Defining Terrorism

[bilby]

The home of a suicide bomber is not a purely civilian target.

Neither is the home of your neighborhood car thief, but the police wouldn't go tossing in grenades or indiscriminately shooting up the place if his family might be home. Police won't even shoot at a fleeing felon if there are civilians in the background.

There are not differential moralities. What's wrong here is wrong everywhere.
You don't abandon morality when it becomes inconvenient.

Oh yes he does.

 

[Davka]

Neither is the home of your neighborhood car thief, but the police wouldn't go tossing in grenades or indiscriminately shooting up the place if his family might be home. Police won't even shoot at a fleeing felon if there are civilians in the background.

There are not differential moralities. What's wrong here is wrong everywhere.
You don't abandon morality when it becomes inconvenient.

Oh yes he does.

The Dick Cheney school of right & wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For some reason I didn't see it.

The home of a suicide bomber is not a purely civilian target.

It is after the suicide bomber is dead.

Except it's not over when the bomber is dead. The family is going to receive substantial money.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Was 9/11 terrorism? Was it part of a campaign of coercion, using an ongoing threat of harm to achieve a political end?

Of course it was. OBL's stated goals were to get us to do what he wanted.

 

[Tristan Scott]

So, was 9/11 terrorism then? They didn't fly planes into the WTC for the sake of killing civilians, they did it to strike at the heart of the US financial center in order to degrade their enemy's ability to pay for their military.

I disagree. They flew them into the buildings to kill civilians. As many civilians as they could. They flew them into the buildings as an act of terror-to terrorize our population into giving in to their demands. To give us a taste of what they feel we are doing to them. There may be other agendas, but this was what their stated goals were.

 

[Warpoet]

Except it's not over when the bomber is dead. The family is going to receive substantial money.

Unsubstantiated and irrelevant. The family did not commit a crime. The only purpose behind the extrajudicial home demolitions, aside from vengeance, is to strongarm the Palestinians into changing their behavior as a group. Which by your own definition is terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except it's not over when the bomber is dead. The family is going to receive substantial money.

Unsubstantiated and irrelevant. The family did not commit a crime. The only purpose behind the extrajudicial home demolitions, aside from vengeance, is to strongarm the Palestinians into changing their behavior as a group. Which by your own definition is terrorism.

It was no secret when Saddam started doing it. These days it's hard to find non-Israeli sources that talk about it because it's been around long enough it isn't news.

 

[Warpoet]

It was no secret when Saddam started doing it. These days it's hard to find non-Israeli sources that talk about it because it's been around long enough it isn't news.

Or because it's a myth, like most of the things you claim in order to defend Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

But regardless, it doesn't fucking matter. The family is not responsible for the bomber's actions, and so the Israeli government is clearly punishing them in order to send a message to the Palestinians collectively and prevent them from carrying out more bombings. Thus, per your definition, it's terrorism.

The fact that even you can't conjure up some bullshit rationale to try to work around acknowledging this is hilariously sad.

 

[Underseer]

It was no secret when Saddam started doing it. These days it's hard to find non-Israeli sources that talk about it because it's been around long enough it isn't news.

Or because it's a myth, like most of the things you claim in order to defend Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

But regardless, it doesn't fucking matter. The family did not commit a crime, and so the Israeli government is clearly punishing them for the bomber's actions in order to send a message to the Palestinians collectively and prevent them from carrying out more bombings. Thus, per your definition, it's terrorism.

The fact that even you can't conjure up some bullshit rationale to try to work around acknowledging this is hilariously sad.

You're wrong. The Israeli military is primarily made up of non-Muslims, and therefore their actions cannot count as terrorism. You would understand this if you weren't so prejudiced against Jews.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was no secret when Saddam started doing it. These days it's hard to find non-Israeli sources that talk about it because it's been around long enough it isn't news.

Or because it's a myth, like most of the things you claim in order to defend Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

But regardless, it doesn't fucking matter. The family is not responsible for the bomber's actions, and so the Israeli government is clearly punishing them in order to send a message to the Palestinians collectively and prevent them from carrying out more bombings. Thus, per your definition, it's terrorism.

The fact that even you can't conjure up some bullshit rationale to try to work around acknowledging this is hilariously sad.

Israel is taking action to remove the financial gain they would otherwise get, thus reducing an incentive to become a martyr in the first place.

 

[bilby]

Or because it's a myth, like most of the things you claim in order to defend Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

But regardless, it doesn't fucking matter. The family is not responsible for the bomber's actions, and so the Israeli government is clearly punishing them in order to send a message to the Palestinians collectively and prevent them from carrying out more bombings. Thus, per your definition, it's terrorism.

The fact that even you can't conjure up some bullshit rationale to try to work around acknowledging this is hilariously sad.

Israel is taking action to remove the financial gain they would otherwise get, thus reducing an incentive to become a martyr in the first place.

So would you characterise the demolition of the WTC as 'removing a financial gain that the USA would otherwise get'; or do you agree that destroying buildings along with their occupants is rather more than a purely financial transaction?

