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

[tupac chopra]

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.

I asked how you know that to be true, but you did not explain how you know.

 

[Jokodo]

There were explicit directives to target civilians:

The  Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government's Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack the German industrial workforce and the morale of the German populace through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants.

"Industrial workforce" -- the people making the guns.

What if? You said "combatants" - not "anybody in any way involved in the war effort". The US and UK targeted non-combattants, and had a written policy about it. That makes them terrorists by your definition.

 

[angelo]

At the time they were called terror bombing. To completely destroy the population moral.

 

[untermensche]

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.

It seems when facts slap you in the face you just retreat to saying that all is bullshit and nothing has meaning.

It is a tedious style of argument.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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?

We shouldn't, of course. The problem is large nations also have large communications systems and/or media control that perform all kinds of elaborate rhetorical gymnastics to avoid having their terroristic actions labeled as terrorism. Governments try to avoid the implication that they may be using the exact same tactics as their sworn enemies, even if the REASON for doing so is different.

In most situations, ambiguity is politically inconvenient.

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.

And yet, a terrorist attack for an ethical reason remains a terrorist attack. Tossing hand grenades at lynch mobs, for examples, would constitute a terrorist attack. Using a car bomb to assassinate another terrorist would be as well.

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.

I don't believe it is impossible for a terrorist to become the victim of terrorism. Some people prefer to fight fire with fire.

If we look at harm reduction then we might say a lot of violence is justified if it is likely to end slavery.

Personally, I would say a lot of terrorism would be justified to end slavery. Certainly a campaign of random assassinations and/or bombings of the homes of slave owners could be justified morally, given that those owners were knowingly profiting off of a fundamentally immoral and despicable institution and were willing to start a war to preserve it.

If you want to avoid all the moral equivocation and rhetorical bullshit practiced by nation states, one is forced to conclude that terrorism in self defense is still terrorism.

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.

Or we could just concede that the Allies employed large-scale terrorism as one of their battle tactics. The Axis powers unquestionably did; what's wrong with admitting the same of the Allies?

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

Because it is intent, NOT justification, that defines an act of terrorism.

The attack on Pearl Harbor, for example, caused massive dismay and panic in America and particularly in Honolulu where it was feared that the Japanese Army was about to physically invade them. That the attack terrorized the population, and being unprovoked, had no moral justification. Conversely, the attack on the RMS Lusitania would be considered a legitimate act of war since the vessel was believed to be carrying war materials to England, thus making it a legitimate target.

Justification does not and should not factor into that definition. If you intend to terrorize the population with your actions, then you are a terrorist. If your target possesses what appears to be valid military value to your enemy, then it isn't an act of terrorism even if striking it scares the hell out of the population. The only real problem with this is that intent is sometimes hard to prove, but it can be demonstrated by examining what the attackers actually knew about their target vs. what they stated/fabricated after the fact. An attacker who knows his target has no legitimate military value and blows it up anyway is almost certainly a terrorist. An attacker who hits what he thinks is a military target and then turns out to be tragically wrong is not. An attacker who doesn't know or care if a target has military value is very likely a terrorist as well.

 

[untermensche]

...If your target possesses what appears to be valid military value to your enemy, then it isn't an act of terrorism even if striking it scares the hell out of the population...

Then 911 was not terrorism.

Both the Pentagon and the WTC were valid military targets.

 

[Jayjay]

...If your target possesses what appears to be valid military value to your enemy, then it isn't an act of terrorism even if striking it scares the hell out of the population...

Then 911 was not terrorism.

Both the Pentagon and the WTC were valid military targets.

No, they weren't. Al-Qaeda didn't strike them because of "what appears to be valid military value", but because of the symbolic value.

 

[untermensche]

Then 911 was not terrorism.

Both the Pentagon and the WTC were valid military targets.

No, they weren't. Al-Qaeda didn't strike them because of "what appears to be valid military value", but because of the symbolic value.

Lowering the moral of your enemy is a valid military objective.

Some say their goal was to draw the US into a long and costly war to weaken it.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Kharakov]

nm.

