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

[Loren Pechtel]

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

You're the one trying to redefine the word, not us.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Untermensche, I don't think that "justification" has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism. Terrorism is a battle tactic used by guerrilla fighters and/or insurgents who believe, rightly or wrongly, the other tactics will not work. The goal of the terrorist is to create a situation where fear and anxiety shape public opinion and bring about political change or at least a desirable shift in behavior. Whether the terrorist is justified or not can vary depending on the situation.

John Brown's attempt to foment a slave rebellion in the South was, arguably, a terrorist act. Harriet Tubman's raids on Confederate targets during the Civil War would also classify as acts of terrorism, as would some of the attacks by Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831.

The German use of V1 and V2 rockets against England, targeted almost entirely indiscriminately at civilian population centers, were intended to demoralize the population and break their will to fight; this is a DIRECT use of state terrorism against an enemy in a time of war. The use of the Waffen SS to keep the population in line through the implicit threat of violence is also a terrorist tactic, and this can be said of secret police organizations in totalitarian regimes everywhere.

Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorism practiced over a long period of time is sometimes described as a "reign of terror."

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

Yes, not all of which is actually terrorism.

Better doing it badly than not at all.

In the majority of situations, this is actually demonstrably false. Governments actually have policies that some things exist in such a poor condition that it is better for them not to exist at all. This is the reason why we have building codes, safety standards for cars and vehicles, health codes for restaurants and foods, regulations for banks, etc. Some things, when done badly, are actually so much of a hazard to the people who use them that everyone would be better off if they never existed at all.

The overthrow of Saddam is such a case. It's clear to say that he was a despotic bastard who tortured his people and denied them basic freedoms. But it is ignorance to claim that the orderly reign of a single despotic bastard is not preferable to the chaotic reign of a dozen incompetent bastards. It's possible that most Iraqis would rather be alive and employed than free and destitute. It's just as possible that the Iraqi people, and NOT the United States military, should have been the ones making that choice.

 

[Underseer]

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.

Actually, if you're going to use an example of Americans slaughtering civilians on purpose in WW2, the American firebombing campaign in Japan is probably a better example than the atomic bomb as the civilian death count was much higher. The atomic bomb merely grabs people's imaginations more because it was a new weapon.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche, I don't think that "justification" has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism. Terrorism is a battle tactic used by guerrilla fighters and/or insurgents who believe, rightly or wrongly, the other tactics will not work. The goal of the terrorist is to create a situation where fear and anxiety shape public opinion and bring about political change or at least a desirable shift in behavior. Whether the terrorist is justified or not can vary depending on the situation.

Why should we a priori state that large nations can't openly discuss and carefully plan acts of terrorism using the most modern weapons and tactics and spurious justifications?

Why open the can of worms of only calling the actions of minor powers terrorism?

The only way to examine any violent action is to apply a moral standard. Was the action aggression or was it defensive? Did one nation attack or was it invaded?

And to not condemn deliberate acts of violence that have no justification is to apply a moral standard.

But the application of a moral standard does not mean you have to apply a subjective religious standard. There are ethics based on harm reduction and rights promotion.

John Brown's attempt to foment a slave rebellion in the South was, arguably, a terrorist act.

The matter could be discussed. But slavery itself was such a huge act of terrorism, the institutionalization of terrorism with the consent of government, that John Brown's terrorism pales in perspective.

Harriet Tubman's raids on Confederate targets during the Civil War would also classify as acts of terrorism, as would some of the attacks by Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831.

Let people make their case.

If we look at harm reduction then we might say a lot of violence is justified if it is likely to end slavery. Slavery was a system of extreme violence and violation of rights. Violence to end it could also easily be seen as self defense. If the violence has the likelihood of ending or weakening the slave system and it is not simply violence for the sake of violence, which could be understood but not justified.

The German use of V1 and V2 rockets against England, targeted almost entirely indiscriminately at civilian population centers, were intended to demoralize the population and break their will to fight; this is a DIRECT use of state terrorism against an enemy in a time of war.

If we talk about WWII then we must throw most so-called definitions of terrorism out the window since all sides deliberately attacked civilians as a war tactic.

The US and Britain defended the tactic by claiming they were fighting for their life in a war they didn't start, and there is some justification in that, but the bombing of Dresden when the war was practically won was hard to defend.

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

Yes, not all of which is actually terrorism.

You give no reason we should not consider violent actions that terrorize and have no valid justification as acts of terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Untermensche, I don't think that "justification" has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism.

He's coming at it from a standpoint of anything done by the side he likes is justified, anything done by their opponents is terrorism.

Terrorism is a battle tactic used by guerrilla fighters and/or insurgents who believe, rightly or wrongly, the other tactics will not work. The goal of the terrorist is to create a situation where fear and anxiety shape public opinion and bring about political change or at least a desirable shift in behavior. Whether the terrorist is justified or not can vary depending on the situation.

