"Almost all terrorists are Muslim" derail split from "Rants"

[Crazy Eddie]

So if, say, Hamas threatened to destroy Tel Aviv with a nuclear warhead unless Israel immediately and unilaterally withdrew to the 1967 borders, that isn't actually terrorism until the bomb goes off.

Got it.

Yep. That wouldn't be terrorism. I'm not so sure if that would be terrorism even after the bomb goes off, but at that point arguing over the exact classification of the act would likely be eclipsed by other concerns.

If you think mere threat of nuclear weapons is terrorism, then Israel along with every other nuclear-armed nation is by definition terrorist because they all have protocols in place where they would use those weapons. Of course, that may have been your intent... but I think that would dilute the word of any meaning because it would mean almost 50% of people live in terrorist countries by that definiton alone (and the other half are probably conventional terrorists).

Besides Hamas wouldn't make such a reasonable demand. They'd likely blow up Tel Aviv anyway if they could and that would make them terrorists.

I don't know that blowing up Tel Aviv would actually BE a terrorist act, depending on whether or not one recognizes the existence of the state of Palestine. It would probably be considered an act of war, although people who DON'T recognize Palestine would have to conclude it was an act of resistance to an illegal occupation... although in that case, recognizing Palestine would also recognize an ongoing state of war between Israel and Palestine, so...



But, yeah. Hamas would totally do it. Probably just for the lulz.

 

[Jayjay]

Recent threads on this board have shown me quite clearly that the word 'Terrorist' has already been diluted of all meaning.

Basically the vast majority of the time, if someone says 'terrorist', he conveys nothing that would not just as well have been conveyed by the word 'bastard'.

Try it - read some of the posts above, or any newspaper article about security precautions at airports or major public events; but replace the word 'terrorist' with 'bastard', and the word 'terrorism' with 'bastardry'; I bet the sense of the text is essentially unaltered in at least 80% of cases. 'Terrorist; is just an epithet today. But we can't stop the war on bastardry, or the bastards will win.

The word bastard has a useful meaning a child born out of wedlock. In time, that became also a generic insult, and arguably the original meaning is not useful in modern western society because the stigma of being a "bastard" isn't what it used to be. Maybe the same will happen to the word "terrorist" in due time, but I disagree that it has happened yet... case in point, it's not called war on terrorism as your analogy would have it, but war on terror. If what you said was true, it wouldn't sound so odd when e.g. Ukrainian state refers to separatists as "terrorists".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Recent threads on this board have shown me quite clearly that the word 'Terrorist' has already been diluted of all meaning.

Basically the vast majority of the time, if someone says 'terrorist', he conveys nothing that would not just as well have been conveyed by the word 'bastard'.

Try it - read some of the posts above, or any newspaper article about security precautions at airports or major public events; but replace the word 'terrorist' with 'bastard', and the word 'terrorism' with 'bastardry'; I bet the sense of the text is essentially unaltered in at least 80% of cases. 'Terrorist; is just an epithet today. But we can't stop the war on bastardry, or the bastards will win.

The word bastard has a useful meaning a child born out of wedlock. In time, that became also a generic insult, and arguably the original meaning is not useful in modern western society because the stigma of being a "bastard" isn't what it used to be. Maybe the same will happen to the word "terrorist" in due time, but I disagree that it has happened yet... case in point, it's not called war on terrorism as your analogy would have it, but war on terror. If what you said was true, it wouldn't sound so odd when e.g. Ukrainian state refers to separatists as "terrorists".

Not sure if it's relevant or demonstrates anything, but if you replace "terrorists" with "assholes" the entire framework of global conflict makes a LOT more sense.

Palestinian 'How to Stab a Jew' Video Goes Viral


2014 saw an influx of asshole organizations who were able to use social media to pursue their agendas, and Hamas and other Palestinian asshole groups were no exception, from the car intifada campaign to an anti-Israel song shared by Palestinians across social media platforms called "Run over the Baby."
With just a few days left, there's yet another murder-encouraging asshole campaign that's going viral on Arab social media, a video that teaches wannabe-assholes "how to stab a Jew."

