What is a terrorist? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-29-2004, 03:25 PM

Rekna, get serious. We backed them into a corner? Killing civilians is a way to survive?

You really ought to not blulr the line between terrorist/guerilla.

I think fundamentally everyone here agrees that by definition if you take civilians away from the equation there is no terrorist. If you take away civilians you take away the sole means for achieving their goals, thus there is no point for the action.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-29-2004, 03:27 PM

Lousy double post

Rekna · 09-29-2004, 04:07 PM

I am totally serious. You can't expect someone to fight fair when there is no fair fight to start with.

Plus there is the fact that many of you are calling all Iraqi's civilians.

Is someone waiting in line to sign up for the military a civilian? I a police officer a civilian? It is so easy for us to take the high road because the high road favors us. But don't doubt for a second if the high road didn't favor us that we wouldn't take it. Just look at Hiroshima, Nagisaki, and Dresden.

Why do you think we have WMD in the first place? We have them because if we get to a point were we can't take the highroad anymore then we have a low road that will defend us.

Rekna · 09-29-2004, 04:14 PM

Why do you think there are as many civilian deaths in war today despite the fact that we have very accurate bombs. This is because the government is willing to kill some civilians to kill a few "terrorists" if it means we don't have to put our troups in harms way. Do you honestly think the US always doesn't know that the bomb it is dropping won't kill a few civilians? The US would rather kill thousands of civilians then put our own troups in harms way.

Willravel · 09-29-2004, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I don't think the targeting civilians is a valid definition for terrorists. And here is why. Let's take a school yard analagy. If some 90 pound weakling is being picked on by a 200 pound bully is it not fair for the weakling to kick the bully in the balls to defend himself? Even though kicking in the balls is considered "unfair" by the bully?

My point is this the US has very few if any soft targets. We out gun and outman any other force on the planet. If we make rules that are advantageous to us we have to expect people to not follow them. It is easy for us to say "don't kill civilians" because we have the ability to do damage without targeting them. We backed a weaker force into a corner we should expect them to fight any way they can to survive. Am I justifying targeting civilians? No, but targeting them alone does not make them terrorists. We have left them with no other options.

I think a better definition of terrorist needs to include something about being unprovoked.

I agree that targeting citizens is not the whole and necessary meaning, but they are targeted. You can't take them out of the equasion, whether the fight is fair or not.
Actuality, fairness is in the eye of the beholder (IMO). One might say that the 'terrorist' groups that America has chosen to take on have an advantage over us. They do not have to follow the same rules we do because they don't have the foreign relations to keep up and treaties that need mutual trust (i.e. if we don't follow them, our allies don't and we are in deep crap). I've never seen an official misson where an army officer straps a bomb to his chest and runs into a group of terrorists. It's relative.

Konichiwaneko · 10-30-2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I don't think the targeting civilians is a valid definition for terrorists. And here is why. Let's take a school yard analagy. If some 90 pound weakling is being picked on by a 200 pound bully is it not fair for the weakling to kick the bully in the balls to defend himself? Even though kicking in the balls is considered "unfair" by the bully?

My point is this the US has very few if any soft targets. We out gun and outman any other force on the planet. If we make rules that are advantageous to us we have to expect people to not follow them. It is easy for us to say "don't kill civilians" because we have the ability to do damage without targeting them. We backed a weaker force into a corner we should expect them to fight any way they can to survive. Am I justifying targeting civilians? No, but targeting them alone does not make them terrorists. We have left them with no other options.

I think a better definition of terrorist needs to include something about being unprovoked.

Hmm odd,in your situation it would be like the 90lb weakling taking a gun and killing the bullies 4 year sister.

------------------------------------------------------

Honest assesment, I've noticed this on all the political forums. A majority of the time it's the left side that's so willing to demean and make fun of their oponents over the right. I'm talking majority of the time, not all the time. So before anyone gets offended, please take time to read this whole post. You will notice that most people who stand on the left are quick to cry "Stupid/Ignorant/blah blah".

I'm tired of it. I enjoy talking to people I respect, and quickly the left is just dropping down and down. It saddens me because I used to be a liberal, but like the good old line from "Holy Grail".

