RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not?

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 4:46:25 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

quote:

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.

That's pretty much what bothers me, that all too often "terrorist" seems to mean "guy on the other side".

Now in some cases there is no real connection between the target and the cause, in those cases, the one labeled a terrorist is indeed a terrorist.

(in reply to Fightdirecto)

Post #: 101

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 4:54:13 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

At this point I think the best I can say is that if there is a difference, then it is one of intent and purpose.

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)

Post #: 102

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 5:01:26 PM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

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"
That isn't an explanation. Why are they not morally equivalent? Killing is killing, why is one more morally reprehensible than the other?

Post # 100 and you got it, post # 102

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)

Post #: 103

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 5:26:58 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

Go me!!

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 104

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 5:34:26 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

I have read this thread completely, and find the idea of supporting terrorism as stupid.

Let me point out a few facts to the op, which seems to have eluded them, either that or they are too stupid to see the difference.

1) terrorists target civilians, women, children, non combatants EXCLUSIVELY.

2) In modern warfare, civilians are not targeted on purpose for the soul benefit of terrorizing a population and to demoralize the civilians of a country we are at war with.

This was not true in WWII for example. BOTH sides used UNRESTRICTED bombing on civilian targets. Everything was a fair target. If a German war industry plant was in close proximity to a hospital or school, it was bombed, and civilians were killed. The Allies fire bombed German cities with the intent of inflicting civilian casualties. The US Firebombed Japanese cities for two reasons, to terrorize the civilian population and destroy the many cottage industries that supported the Japanese war effort.

3 Today targets of aircraft are targeted with laser other guidance systems that limits the chance of civilian casualties, although a miss can and does happen, it is not intentional. You might want to google the video of smart weapons hitting their targets with civilian structures nearby and missed by the munition.

4 To purposely target civilians is a crime under the UCMJ. Officers giving the order are held responsible, and the soldiers, if they carry out such an order are also criminals. An enlisted man, under the UCMJ, can legally and without worry of being prosecuted, refuse to follow an order that means killing unarmed civilians.

Finally, to look at the religious ramifications, the commandment in its original form, is NOT "Thou shalt not kill," it is "Thou shalt not murder." It should also be noted that the Qur'an in the words of Mohammed, explicitly states it is a sin to kill a non-combatant.

quote:

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).

Islam and war Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted. In brief, war is permitted:

in self defence
when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

War should be conducted:

in a disciplined way
so as to avoid injuring non-combatants
with the minimum necessary force
without anger
with humane treatment towards prisoners of war

Please not that the extremists in Islam do not follow these rules. In the words of their prophet Mohammed, they are going to hell, not to heaven and 72 virgins.

For HeatherMcLeather, a terrorist is one who practices unrestricted warfare, does primarily include military targets on his agenda and makes an effort to kill, main and wound civilians.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 105

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 5:50:46 PM

Aneirin

Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline

Agree on all, but as we all know, there are many interpretations of what Mohamed or even God for that matter was supposed to have said, the various factions follow what suits their purpose, and it could even be certain interpretations are engineered such that they appeal to the militant.

Again, if it is written by man, take it all with a healthy pinch of salt.

But it is man that causes the ills in this world not gods - they just exist so that we can choose between right and wrong action.

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 106

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 6:06:15 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

Just a few points

quote:

1) terrorists target civilians, women, children, non combatants EXCLUSIVELY.

So the attacks on the USS Cole and the marine barracks in Beirut weren't terrorist attacks then?

quote:

let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression

And bin Laden and company interpret what the west and Israel has done in the Middle East as oppression.

quote:

if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

Which Israel is doing, and which the way they are treated in the West can be interpreted as.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 107

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 7:23:05 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

Just a few points

quote:

1) terrorists target civilians, women, children, non combatants EXCLUSIVELY.
So the attacks on the USS Cole and the marine barracks in Beirut weren't terrorist attacks then?

quote:

let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression
And bin Laden and company interpret what the west and Israel has done in the Middle East as oppression.

quote:

if another state is oppressing its own Muslims
Which Israel is doing, and which the way they are treated in the West can be interpreted as.

One point you seemed to have missed, Islam teaches that soldiers attack soldiers, NOT NON-COMBATANTS.

For the record, prior to 1948, when Israel was granted nation status, there was no Palestinian homeland. In fact, the other Arab countries openly oppressed both Palestinians AND Jews. Prior to the end of WWI, the middle east under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

From 1920 until 1947, the area was a mandate of the British Empire.

The problem with the UN Resolution that established Israel was that it did not consider the Palestinians that lived in the region.

Immediately following the establishment of Israel, the Arab countries attacked and Israel had to fight for Independence. Since then, the Arab countries of the middle east has attacked Israel 3 times, and when Israel learned of one planned invasion, they conducted pre-emptive strikes.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)

Post #: 108

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 7:35:11 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

quote:

One point you seemed to have missed, Islam teaches that soldiers attack soldiers, NOT NON-COMBATANTS.

Well, not quite so categorically, according to the section you quoted, at least not to my interpretation. And I really don't know anything about the intricacies of what Islam teaches, that's why I haven't made any such pronouncements. I was just commenting on how not all acts that are labeled "terrorist" are against civilians, and how the rules you set out can be used to justify the attacks made.