Reports indicate that Israeli police do not yet know who the uploader(s) of the video is, posted by the “resisters of occupation in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem...” The video provides step-by-step instructions on how to stab and kill a "Jew," showing the "teacher" walk up to the "victim," stab him, and calmly walk away.

It also teaches how to behead victims, and to twist the knife after stabbing to ensure that the wound leads to death. All in one minute and thirteen seconds.
Like the anti-Israel campaigns released before it, this video is a call to lone-wolf assholes living throughout Israel to inflict asshole attacks against innocent Jews and Israelis.

Unlike organized asshole attacks, these kind of attacks are harder to detect and therefore useful to organizations like Hamas.
In addition to car attacks, 2014 also saw a rise in stabbing attacks against Israeli civilians as well. Watch the (sickening) video below:

Assholes kill 3 IRGC members in southeast Iran

Three members of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have been killed in an ambush by assholes in the border region of Saravan in Sistan-and-Baluchestan Province, southeast of Iran.

A number of assholes on Sunday carried out an ambush against an IRGC vehicle on patrol and, fled to neighboring Pakistan after killing three guards, the province's deputy governor Ali Asghar Mirshekari, said on Monday.

According to reports, those killed included Major Akbar Abdollahnejad, Lieutenant Qodratollah Mandani and a soldier named Mousa Nasiri.
The southeastern Sistan-and-Baluchestan Province has been the scene of a number of asshole attacks in recent years.

On October 8, three Iranian police officers were killed when they, along with other patrol police forces, came under a night attack by armed bandits while on a mission in the city of Saravan in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan.

Another police officer was killed after an explosives-laden car taken to the police station by assholes went off hours after the first incident.
Iran has repeatedly criticized its eastern neighbor Pakistan for failing to rein in assholes who cross border back into the country after carrying out their attacks on Iran's soil.

 

[bilby]

Recent threads on this board have shown me quite clearly that the word 'Terrorist' has already been diluted of all meaning.

Basically the vast majority of the time, if someone says 'terrorist', he conveys nothing that would not just as well have been conveyed by the word 'bastard'.

Try it - read some of the posts above, or any newspaper article about security precautions at airports or major public events; but replace the word 'terrorist' with 'bastard', and the word 'terrorism' with 'bastardry'; I bet the sense of the text is essentially unaltered in at least 80% of cases. 'Terrorist; is just an epithet today. But we can't stop the war on bastardry, or the bastards will win.

The word bastard has a useful meaning a child born out of wedlock. In time, that became also a generic insult, and arguably the original meaning is not useful in modern western society because the stigma of being a "bastard" isn't what it used to be. Maybe the same will happen to the word "terrorist" in due time, but I disagree that it has happened yet... case in point, it's not called war on terrorism as your analogy would have it, but war on terror. If what you said was true, it wouldn't sound so odd when e.g. Ukrainian state refers to separatists as "terrorists".

The syntax may be different, but the effect is the same. The 'War on Terror' may as well be called the 'War on Them'. Wars should be fought against nation states, or clearly identified military or paramilitary organisations.

You can reasonably declare war on Germany; or on Hamas; or on the Confederate States of America. But declaring war on terror is meaningless. Where does terror have its HQ? Who is in charge of terror? How many troops can terror field, and what it its order of battle? How would you know if you had won? Who would sign the ceasefire or the peace treaty? It is insane.

 

[bilby]

The word bastard has a useful meaning a child born out of wedlock. In time, that became also a generic insult, and arguably the original meaning is not useful in modern western society because the stigma of being a "bastard" isn't what it used to be. Maybe the same will happen to the word "terrorist" in due time, but I disagree that it has happened yet... case in point, it's not called war on terrorism as your analogy would have it, but war on terror. If what you said was true, it wouldn't sound so odd when e.g. Ukrainian state refers to separatists as "terrorists".

Not sure if it's relevant or demonstrates anything, but if you replace "terrorists" with "assholes" the entire framework of global conflict makes a LOT more sense.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. 'Terrorist' is just another insult to add to the many in the English language; and as such, it is meaningless to slap the label on any event, organisation or individual; it just means 'A person I don't like'.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not sure if it's relevant or demonstrates anything, but if you replace "terrorists" with "assholes" the entire framework of global conflict makes a LOT more sense.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. 'Terrorist' is just another insult to add to the many in the English language; and as such, it is meaningless to slap the label on any event, organisation or individual; it just means 'A person I don't like'.