I got better.

(Libertarian all the way, except I support the war)

bling · 10-30-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

Hmm odd,in your situation it would be like the 90lb weakling taking a gun and killing the bullies 4 year sister.

You're missing the analogy.

The testicle kick is the inappropriate action, in the eyes of the 200lb bully. The bully would never bring himself to do it - and of course, the bully doesn't have to either. The weakling has no other option: play dirty or get beat up.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about.

Konichiwaneko · 10-30-2004, 10:27 PM

actually the analogy is quite apparent, and I can say bling you maybe missing mine because you may agree with his more. Note I said may, I don't wish to accuse you of thinking wrong..I'm so tired of people pretending they know what others are thinking and then being way off.

The way I see it, if the US attacks a terrorist with it's military, the Terrorist (The 90 lb weakling) needs to attack the military personal back. Well if they are attack American and British contractors....that's not military. So that's the 4 year old sister. Related to the bully, yet completely can't defend themself.

Konichiwaneko · 10-30-2004, 10:44 PM

I noticed that some of the peole who don't believe in the "Rules of War" are coming up with this scenarios where the rules wouldn't be followed. Like "What if this Iraqi decides to use a shotgun.".

Yes you can play dirty if you want too, the rules are only their to dictate those who follow them. Yes those people may use what measures are required to win, but you aren't going to see the United States army deploy a battallion of troups with illegal equipment to fight a war. THe united states follows those rules.

Yes there are some times were we even break those rules, but in general they are followed. The rules are followed by most countries. War is gruesome, war is bad..yes we can agree to that. Yet War is also very very human. War is our custom, and we must live with it.

Even the games we play, they prepare us for war. War is human nature. It's competition of either political strenght or social belief.

War that brings death is harsh, I think most of all of us agree here. Yet there's no immediate clear all solution. Over time we will either kill ourselves, or one side will purge another and integrate into one another. War will happen as long as people believe in different things. Look at us now, some people on this thread are already going neck and neck. It honestly wouldn't be much to get them going at each others throat. Yeah you are probably thinking as individuals "Nah I'll never hurt another man", but we all know that the individual is rational, and the mob is stupid. Bring together a like minding group of people, then bring in one person that thinks different and stupid things can happen.

What I'm basically saying is War is Human. It is in our blood. Because of that we needs rules to the game.

Leading to the topic of the thread, where do terrorist stand in this?

They simply aren't people who don't follow the rules. The guerilla warfare in Vietnam was unconventianal and didn't follow many of the rules of war.

Terrorist can be more akin to those who don't follow rules, and also target non miltary targets for both physical and psychological impact. They wage war with tatics that are morally unsound to the opposing side. They bring war to another without declaration or notification. They tend to believe themselves to be revolutionaries, yet are so blinded by their goals and titles that they seem to believe those who don't aggree with them are nothing more then fodder.

You can look at anything and compare it to another. Maybe it takes a pacifist or someone who just was raised differently then me to, but I feel like I know what a terrorist is and I honestly believe the US isn't one.

bling · 10-30-2004, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

actually the analogy is quite apparent, and I can say bling you maybe missing mine because you may agree with his more. Note I said may, I don't wish to accuse you of thinking wrong..I'm so tired of people pretending they know what others are thinking and then being way off.

The way I see it, if the US attacks a terrorist with it's military, the Terrorist (The 90 lb weakling) needs to attack the military personal back. Well if they are attack American and British contractors....that's not military. So that's the 4 year old sister. Related to the bully, yet completely can't defend themself.

If you're asking me to compare Rekna's analogy with yours, I would certainly choose Rekna's as being more applicable. Yours brought murder into a school yard scenario - in essence, as Rekna shrank the scope of all aspects in his analogy, you picked one aspect to remain. So your analogy doesn't fit.

I think the most applicable analogy would be that 200lb bully pushes the 90lb weakling around and so the weakling pushes the 4 year old sister of the bully - and she begins to cry. Is it fair to the 4 year old girl? No. But neither are the actions of the bully to the weakling. The 90lb weakling can't push the 200lb bully - it would be entirely meaningless.