None of the rest of your post has anything to do with what I said.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 109

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 8:20:00 PM

SternSkipper

Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline

I was going to award this thread the revered SinkHole Award for merely not being worth continuing. But this thread here deserves well, something a lot more special.... I am therefore giving it the Intellectual Black Hole Award.
This is one of those threads where I have watched people I pretty much respect POUR reason into the dark little fissure some hateful ex-teen has created for the purpose of giving everyone a good hair puller ... Congratulations kid

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.

Tinfoilers Swallow

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)

Post #: 110

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 9:54:44 PM

Edwynn

Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

Well, I used to actually dig out things, go to the library, the international newsstand, etc. , the latest outre artistic expression, etc.

Good luck with that today. It doesn't exist.

It is all put in terms of the oppressors, those that seek to force you to deal in their terms, by way of one after another of 'technological advance,' when it has never been anything more than furtherance of technology in service to advance of marketing of YOU as nothing more than a cog to that end, and 'marketing' of that paradigm as our only salvation. If anybody missed the BIG HINT in the 'changing of the guard' from the former "personnel" department to the more honest "human resources" department, then you possibly might have also missed anything that Phillip Agee or Fletcher Prouty ever said in their myriad treatises and books, and might have thereby missed the connection between the South and Central American democracy-overthrowing-dictator-installing United Fruit company of the 50's and the obviously CIA-LSD-experiments-by-white-coats inspired 1910 Fruitgum company of the latter 60's ...

Damn guys ...

Just shoot the Kennedy and be done with it.

No need to linger here.

But they just HAD to rub it in ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oNyjkR6wmo&feature=related

For those who do not spot immediately that the lead singer was in fact a recently hired intern at the time ...

Then look at the rest of the band. Luded to the max way before it came to even underground's awareness.

I don't know what else to tell you.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 9/27/2011 10:12:40 PM >

(in reply to SternSkipper)

Post #: 111

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 10:30:38 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

Seriously. When countries go to war, people die. Soldiers, civilians, innocents, people die. There is, as Wilbur also noted, usually a tacit compliance if not a vehement agreement with war as a resolution to the conflict.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with getting on a bus or a plane and having your world turn into a fireball because some zealot decided he didn't like your government, your religion, your lack of religion, whatever it is he or she doesn't like.

I'm afraid you're dead wrong here.

If you look at any current or recent theatre of international terrorism - say Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Palestine - you will find a foreign military occupation happening.

The presence of foreign armies of occupation is probably the only causal factor that all these situations have in common. The belief - be it right or wrong - that they are resisting a foreign military force is about the only motive that the 'terrorists' in all the above situations share too.

Please note I'm not saying that this foreign military occupation justifies the terrorist response here. I am saying it's a fundamental factor in causing the response. Please note also that the absence of a foreign military occupation is usually accompanied by the absence of international terrorism.

I'll go a little further and assert that, if your goal is to create international terrorism, a tried and tested strategy to succeed in achieving that goal is instigating a foreign military occupation.

You might also note that no guerilla/insurgency type campaign can be sustained without the active support of significant sections of the local population. So there's a "a tacit compliance if not a vehement agreement with war as a resolution to the conflict" too.

Once again, the distinction between conventional military forces and irregular ones is not as black and white as your post suggests.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/27/2011 10:50:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to StrangerThan)

Post #: 112

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 10:32:46 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

Some of us have enjoyed looking at this idea, and even benefited from doing so. I find myself wondering why you are so determined to not have this idea debated.

(in reply to SternSkipper)

Post #: 113

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 10:36:43 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Edwynn)

Post #: 114

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 10:41:24 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The problem with the UN Resolution that established Israel was that it did not consider the Palestinians that lived in the region.

Immediately following the establishment of Israel, the Arab countries attacked and Israel had to fight for Independence. Since then, the Arab countries of the middle east has attacked Israel 3 times, and when Israel learned of one planned invasion, they conducted pre-emptive strikes.

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

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 115

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 10:49:50 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

quote:

Once again, the distinction between conventional military forces and irregular ones is not as black and white as you are suggesting.

But are terrorists really coequal with an irregular military force? I am inclined to say no.

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.

Leaving aside, for the moment, 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?

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Post #: 116

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 11:02:34 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/27/2011 11:16:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)

Post #: 117

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 11:05:26 PM

HeatherMcLeather

Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by HeatherMcLeather -- 9/27/2011 11:07:13 PM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Post #: 118

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 11:17:49 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

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.

Cool! I'm glad we're on the same page.

_____________________________

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)

Post #: 119

RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not? - 9/27/2011 11:22:27 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Antikapitalista

I wonder why there is so much moral panic about terrorism...
I do support terrorism, especially international terrorism (while somehow condemning domestic terrorism), purely on humanitarian grounds.
The logic is simple: terrorism greatly saves human lives and property, while still being able to achieve the same political goals as war.

So, why is there so much moral panic and fear-mongering about terrorism?!

More specifically: why is war celebrated and terrorism is condemned?

there isnt, its about getting dumb people to "go along" so the gubagia can gain greater control

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Antikapitalista)

Post #: 120

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Support (international) terrorism – why not?

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094