True, but I'd stop short at calling it meaningless. It's a SPECIFIC kind of insult at this point, a way of describing someone who uses tactics the author finds despicable or otherwise unacceptable.

Over 180 ISIS assholes killed in Iraqi army operation

A successful anti-Islamic State (IS) operation by Iraqi forces has left more than 180 IS assholes dead in a key area of the country's central province of Salahuddin.
IS assholes suffered a huge blow Sunday as Iraqi forces, backed by volunteer fighters, launched a successful offensive in Yathrib, south of Tikrit, Press TV reported citing a Iraqi defence ministry statement.

A huge amount of ammunition and vehicles belonging to the assholes were also destroyed during the operation, the ministry said in the statement.
Key IS figures operating in Yathrib have begun to flee the city as they failed to resist the army's massive offensive in the area, Iraqi news sources said Friday.
Iraqi armed forces have managed to retake some key areas in the Salahuddin province over the past days.

Early Sunday, Iraqi troops advanced into Dhuluiyah, north of Baghdad, and pushed IS militants out of the city's military airport.

The most notable of the operations came in November when Iraqi forces retook the strategic town of Baiji and its refinery from those assholes. The Iraqi army also managed to liberate key districts in the city of Samarra in early December.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sure the many dead/missing students in Mexico, Nigeria and Camaroon will be very relieved to hear that.

I said "schools", I didn't say "students".

The nuclear birds don't fly. It's not terrorism until they do.

So if, say, Hamas threatened to destroy Tel Aviv with a nuclear warhead unless Israel immediately and unilaterally withdrew to the 1967 borders, that isn't actually terrorism until the bomb goes off.

Got it.

Disagree, because the trigger condition already exists. In the case of countervalue targeting the trigger is they nuked us--something that doesn't exist yet. Thus it's only a hypothetical.

- - - Updated - - -

Rules of war state that a rocket firing range no matter where it's located is a legitimate target. The IDF go out of their way unlike their enemies to limit civilian casualties as far as is possible. In fact they often risk their own soldiers lives when in fact a missile could have done the job of disarming a weapons storage site for example.

How about some rules for being a good human being? Fuck your rules of war. They are only something carried around in the heads of people who promote and prosecute wars. For the rest of us, this shit is just plain atrocity. The IDF do not go out of their way. That is pure crap.

If the rules of war don't apply then Israel should simply obliterate any sign of a rocket in Gaza. You don't get to make the two sides play by different rules.

- - - Updated - - -

Recent threads on this board have shown me quite clearly that the word 'Terrorist' has already been diluted of all meaning.

Basically the vast majority of the time, if someone says 'terrorist', he conveys nothing that would not just as well have been conveyed by the word 'bastard'.

Try it - read some of the posts above, or any newspaper article about security precautions at airports or major public events; but replace the word 'terrorist' with 'bastard', and the word 'terrorism' with 'bastardry'; I bet the sense of the text is essentially unaltered in at least 80% of cases. 'Terrorist; is just an epithet today. But we can't stop the war on bastardry, or the bastards will win.

I wouldn't say it has been diluted of all meaning, although there is a very real problem in this regard. I've been calling out such misuses repeatedly in this thread. Most are by the left but the right is on occasion guilty of them also.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I said "schools", I didn't say "students".

I know what you said. Did you forget what we were talking about?

If the rules of war don't apply then Israel should simply obliterate any sign of a rocket in Gaza.

Which is pretty much exactly what they did. And you wonder why Israel's reputation is in the toilet right now?

You can reasonably declare war on Germany; or on Hamas; or on the Confederate States of America. But declaring war on terror is meaningless. Where does terror have its HQ?

Here, obviously.
View attachment 1889

 

[untermensche]

Recent threads on this board have shown me quite clearly that the word 'Terrorist' has already been diluted of all meaning.

It has been diluted by the US government. Any nation that did not agree to be a subservient member in the economic world order run by the US is labeled a terrorist nation. Any nation that claims their natural resources are the property of their citizens, not foreign corporations, is a terrorist nation.

But we don't have to follow their example.

We can say that terrorism is when people are deliberately terrorized without any legal or moral justification.