 

[Jayjay]

No, they weren't. Al-Qaeda didn't strike them because of "what appears to be valid military value", but because of the symbolic value.

Lowering the moral of your enemy is a valid military objective.

Some say their goal was to draw the US into a long and costly war to weaken it.

Mission accomplished.

By that definition, nothing is terrorism. Congratulations for making the dictionary that much shorter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, they weren't. Al-Qaeda didn't strike them because of "what appears to be valid military value", but because of the symbolic value.

Lowering the moral of your enemy is a valid military objective.

Some say their goal was to draw the US into a long and costly war to weaken it.

Mission accomplished.

So terrorism is acceptable.

What's your problem with Israel's actions then?? You don't get to use different rules for different sides.

 

[untermensche]

Lowering the moral of your enemy is a valid military objective.

Some say their goal was to draw the US into a long and costly war to weaken it.

Mission accomplished.

So terrorism is acceptable.

What's your problem with Israel's actions then?? You don't get to use different rules for different sides.

I am the one defining terrorism as unjustified violence that causes terror.

Others were claiming that magically inducing intent is the proper method to define terrorism.

I was pointing out that if we look at intent then 911 was not terrorism.

I was not defending the perpetrators of 911 because by using a moral method it was terrorism. It can't be justified as a legitimate act of self defense.

 

[angelo]

Lowering the moral of your enemy is a valid military objective.

Some say their goal was to draw the US into a long and costly war to weaken it.

Mission accomplished.

So terrorism is acceptable.

What's your problem with Israel's actions then?? You don't get to use different rules for different sides.

I'm sending you a virtual kiss, no wait, better make that a handshake. [took the very words out of my mouth!

 

[laughing dog]

So terrorism is acceptable.

What's your problem with Israel's actions then?? You don't get to use different rules for different sides.

I'm sending you a virtual kiss, no wait, better make that a handshake. [took the very words out of my mouth!

So, finally agreement that the IDF engages in terrorism.

 

[untermensche]

I'm sending you a virtual kiss, no wait, better make that a handshake. [took the very words out of my mouth!

So, finally agreement that the IDF engages in terrorism.

And 911 wasn't terrorism.

That is the conclusion looking at motives allows.

If I claim my motives are noble I can do many things if terrorism is defined by motives.

I can destroy half the world if I claim I am afraid of it.

 

[Jayjay]

So, finally agreement that the IDF engages in terrorism.

And 911 wasn't terrorism.

That is the conclusion looking at motives allows.

If I claim my motives are noble I can do many things if terrorism is defined by motives.

I can destroy half the world if I claim I am afraid of it.

Terrorism isn't defined by motives in terms of ultimate outcomes, but it is defined by immediate desired results: to terrorize civilians for some particular political goal. Whether the terrorist is doing this because he thinks he's fighting for noble goals or not is irrelevant. All terrorists are doing it for noble goals in their own minds.

If you remove motives from the equation altogether, then collateral damage is terrorism. Accidents would be terrorism. Natural disastrs would be terrorism. Slipping in the shower would be terrorism!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So terrorism is acceptable.

What's your problem with Israel's actions then?? You don't get to use different rules for different sides.

I am the one defining terrorism as unjustified violence that causes terror.

Others were claiming that magically inducing intent is the proper method to define terrorism.

I was pointing out that if we look at intent then 911 was not terrorism.

I was not defending the perpetrators of 911 because by using a moral method it was terrorism. It can't be justified as a legitimate act of self defense.

An attack on a symbol (unless it is also of military value) is terrorism.

- - - Updated - - -

So, finally agreement that the IDF engages in terrorism.

And 911 wasn't terrorism.

That is the conclusion looking at motives allows.

If I claim my motives are noble I can do many things if terrorism is defined by motives.

I can destroy half the world if I claim I am afraid of it.

If 911 wasn't terrorism then it wouldn't be terrorism for Israel to level Gaza.

 

[untermensche]

If 911 wasn't terrorism then it wouldn't be terrorism for Israel to level Gaza.