It's almost always a correct belief. Terrorism on a large scale is almost inevitably the result of some outside agency causing trouble, not the desires of the society in which it's happening.

The German use of V1 and V2 rockets against England, targeted almost entirely indiscriminately at civilian population centers, were intended to demoralize the population and break their will to fight; this is a DIRECT use of state terrorism against an enemy in a time of war. The use of the Waffen SS to keep the population in line through the implicit threat of violence is also a terrorist tactic, and this can be said of secret police organizations in totalitarian regimes everywhere.

The V-weapons, certainly. I'm not sure on the SS--I think they were more a case of overzealous law enforcement than terrorism.

The overthrow of Saddam is such a case. It's clear to say that he was a despotic bastard who tortured his people and denied them basic freedoms. But it is ignorance to claim that the orderly reign of a single despotic bastard is not preferable to the chaotic reign of a dozen incompetent bastards. It's possible that most Iraqis would rather be alive and employed than free and destitute. It's just as possible that the Iraqi people, and NOT the United States military, should have been the ones making that choice.

Exactly. Competing bastards almost certainly are worse because they fight for control. That's what happened to Iraq--Saddam had put a cap on the Shia/Sunni violence. Our invasion removed the cap.

 

[angelo]

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.

Pure propaganda. The IDF chooses to fire on targets with the knowledge they will cause civilian collateral damage. Regardless of the putative actions to limit civilian casualties, the IDF causes magnitudes more civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure than terrorists' rockets. That is a fact. Whether you like it or not, the facts indicate the IDF causes more damage and injuries to civilians than the Palestinian terrorists. And that excludes the damage in the West Bank done to civilians by the IDF.

[
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.

Pure propaganda. The IDF does its utmost to shield its soldiers' lives.

This post is deserving of one word only............Bullshit!!

 

[tupac chopra]

The facts are that no, not all muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorist are muslim!

Depends . Many people in the middle east or Yemen or Pakistan think that Australia and the USA are terrorists because we kill so many of their civillians

 

[tupac chopra]

After the bushfire at Whiteman Park yesterday we have an islamic hostage situation in the heart of Sydney. Some jihadist has taken up to 40 hostages in a café in the centre of Sydney.

Was he a Jihadsist though?
On a related note do we know who killed the people? Was it "friendly fire" from the police of was it the nutter?

 

[untermensche]

He's coming at it from a standpoint of anything done by the side he likes is justified, anything done by their opponents is terrorism.

That is what is being done by those who bend over backwards trying to defend US and Israeli terrorism.

And they lose all credibility doing it.

By using a moral method, unjustified violence like flying jets into skyscrapers and suicide bombings are considered terrorism, and so are violent oppressions and unprovoked military invasions.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what side I allegedly "like". It is about actions that can't be morally justified.

 

[laughing dog]

Pure propaganda. The IDF chooses to fire on targets with the knowledge they will cause civilian collateral damage. Regardless of the putative actions to limit civilian casualties, the IDF causes magnitudes more civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure than terrorists' rockets. That is a fact. Whether you like it or not, the facts indicate the IDF causes more damage and injuries to civilians than the Palestinian terrorists. And that excludes the damage in the West Bank done to civilians by the IDF.

[
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.

Pure propaganda. The IDF does its utmost to shield its soldiers' lives.

This post is deserving of one word only............Bullshit!!

It is not bullshit that the IDF causes more damage, injuries and death than Palestinian terrorists. Nor is it bullshit that the IDF "ofter" risks their own soldiers' lives. Denying reality does not advance whatever position you think you are advancing - it simply makes you appear ignorant and a dupe of propaganda.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's coming at it from a standpoint of anything done by the side he likes is justified, anything done by their opponents is terrorism.

That is what is being done by those who bend over backwards trying to defend US and Israeli terrorism.

And they lose all credibility doing it.

By using a moral method, unjustified violence like flying jets into skyscrapers and suicide bombings are considered terrorism, and so are violent oppressions and unprovoked military invasions.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what side I allegedly "like". It is about actions that can't be morally justified.

Except you justify actions by one side and object to the same actions by the other.

 

[bilby]

That is what is being done by those who bend over backwards trying to defend US and Israeli terrorism.

And they lose all credibility doing it.

By using a moral method, unjustified violence like flying jets into skyscrapers and suicide bombings are considered terrorism, and so are violent oppressions and unprovoked military invasions.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what side I allegedly "like". It is about actions that can't be morally justified.

Except you justify actions by one side and object to the same actions by the other.

 

[angelo]

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.

Never let Edited spoil a good story!

 

[tupac chopra]

The IDF go out of their way unlike their enemies to limit civilian casualties as far as is possible. .

Can I ask how you know that to be true?

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes, war is messy. That doesn't make it terrorism.

We use so much force we KNOW we will kill many innocent civilians.