So this includes flying jets into buildings, suicide bombings of civilians, and deliberate military or police attacks.

 

[bilby]

Recent threads on this board have shown me quite clearly that the word 'Terrorist' has already been diluted of all meaning.

It has been diluted by the US government. Any nation that did not agree to be a subservient member in the economic world order run by the US is labeled a terrorist nation. Any nation that claims their natural resources are the property of their citizens, not foreign corporations, is a terrorist nation.

But we don't have to follow their example.

We can say that terrorism is when people are deliberately terrorized without any legal or moral justification.

So this includes flying jets into buildings, suicide bombings of civilians, and deliberate military or police attacks.

I don't live in the US, or have much interest in the pronouncements of the US government, so I doubt that they are solely to blame.

I would be more inclined to blame the very small, but very powerful, band of news media owners.

The days when governments told the newspapers what to print (and what not to print) in their newspapers are long gone.

These days, the news media tell the governments what to have (and what not to have) in their policies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Calling a deliberate unprovoked unjustified attack of a weaker nation by a much stronger nation "war" is only a way some can pretend it isn't terrorism. It isn't an argument.

Calling a pig a duck doesn't make it one.

The word "terrorism" isn't a measurement of the moral depravity of an attacker. It's an actual thing with it's own subtle meaning and usage. If we use the term like you're proposing we'll have to invent a new word for what we used to call terrorism, just because people like you keep using the word out of context. Why? Why can't we use the words we have for their intended meanings? It makes communication so much easier.

But it's done, arguably, by support by the Geneva Convention because these guys... allegedly attacked or planned to attack US soldiers.

First of all, the reason GW Bush and his henchmen justified their torture regime was because they claimed the Geneva Convention didn't apply.

And the torture report that just came out of the Senate discloses that many of the people captured and tortured did absolutely nothing.

We tortured innocent people.

It was madness. It was terrorism.

Was the intended goal of the torture of alleged Al Qaeda operatives to spread fear among all Moslem civilians in all nations? If no, it' wasn't terrorism. It was horrible. But still not terrorism.

We subject huge parts of the nation to daily bombing, helicopter attacks, and attacks from ground troops, killing who knows how many innocent civilians.

Like I said, wars are messy.

So basically then no rules apply governing the conduct of nations.

We can't hold country's armies to impossible standards. All we've done then is to make any police action around the world impossible. That would prevent us from fighting for good causes. As wars go the Iraq and Afghan invasions are among the least messy.

If a strong nation can deliberately and for no good reason attack another and all you say is "war is messy", then you simply give stronger nations carte blanche to do whatever they want to whomever they can.

We obviously disagree on what counts as a "good cause". I applauded both the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Still do. In the big picture I think it was good. I also applauded the bombings of Libya.

I prefer not to remove all restrictions on what strong nations can do.

We certainly agree on that.

I prefer to call terrorism terrorism.

When are you going to start?

We didn't solve anything with this brutal terrorist attack. We destroyed a nation that still is destroyed.

Saddam was playing out sectarian and tribal conflicts to stay in power. He was on purpose kindling those flames. Assad did/is doing the same in Syria. When a regime like that falls all those bitter resentments built up over the years explode out. But it's good. That conflict needs to happen before those emotional sores can heal. Europe's history is full examples like it. The Austrian-Hungarian empire used similar tactics. The Balkan wars of the 90'ies is a direct result of that policy. It didn't help that Tito used the same tactics to keep himself in power. When it fell it all exploded outwards. But now the Balkans is peaceful. Everybody is getting on with their thing now, and the various ex-Yugoslavian people are freer than they've ever been. If Saddam had stayed on we'd just be pushing that inevitable conflict in front of us. As far as I'm concerned sooner is better than later.

At some point in history the Sykes-Picot agreement has to die. It was an insult to all the people of the Middle-East. Iraq was a Frankenstein monster of a nation. Why not divide it into it's constituent states? It's obviously what most Iraqis want. The Kurds are just looking for an out. They have all along. The Shia Iraqis are looking for compensation for past Sunni transgressions. So the Sunni aren't likely to want to stay in a country with them if that keeps going on. Why else do you think they've been so enthusiastic about the invasion of the ISS.