Konichiwaneko · 10-30-2004, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

If you're asking me to compare Rekna's analogy with yours, I would certainly choose Rekna's as being more applicable. Yours brought murder into a school yard scenario - in essence, as Rekna shrank the scope of all aspects in his analogy, you picked one aspect to remain. So your analogy doesn't fit.

I think the most applicable analogy would be that 200lb bully pushes the 90lb weakling around and so the weakling pushes the 4 year old sister of the bully - and she begins to cry. Is it fair to the 4 year old girl? No. But neither are the actions of the bully to the weakling. The 90lb weakling can't push the 200lb bully - it would be entirely meaningless.

Yet the use of a Gun signifies the breaking of the "Rule" that a typical school yard bully fight would have. You don't expect a gun to be used to handle a situation like this, just like you don't expect a normal enemy combantant to target your civilians.

If you are taking the analogy literally I can see your point. If I said more details like...The girl didn't die...would you see mine?

What mine is leading up too is we know that in this situation the weakling using a gun to kill a 4 year old is wrong...that's terrorism in a nut shell. That's striking at what isn't expected to be strucken it...that's retalliation, if you were wronged, to a point that it makes you the bully.

When those planes hit the world trade center...the US right then became the 90 lb weakling.

bling · 10-30-2004, 11:17 PM

I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't see the logic of an analogy that doesn't accurately handle scope.

Konichiwaneko · 10-31-2004, 09:32 AM

I think it would of started off better if you didn't blame me for missing something rather then saying you disagree. I'll be honest and say from reading your first line that I didn't like you.

We can agree to disagree though.

I find it kinda funny on the inside though that you used the word Logic, which to me has always been a predominently conservative trait.

bling · 10-31-2004, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

I think it would of started off better if you didn't blame me for missing something rather then saying you disagree.

The way you expressed yourself, by use of the word "odd" followed immediately by a change in the analogy, implies that you did not understand the analogy.

If you want to start pointing fingers concerning statements that offend, I suggest you review the second portion of your first post - where you attack the liberal group for no apparent rhyme or reason.

Konichiwaneko · 10-31-2004, 01:56 PM

I just went back and read it bling, can you please post qoutes so I can see what I'm looking for. I read it a few times over and I see to missing things.

Also it's easy to attacks liberals when you used to be one yourself, I don't think I did but how I think is my own way and each individual has their own.

I do know though Bling that you and I are probably boring the hell out of the other forum members.

bling · 10-31-2004, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

Honest assesment, I've noticed this on all the political forums. A majority of the time it's the left side that's so willing to demean and make fun of their oponents over the right. I'm talking majority of the time, not all the time. So before anyone gets offended, please take time to read this whole post. You will notice that most people who stand on the left are quick to cry "Stupid/Ignorant/blah blah".

I'm tired of it. I enjoy talking to people I respect, and quickly the left is just dropping down and down. It saddens me because I used to be a liberal, but like the good old line from "Holy Grail".

I got better.

VitaminH · 10-31-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki did they intentionally target civilians?

It should also be added that they dropped flyers over the cities for days telling people to evac before they dropped the bombs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

We out gun and [b]outman/b] any other force on the planet. If we make rules that are advantageous to us we have to expect people to not follow them.

I'm pretty sure China significanly outman's the US, but I could be mistaken.

09-29-2004, 03:25 PM	#81 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Rekna, get serious. We backed them into a corner? Killing civilians is a way to survive? You really ought to not blulr the line between terrorist/guerilla. I think fundamentally everyone here agrees that by definition if you take civilians away from the equation there is no terrorist. If you take away civilians you take away the sole means for achieving their goals, thus there is no point for the action. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 09-29-2004 at 03:33 PM..

09-29-2004, 03:27 PM	#82 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Lousy double post __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 09-29-2004 at 03:31 PM..