 

[Warpoet]

Israel is taking action to remove the financial gain they would otherwise get, thus reducing an incentive to become a martyr in the first place.

Oh, sorry, but the way I described it is much more accurate: punishing them in order to send a message to the Palestinians collectively and prevent them from carrying out more bombings. Thus, per your definition, it's terrorism. This bullshit about "financial gain" is just something you made up because you backed yourself into a corner. It doesn't change the fact that Israel is punishing people for actions committed by others. By your fucked up logic, if someone were to start handing out money to the families of convicted cop killers, the FBI could destroy all their homes to "offset the financial gain" and "reduce the incentive to kill cops."

Fucking ridiculous. Shit like this is exactly the reason why there is not a single rational person on this forum who takes anything you say seriously. If your new year's resolution was to lower the bar for intellectual honesty even further, I'd have said it wasn't possible, but you already managed to do it. Good job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel is taking action to remove the financial gain they would otherwise get, thus reducing an incentive to become a martyr in the first place.

So would you characterise the demolition of the WTC as 'removing a financial gain that the USA would otherwise get'; or do you agree that destroying buildings along with their occupants is rather more than a purely financial transaction?

You're taking what I said out of context.

The families profit financially from the acts of the bombers (and to a lesser degree from those who end up in Israeli jail over their terrorism). The WTC brought no profits from attacking Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel is taking action to remove the financial gain they would otherwise get, thus reducing an incentive to become a martyr in the first place.

Oh, sorry, but the way I described it is much more accurate: punishing them in order to send a message to the Palestinians collectively and prevent them from carrying out more bombings. Thus, per your definition, it's terrorism. This bullshit about "financial gain" is just something you made up because you backed yourself into a corner. It doesn't change the fact that Israel is punishing people for actions committed by others. By your fucked up logic, if someone were to start handing out money to the families of convicted cop killers, the FBI could destroy all their homes to "offset the financial gain" and "reduce the incentive to kill cops."

Fucking ridiculous. Shit like this is exactly the reason why there is not a single rational person on this forum who takes anything you say seriously. If your new year's resolution was to lower the bar for intellectual honesty even further, I'd have said it wasn't possible, but you already managed to do it. Good job.

Sticking your head in the sand about the payments to families doesn't make it go away.

 

[Warpoet]

Sticking your head in the sand about the payments to families doesn't make it go away.

Things don't magically become true because you claim them. And it still doesn't make your logic any less absurd, as the FBI example demonstrates.

Since today's a holiday, I'll give you one and only one pass with regards to whose head is where. Enjoy.

 

[Davka]

BTW, the payments from Iran to Palestinian families began after Israel started bulldozing family homes, as a partial humanitarian recompense for Israeli terrorism (and the payments don't amount to enough to rebuild a house). So Loren has cause and effect backwards once again.

 

[bilby]

So would you characterise the demolition of the WTC as 'removing a financial gain that the USA would otherwise get'; or do you agree that destroying buildings along with their occupants is rather more than a purely financial transaction?

You're taking what I said out of context.

The families profit financially from the acts of the bombers (and to a lesser degree from those who end up in Israeli jail over their terrorism). The WTC brought no profits from attacking Muslims.

No, you are adding needless context to what I said to avoid the point.

Do you agree that destroying buildings along with their occupants is rather more than a purely financial transaction?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, the payments from Iran to Palestinian families began after Israel started bulldozing family homes, as a partial humanitarian recompense for Israeli terrorism (and the payments don't amount to enough to rebuild a house). So Loren has cause and effect backwards once again.

The payments didn't start with Iran. They just took up a successful tactic.

- - - Updated - - -

You're taking what I said out of context.

The families profit financially from the acts of the bombers (and to a lesser degree from those who end up in Israeli jail over their terrorism). The WTC brought no profits from attacking Muslims.

No, you are adding needless context to what I said to avoid the point.

Do you agree that destroying buildings along with their occupants is rather more than a purely financial transaction?

At this point I'm confused.

 

[bilby]

You're taking what I said out of context.

The families profit financially from the acts of the bombers (and to a lesser degree from those who end up in Israeli jail over their terrorism). The WTC brought no profits from attacking Muslims.

No, you are adding needless context to what I said to avoid the point.

Do you agree that destroying buildings along with their occupants is rather more than a purely financial transaction?

At this point I'm confused.

No shit.

You made a claim: "Israel is taking action to remove the financial gain they would otherwise get, thus reducing an incentive to become a martyr in the first place."

However the 'action' in question is the demolition of people's homes. Hence my question: Do you agree that destroying buildings along with their occupants is rather more than a purely financial transaction?

 

[Davka]

The payments didn't start with Iran. They just took up a successful tactic.

Wrong again. They started with Iran's proxy, hizballah, who funneled them through Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And they began many YEARS after Israel instituted the policy of punishing families for the actions of their grown children.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The payments didn't start with Iran. They just took up a successful tactic.

Wrong again. They started with Iran's proxy, hizballah, who funneled them through Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And they began many YEARS after Israel instituted the policy of punishing families for the actions of their grown children.

It started more than 25 years ago with Saddam. Long before the house destructions.