If Iraq dies as a nation, I won't shed any tears. I suspect both Syria and Iraq need to die as nations before they have a chance at peace.

You can't justify terrorism by claiming it is the duty of the US to solve every problem in the world with brutal force.

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing your misuse of the terminology.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It has been diluted by the US government. Any nation that did not agree to be a subservient member in the economic world order run by the US is labeled a terrorist nation. Any nation that claims their natural resources are the property of their citizens, not foreign corporations, is a terrorist nation.

But we don't have to follow their example.

We can say that terrorism is when people are deliberately terrorized without any legal or moral justification.

So this includes flying jets into buildings, suicide bombings of civilians, and deliberate military or police attacks.

I don't live in the US, or have much interest in the pronouncements of the US government, so I doubt that they are solely to blame.

I would be more inclined to blame the very small, but very powerful, band of news media owners.

The days when governments told the newspapers what to print (and what not to print) in their newspapers are long gone.

These days, the news media tell the governments what to have (and what not to have) in their policies.

I maintain that Untermensch is pretty unique in his use of the word "terrorism".

 

[arkirk]

I don't live in the US, or have much interest in the pronouncements of the US government, so I doubt that they are solely to blame.

I would be more inclined to blame the very small, but very powerful, band of news media owners.

The days when governments told the newspapers what to print (and what not to print) in their newspapers are long gone.

These days, the news media tell the governments what to have (and what not to have) in their policies.

I maintain that Untermensch is pretty unique in his use of the word "terrorism".

Actually Dr. Zoidberg you have not thought about it enough to understand all the meanings and permutations terrorism is capable of describing. Supposedly a terrorist attacks innocent civilians to strike terror in the target community. Well, it is safe to say if that is the nature of terrorism that Truman with his big A bomb committed terrorism. The same applies to the Israelis attacking gaza. Just because it was a powerful possibly irresistable force they used, you hesitate to call it terrorism, but it was WORSE THAN 911. Torturing innocent people is terrorism or there is no such thing as terrorism. It is a concept that a war monger uses to gin up a war and nothing else. You guys make so much out of language without realizing that some language has no legitimate purpose...I think the word terrorism falls in that class. You guys are trying to confine its meaning only to poor and poorly armed enemies. If they are armed to the teeth, they get a veto power at the U.N. They're still terrorists.

No, my good Dr. Zoidberg, there is nothing wrong with Untemenche's usage of the T word.

 

[untermensche]

It has been diluted by the US government. Any nation that did not agree to be a subservient member in the economic world order run by the US is labeled a terrorist nation. Any nation that claims their natural resources are the property of their citizens, not foreign corporations, is a terrorist nation.

But we don't have to follow their example.

We can say that terrorism is when people are deliberately terrorized without any legal or moral justification.

So this includes flying jets into buildings, suicide bombings of civilians, and deliberate military or police attacks.

I don't live in the US, or have much interest in the pronouncements of the US government, so I doubt that they are solely to blame.

The US is just the nation that claimed to be fighting a "war" on terrorism. It is just the nation that has engaged in aggressive war non-stop for the past 13 years. Bombing whomever it wants. Killing whomever it wants. Torturing whomever it wants.

It is hard to miss, unless one deliberately wants to miss all the US terrorism.

I would be more inclined to blame the very small, but very powerful, band of news media owners.

They are sycophants that chase the lies from government like a dog chases a Frisbee.

The days when governments told the newspapers what to print (and what not to print) in their newspapers are long gone.

That doesn't mean the media is independent. This takes us to Hermann's and Chomsky's work on the media, "Manufactured Consent". One has to read it to begin to understand how the media operates. But in case after case the media simply apes the lies told by government.

In the major media during the buildup to the US invasion of Iraq there was one weapon's expert after another. One retired general after another. One government spokesman after another. It was a charade. Next to no opposition voices were heard in the major media. Phil Donahue, MSNBC's highest rated host, was fired because he spoke out against the invasion.

These days, the news media tell the governments what to have (and what not to have) in their policies.

This is completely unsupported. And it is nonsense. Did the media tell the US government it was going to cover the invasion of Iraq in a fair and objective manner? Or did it allow itself to be embedded and therefore only able to present a very one sided view of the invasion?