I agree.

That is why I condemn both as forms of terrorism.

But if all we consider are intentions, as if they can be known, as some propose, then it is easy to conclude that 911 was not terrorism.

If the people who did it considered it a valid war tactic then it wasn't terrorism, to those who only consider intentions.

This is why I don't consider intentions. I consider the morality or moral justification of the action.

If the action is violent, and it terrorizes, and it can't be morally justified, then it is terrorism.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

...If your target possesses what appears to be valid military value to your enemy, then it isn't an act of terrorism even if striking it scares the hell out of the population...

Then 911 was not terrorism.

Both the Pentagon and the WTC were valid military targets.

And yet attacking them didn't have a valid military objective. The goal of that attack was to terrorize the population and punish the U.S. government for its history of military adventurism, not to damage America's war-fighting capability in a meaningful way. Its symbolic importance was far greater than its strategic value.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Lowering the moral of your enemy is a valid military objective.

Some say their goal was to draw the US into a long and costly war to weaken it.

Mission accomplished.

So terrorism is acceptable.

Sometimes it is. Especially when the cause you're fighting for is morally justifiable. There are some situations where the ends actually justify the means.

What's your problem with Israel's actions then??

Because Israel's national objectives are NOT morally justifiable. Peace alone is attainable immediately through the dismantlement of its settlements, the withdrawal to its own internationally recognized borders and a commitment to respect both the sovereignty and the human rights of Palestinians. But Israel isn't seeking peace, Israel is seeking economic, political and military dominance. That is not a morally acceptable justification for the use of terrorism or for military force in general.

And 911 wasn't terrorism.

That is the conclusion looking at motives allows.

If I claim my motives are noble I can do many things if terrorism is defined by motives.

I can destroy half the world if I claim I am afraid of it.

Terrorism isn't defined by motives in terms of ultimate outcomes, but it is defined by immediate desired results: to terrorize civilians for some particular political goal. Whether the terrorist is doing this because he thinks he's fighting for noble goals or not is irrelevant. All terrorists are doing it for noble goals in their own minds.

If you remove motives from the equation altogether, then collateral damage is terrorism. Accidents would be terrorism. Natural disastrs would be terrorism. Slipping in the shower would be terrorism!

Exactly. An attack on the Pentagon COULD be a purely military operation if the objective was to cripple America's command and control network in preparation for an invasion or a counter attack elsewhere. Likewise, an attack on the World Trade Center COULD be a purely military operation if it was part of a broader strategy to disrupt America's financial institutions and thus defeat it in the long term.

But the 9/11 terrorists aimed to cause massive social disruption, spreading fear and panic and anxiety among the population. The attacks did achieve THAT objective, in which context they could be considered successful. As military operations they were dismal failures, but they were never MEANT to be that in the first place.

But if all we consider are intentions, as if they can be known, as some propose, then it is easy to conclude that 911 was not terrorism.

9/11 was INTENDED to be terrorism. That is, the attack was intended to terrorize the population.

Likewise, demolishing the homes of stone throwers and randomly arresting activists in the West Bank is also a from of terrorism for precisely the same reason. The goal is to instill fear and intimidation and anxiety in the affected population, independent of any coherent military goal. Israel resorts to terrorism in this case because the Palestinians lack any real military assets to begin with, which limits Israel's options to
1) Scare them away
2) Kill them all.

The first is terrorism. The second is genocide. Israel is not (yet) comfortable with the idea of committing genocide, but never in their history have they hesitated to employ terrorism.

If the action is violent, and it terrorizes, and it can't be morally justified, then it is terrorism.

It's already been shown to you that moral justification is irrelevant. Islamists believe they are morally justified because Allah said so. Israelis believe they are morally justified because the Palestinians are assholes and don't deserve to live there. The Palestinians believe they are morally justified because the Israelis are assholes and don't deserve to live there.

It is the use of violence to terrorize one another that makes it an act of terrorism. Intent to terrorize produces different kinds of actions, than, say, intent to immobilize or intent to kill.