric warfare. thats legitimization.
Quite apart from the fact that I'm not saying they don't have options, how is that legitimization?
quote:
ya also mix up terrorism wit folks fighting tha nazis where effort sto fight were justified.
The Norwegian resistance movement was, at the time, under international and national law, terrorism. The methods, as noted in the post you linked, at times included targetting civilians and attacking targets that would necessarily result in high auxillary casualties. Justified, yes, but principally because it was insurgency, which as a situation isn't comparable to that of Boston, for instance.
quote:
nah it wasnt how it read.
How fortunate, then, that this is an interactive medium where communication can clarify misreadings.
quote:
ya dont dehumanise & demonize when telling tha truth.
Let's see if I can make this clearer:
"This was unacceptable, I'm horrified, and I want them caught for this." « truth
"These animals are evil, we must destroy them." « dehumanizing and demonizing.
Do you see the difference there?
quote:
ya even called folks like kd bigots when they said tha boston bombing might have been by muslims.
Yeah, I went too far in that, agreed. The point itself was valid (i.e. that it shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to jump to the conclusion that "muslims did it" whenever something goes wrong, especially not when it lacks all the usual signatures and the target selection is off), but the manner in which I made it was needlessly aggressive, confrontational and accusatory. I shouldn't have done that.
So, yes, kdsub, if you're reading this, I apologize for that part.
Thanks for reminding me, WOTF.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