 

[untermensche]

The word "terrorism" isn't a measurement of the moral depravity of an attacker.

This is an amazing misreading of what I said.

If the attack can't be justified on moral grounds then the attack is terrorism. It is a statement about the attack, not the attacker. I assume no nation acts morally, but not all engage in terrorism.

So, if some foreign nation invades another nation, and they have no legitimate moral justification for doing so, then all military actions taken during that invasion are terrorism. It doesn't matter one bit what the targets are.

If one nation oppresses people living nearby that is terrorism. If police stop and harass people based only on their race that is terrorism.

When people are terrorized by unjustified actions by any power that is terrorism.

Was the intended goal of the torture of alleged Al Qaeda operatives to spread fear among all Moslem civilians in all nations?

The breaking into homes in the middle of the night and dragging all males of a certain age to prison to be tortured is terrorism.

It was done to terrorize the population and make the occupation easier.

We can't hold country's armies to impossible standards.

An Army does what it is ordered to do. If it is ordered to carry out a massive terrorist attack, it will. And it did.

Those people in Abu Ghraib knew they were trying to instill terror into those prisoners.

It just so happened some relished in that task.

All we've done then is to make any police action around the world impossible. That would prevent us from fighting for good causes.

That is what the UN was created to do. It was a flawed creation. No nation should have been given veto power.

Remove the veto power from the UN and make it a democratic institution and it may be able to deal with so-called "good" causes.

But in case after case the US has labeled a "good" cause simply a desire to prevent others from moving in an independent direction.

It, of all nations, can't be trusted to define what is and isn't a "good" cause.

As wars go the Iraq and Afghan invasions are among the least messy.

That is only your judgement, not any grand truth.

These terrorist campaigns destroyed the lives of millions, terrorized millions.

When you are not on the receiving end of the terrorists bombs they don't appear so bad.

If Iraq dies as a nation, I won't shed any tears.

How noble of you.

Your position removes morality from the discussion. And in that it is not a position worthy of consideration.

 

[Jayjay]

If everything is terrorism - war, oppression, torture, slipping in the shower - then the word has no meaning. You might as well drop it altogether, but then you'd have to invent another word to replace it.

As for terrorism being used to describe the poor and the weak, you've got it backwards... it's not that the term itself only applies to the weaker party, it's that the stronger party often has no need for it because it has other means to get what it wants.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is an amazing misreading of what I said.

If the attack can't be justified on moral grounds then the attack is terrorism. It is a statement about the attack, not the attacker. I assume no nation acts morally, but not all engage in terrorism.

erm.... but people disagree what is a valid moral ground for attack. In the heads of Al Qaeda 9/11 was self defence. They saw it as a morally justified act. Does that mean that 9/11 wasn't terrorism?

So, if some foreign nation invades another nation, and they have no legitimate moral justification for doing so, then all military actions taken during that invasion are terrorism. It doesn't matter one bit what the targets are.

Let's agree to disagree. Also, anything can be justified if you try hard enough. The hard part isn't to justify acts morally, but to convince others to agree with your justifications.

If one nation oppresses people living nearby that is terrorism. If police stop and harass people based only on their race that is terrorism.

I think that's such a widened use of the term that it stops being meaningful. If this is the way you want to use the word, then why use it at all? Haven't you gutted it completely of practical use? I think you've reduced the word to simply being an expletive.

The breaking into homes in the middle of the night and dragging all males of a certain age to prison to be tortured is terrorism.

It was done to terrorize the population and make the occupation easier.

Don't exaggerate. This isn't true at all.

An Army does what it is ordered to do. If it is ordered to carry out a massive terrorist attack, it will. And it did.

It's actually very hard to get soldiers to do what they're expected to. Commanders very often lose control over the situation. It's an ever on-going source of stress for command at any level in the army. When things don't go according to plan, (which it never does) troops on the ground will improvise. Just staying alive tends to trump any and all legal worries soldiers might have. That's just the reality of war. If you expect anything different you're delusional.

Those people in Abu Ghraib knew they were trying to instill terror into those prisoners.

Just trying to instil terror on a foe isn't enough to make it terrorism. It's secret whether or not the prisoners of Abu Ghraib were civilians. But they were arrested during the war, so I think it's safe to assume they were seniors within the Iraq army. So probably no civilians. So it's still not terrorism.