No that does make it terrorism, And when we have the courage to own that we will start looking for peaceful solutions. We are terrorising thousands of innocent women and children on a daily basis.
But while we are too cowardly to own it, we will keep killing women and children and making cowardly excuses.

 

[angelo]

The IDF go out of their way unlike their enemies to limit civilian casualties as far as is possible. .

Can I ask how you know that to be true?

Because of Hamas deliberately firing their rockets from hospitals, schools, even UN facilities are used to store rockets as was discovered during the last skirmish, and the text messages, leaflet drops etc in the effected area before they are actually blown to smithereens. Civilian casualties in such built up areas are actually quite reasonable considering the circumstances.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Actually, if you're going to use an example of Americans slaughtering civilians on purpose in WW2, the American firebombing campaign in Japan is probably a better example than the atomic bomb as the civilian death count was much higher. The atomic bomb merely grabs people's imaginations more because it was a new weapon.

Wasn't the firebombing of Dresden the highest number of civilian causalities? Also... not of any military significance. It wasn't even a threat for anything. Everybody greenlighting it was open about it being pure revenge. Which I think is hard to stomach.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

I thought you just said it was down to moral value judgements?

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

We just call that war.

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.

Or just call all wars terrorism. Now we can stop using the word "war".

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.

There was a mountain of valid justifications to attack Iraq. The Bush administration picked the two they thought would sway the public the most. Too bad they were phony. But there were plenty of other justifications they could have gone with instead.

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.

Now I think you're being silly. The goal was to remove Saddam to give Iraq a chance to develop into a democratic state with a healthy economy. As long as Saddam stayed in power there was no chance of that happening. The International community standing around like a bunch of wankers letting Saddam do what he did makes us complicit to his continued crimes. I'm happy the international community took their responsibility and did something about it. Invading was the lesser evil of two possible IMHO. You don't have to agree.

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'm not hiding the fact that I didn't like Saddam. It was nothing personal. It was purely based on what the Baath-regime did. But the fact that I don't like him doesn't make me attach words to him that don't fit in order to make people hate him even more. I think it's unnecessary and it dilutes the power of the word "terrorism".

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.

You are aware that politicians talk a lot of shit? There's a difference between what they actually do and what they say they're going to do? That charter is gold standard political bullshit. I think the UN is an important institution and I think we need it to stick around. But most of what they do is just write angry letters.

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.

We need to give the strongest veto power or they wouldn't agree to join the club. That's just a political fact. And if they're not all members the UN will be pretty irrelevant. Nobody wants that.

When power is unchecked it tends towards corruption.

Which is why Saddam (or any dictator) has to go.

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.

"Politics is the art of the possible".
Otto von Bismark

Politics is not about ideals or utopian visions. It's about working toward goals a little step at a time. To make as few enemies as possible in the process. To keep everybody at the conference table. I think US hegemony is the lesser of two evils. Power corrupts. Of course it corrupts USA as well. That's natural. And we need to be wary about it. But a world without USA swinging their dick around, and where China and Russia are, would be a lot worse... I think. But that's pure speculation. Which is what you're doing. Maybe the lack of US hegemony would have led to even more war. That is what the book 1984 by George Orwell is partly about.

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?

I've already given you enough. The gassing of Kurds in Kerbala is one. The war against Iran. The invasion of Kuwait. The systematic rape his sons were carrying out on innocent victims. The police state, using terror tactics and torturing people systematically just to keep everybody in constant fear. Baathist Iraq was hell on Earth. Here's a video of the coup that Saddam stages. He orders roughly a third of the members to be arrested for treason. Forces the remaining politicians to shoot the "traitors" making them complicit in this horrific act. Nobody refused. But if they would have, they to would have been executed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y

I think each of the points above would alone justify an invasion.

If this would be made into a horror movie it wouldn't quite work. Nobody would feel it believable that anybody could be that evil.

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.

You analogy doesn't even remotely work.

 

[laughing dog]

Can I ask how you know that to be true?

Because of Hamas deliberately firing their rockets from hospitals, schools, even UN facilities are used to store rockets as was discovered during the last skirmish, and the text messages, leaflet drops etc in the effected area before they are actually blown to smithereens. Civilian casualties in such built up areas are actually quite reasonable considering the circumstances.

Then certainly the Israeli civilian casualties are even more reasonable considering the circumstances. So, if each side is being reasonable, why is there a problem?

 

[Bomb#20]

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. ...

How about some rules for being a good human being? ... The IDF do not go out of their way. That is pure crap.

Never let edited spoil a good story!

Never let the irrationality of your opponent drag you down to his level. You don't really think he'd be any less venomous or any more fair-minded about the two sides in this conflict if Palestine had been colonized by Dutch Protestants instead of Russian Jews, do you? The pro-Palestinian subculture of the first-world's left often appear anti-Semitic due to their blatant double standards, but that's an illusion. It's not Jews they're prejudiced against; it's Western civilization, defined and lumped into their oppressor category.