10-30-2004, 10:27 PM	#88 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	actually the analogy is quite apparent, and I can say bling you maybe missing mine because you may agree with his more. Note I said may, I don't wish to accuse you of thinking wrong..I'm so tired of people pretending they know what others are thinking and then being way off. The way I see it, if the US attacks a terrorist with it's military, the Terrorist (The 90 lb weakling) needs to attack the military personal back. Well if they are attack American and British contractors....that's not military. So that's the 4 year old sister. Related to the bully, yet completely can't defend themself. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

10-30-2004, 10:44 PM	#89 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	I noticed that some of the peole who don't believe in the "Rules of War" are coming up with this scenarios where the rules wouldn't be followed. Like "What if this Iraqi decides to use a shotgun.". Yes you can play dirty if you want too, the rules are only their to dictate those who follow them. Yes those people may use what measures are required to win, but you aren't going to see the United States army deploy a battallion of troups with illegal equipment to fight a war. THe united states follows those rules. Yes there are some times were we even break those rules, but in general they are followed. The rules are followed by most countries. War is gruesome, war is bad..yes we can agree to that. Yet War is also very very human. War is our custom, and we must live with it. Even the games we play, they prepare us for war. War is human nature. It's competition of either political strenght or social belief. War that brings death is harsh, I think most of all of us agree here. Yet there's no immediate clear all solution. Over time we will either kill ourselves, or one side will purge another and integrate into one another. War will happen as long as people believe in different things. Look at us now, some people on this thread are already going neck and neck. It honestly wouldn't be much to get them going at each others throat. Yeah you are probably thinking as individuals "Nah I'll never hurt another man", but we all know that the individual is rational, and the mob is stupid. Bring together a like minding group of people, then bring in one person that thinks different and stupid things can happen. What I'm basically saying is War is Human. It is in our blood. Because of that we needs rules to the game. Leading to the topic of the thread, where do terrorist stand in this? They simply aren't people who don't follow the rules. The guerilla warfare in Vietnam was unconventianal and didn't follow many of the rules of war. Terrorist can be more akin to those who don't follow rules, and also target non miltary targets for both physical and psychological impact. They wage war with tatics that are morally unsound to the opposing side. They bring war to another without declaration or notification. They tend to believe themselves to be revolutionaries, yet are so blinded by their goals and titles that they seem to believe those who don't aggree with them are nothing more then fodder. You can look at anything and compare it to another. Maybe it takes a pacifist or someone who just was raised differently then me to, but I feel like I know what a terrorist is and I honestly believe the US isn't one. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

10-31-2004, 09:32 AM	#93 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	I think it would of started off better if you didn't blame me for missing something rather then saying you disagree. I'll be honest and say from reading your first line that I didn't like you. We can agree to disagree though. I find it kinda funny on the inside though that you used the word Logic, which to me has always been a predominently conservative trait. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

09-29-2004, 04:07 PM	#83 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I am totally serious. You can't expect someone to fight fair when there is no fair fight to start with. Plus there is the fact that many of you are calling all Iraqi's civilians. Is someone waiting in line to sign up for the military a civilian? I a police officer a civilian? It is so easy for us to take the high road because the high road favors us. But don't doubt for a second if the high road didn't favor us that we wouldn't take it. Just look at Hiroshima, Nagisaki, and Dresden. Why do you think we have WMD in the first place? We have them because if we get to a point were we can't take the highroad anymore then we have a low road that will defend us.

09-29-2004, 04:14 PM	#84 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Why do you think there are as many civilian deaths in war today despite the fact that we have very accurate bombs. This is because the government is willing to kill some civilians to kill a few "terrorists" if it means we don't have to put our troups in harms way. Do you honestly think the US always doesn't know that the bomb it is dropping won't kill a few civilians? The US would rather kill thousands of civilians then put our own troups in harms way.

10-30-2004, 11:17 PM	#92 (permalink)
bling Banned	I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't see the logic of an analogy that doesn't accurately handle scope.

10-31-2004, 01:56 PM	#95 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	I just went back and read it bling, can you please post qoutes so I can see what I'm looking for. I read it a few times over and I see to missing things. Also it's easy to attacks liberals when you used to be one yourself, I don't think I did but how I think is my own way and each individual has their own. I do know though Bling that you and I are probably boring the hell out of the other forum members. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.