Trivia: The Americans who ran Abu Ghraib used the prison exactly for what it was designed for. It was a torture centre under Saddam and the American used it exactly in the same fashion as the Baath regime had. I think that fact alone justifies the invasion.

All we've done then is to make any police action around the world impossible. That would prevent us from fighting for good causes.

That is what the UN was created to do. It was a flawed creation. No nation should have been given veto power.

Remove the veto power from the UN and make it a democratic institution and it may be able to deal with so-called "good" causes.

Come on. Don't be so naive. Without the veto power it's a world government. Nobody wants that. Also, armed conflict is armed conflict. The UN peace keeping forces are just as bad as any army.

But in case after case the US has labeled a "good" cause simply a desire to prevent others from moving in an independent direction.

It, of all nations, can't be trusted to define what is and isn't a "good" cause.

I think this is the first smart thing you've said this entire discussion. I think the way the US handled the Iraq war was a disaster. And this was a big part of the problem. I'm just not sure what to do about it.

These terrorist campaigns destroyed the lives of millions, terrorized millions.

When you are not on the receiving end of the terrorists bombs they don't appear so bad.

Not terrorism. Saddam had to go. Whatever the method it would have been messy. Could it have been done in a less messy way? Probably. But we'll never know.

If Iraq dies as a nation, I won't shed any tears.

How noble of you.

Your position removes morality from the discussion. And in that it is not a position worthy of consideration.

Why? I'm just curious how your line of reasoning goes here?

 

[untermensche]

erm.... but people disagree what is a valid moral ground for attack. In the heads of Al Qaeda 9/11 was self defence. They saw it as a morally justified act. Does that mean that 9/11 wasn't terrorism?

This is the opposite of what I have been saying. I have been saying that any justifications must be examined, and none should just be accepted without question.

If Al Qaeda says it is acting out of self-defense we should examine that claim as rigorously as we would examine the same claim by the US government.

If one nation oppresses people living nearby that is terrorism. If police stop and harass people based only on their race that is terrorism.

I think that's such a widened use of the term that it stops being meaningful.

Unjustified violence that results in people being terrorized covers a lot of things.

What makes the word lose meaning is when unjustified violence, that some people support, is not called terrorism.

The failure to call all terrorism terrorism causes the word to lose meaning.

The breaking into homes in the middle of the night and dragging all males of a certain age to prison to be tortured is terrorism.

It was done to terrorize the population and make the occupation easier.

Don't exaggerate. This isn't true at all.

Don't make excuses. It happened. It was terrorism.

Unfortunately some would have to be on the receiving end to understand.

Those people in Abu Ghraib knew they were trying to instill terror into those prisoners.

[Just trying to instil terror on a foe isn't enough to make it terrorism. It's secret whether or not the prisoners of Abu Ghraib were civilians. But they were arrested during the war, so I think it's safe to assume they were seniors within the Iraq army. So probably no civilians. So it's still not terrorism.

These were people dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night. Low level prisoners.

Tortured as a fishing expedition.

Come on. Don't be so naive. Without the veto power it's a world government. Nobody wants that.

That is the purpose of the institution.

To govern how nations deal with one another.

Those that wail and cry about "world government" simply don't want the US subject to any laws.

Saddam had to go. Whatever the method it would have been messy.

The Neo-Cons in Washington WANTED him gone. And it would have been nice if he was gone.

But bombing and killing and torturing and unleashing sectarian madness just to get rid of this brutal thug was in no way justified.

The ends did not justify the means.

Why? I'm just curious how your line of reasoning goes here?

If we remove morality then all is permitted.

The only way to make judgements about actions is to employ a moral examination.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is the opposite of what I have been saying. I have been saying that any justifications must be examined, and none should just be accepted without question.

If Al Qaeda says it is acting out of self-defense we should examine that claim as rigorously as we would examine the same claim by the US government.

Ok, so what you're saying is that there is no discrete definition of terrorism. The way you use the term all it really means is that you dislike someone. Why not just say you dislike them, and stop using the word "terrorism" altogether?

If the word isn't applicable without "rigorous examination"I'd say it's not really useful as a noun. Then it would be an adjective.

Don't make excuses. It happened. It was terrorism.

Unfortunately some would have to be on the receiving end to understand.

And how do you know? What makes you the expert?

That is the purpose of the institution.

I think aim of the UN is a lot more humble. I think it's to get parties to talk at all. In the hope that disasters can be averted early on. In this regard I think the UN has been a runaway success.

To govern how nations deal with one another.

Those that wail and cry about "world government" simply don't want the US subject to any laws.

As long as the majority of the votes in the UN are from non-democratic countries, I'm sticking with US hegemony. I think it's the lesser of two evils. The UN pushed through a universal ban on blasphemy that all countries are being pushed toward accepting. If you wondered, yes, it's an infringement on freedom of speech. I would hate it if we'd get forced by the UN to accept such idiotic laws.

Saddam had to go. Whatever the method it would have been messy.

The Neo-Cons in Washington WANTED him gone. And it would have been nice if he was gone.

But bombing and killing and torturing and unleashing sectarian madness just to get rid of this brutal thug was in no way justified.

The ends did not justify the means.

I certainly agree. And I think that the way the US did it was very badly. But then again, they did it. Better doing it badly than not at all. That's how I see it.

Why? I'm just curious how your line of reasoning goes here?

If we remove morality then all is permitted.

The only way to make judgements about actions is to employ a moral examination.

I assure you that I haven't removed morality from my judgement on whether or not the Iraq war was justified. It's just that I think that the invasion was morally justified. Ten or twenty times over.

 

[untermensche]

Ok, so what you're saying is that there is no discrete definition of terrorism. The way you use the term all it really means is that you dislike someone.

There are plenty of people I don't like that are not engaging in terrorism.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like someone. Terrorism is about actions, not the people carrying out the actions.

For something to be terrorism first of all the actions must be violent. They must threaten, injure or kill some and terrify others.

So if Hamas launches missiles into populated areas this is terrorism, even if nobody is hurt.

When Israel imposes a blockade, this too is terrorism. It is violence and it injures.

If the US launches an unprovoked attack and starts bombing and shooting up the place and begins capturing and torturing, or at least maltreating, prisoners, this too is terrorism.

Terrorist acts don't become less than terrorist acts because they are well-planned, discussed in the open, and large scale.

And how do you know? What makes you the expert?

The invasion was based on two lies. The presence of WMD in Iraq and Iraqi collaboration with Al Qaeda.

When it was a launched, a third justification was added, because the people who had desperately wanted this invasion for a decade knew the first two were lies. To bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

By bombing them.

There was no moral justification for the US, and whomever it could convince to come with it, to invade Iraq.

It is you that is using the idea of "people you don't like" to justify actions by nations.

When the US invades Iraq it does not just harm Saddam Hussein and his top collaborators. It harms everybody. It destroys the infrastructure that has still not been repaired. It unleashes toxins and pollutants that will result in cancers and birth defects. It disrupted the education of millions of children and reduced economic opportunity for millions more. Not to mention the millions who fled and left everything behind.

I think aim of the UN is a lot more humble. I think it's to get parties to talk at all. In the hope that disasters can be averted early on. In this regard I think the UN has been a runaway success.

We don't have to think about it. The UN has a Charter spelling out it's goals.

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

To launch an aggressive war based on flimsy lies that don't justify anything is what the UN was created to prevent. Giving the strongest members veto power allowed the strongest to subvert the purpose of the UN and face no consequences.

When power is unchecked it tends towards corruption.

As long as the majority of the votes in the UN are from non-democratic countries, I'm sticking with US hegemony.

So, because you love democracy so much you want to remove it from the UN?

US hegemony has given us non-stop war, with no end in sight, for the last 13 years. Untold damage and destruction. The ruination of millions of lives. The destruction of two nations.

One violent act after another. One dead child after another.

Madness. A psychotic temper tantrum.

I assure you that I haven't removed morality from my judgement on whether or not the Iraq war was justified. It's just that I think that the invasion was morally justified. Ten or twenty times over.

What possible moral model could you be using?

It can't be a model of harm reduction. You can't reek havoc in the name of harm reduction.

I can't walk into a bank and begin shooting indiscriminately because the bank charges a fee at their ATM.