The Provisional IRA maintained that it only attacked viable military targets (but civillians often got killed). The Israeli Defense Force frequently kills innocent civillians (but maintains that it does not target them intentionally). Which of these is the terrorist organization?
Perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide which organization is the terrorist organization?
Once again the key word (very important) is intentional.
Terrorist groups' intent is to kill even innocent people.
I wrote the following a year and a half ago. Since then the death count has only gotten worse.
Did you think the death count was going to go down? Why not start with the latest terrorist bombing and beat the PLO or Hamas over the head for creating a 1000 more Sharons?
Once again the key word (very important) is intentional.
Terrorist groups' intent is to kill even innocent people.
If someone blows up a building that is full of innocent civillians, but they say that they thought it was full of military people only, does that mean that they are not terrorists?
No. THey are not trying to use terror to scare a group into doing something. They are trying to kill people to stop them from doing something, like killing Jews. Warfare is terrifying but that does not make it terrorism.
If someone blows up a building that is full of innocent civillians, but they say that they thought it was full of military people only, does that mean that they are not terrorists?
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
Come on.
I don't really know what to say to this...
What if might not be the truth...but you only have the word of the people responsible for the bombing? How do you decide their intent?
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Did you think the death count was going to go down? Why not start with the latest terrorist bombing and beat the PLO or Hamas over the head for creating a 1000 more Sharons?
I don't think anyone here is saying that the terror attacks in Israel are a good thing...why would we need to examine they ways in which they are detrimental to the eventual hope for peace?
What if might not be the truth...but you only have the word of the people responsible for the bombing? How do you decide their intent?
Um, well the history of conflict of the US has been fairly noble. The US does not embrace imperialism. I am not sure what evil and underhanded reasons the US would kill innocent people, though I would love to hear it from you...
Um, well the history of conflict of the US has been fairly noble. The US does not embrace imperialism. I am not sure what evil and underhanded reasons the US would kill innocent people, though I would love to hear it from you...
Right, last I heard we still pay for our oil.
How dare we "impose" democracy and then pay people for oil?
Face it: were it not for Americans buying their oil they would have ZERO income. That their corrupted officials keep it out of the hands of the destitute, oh well. Welcome to the club. Tourism sure as hell isn't going ot be a source of income for any Middle East country. Blame themselves for that. Much vaunted hospitality of Muslims is going to waste so long as the good ones let the bad ones ruin it for everyone.
Anyway while I despise the self-defeating hypocrisy and nationalism of Israel (the government), I certainly applaud the blasting of that Hamas piece of crap. Wheelchair and age is not a free pass for terrorists or criminals.
Um, well the history of conflict of the US has been fairly noble. The US does not embrace imperialism. I am not sure what evil and underhanded reasons the US would kill innocent people, though I would love to hear it from you...
I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about whether or not terrorist groups can justify their actions by claiming that they have only ever intended to kill soldiers or police. You appear to believe that they can. I am, quite frankly, astounded that anyone would hold this point of view.
Conversely, I would be interested in your perspective on the terrorist status of the police / armed forces of established and recognized nations that kill civilians (but say that they have only ever intended to kill terrorists)
Whether or not the US has innocent blood on its hands is another matter (and another thread) entirely.
I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about whether or not terrorist groups can justify their actions by claiming that they have only ever intended to kill soldiers or police. You appear to believe that they can. I am, quite frankly, astounded that anyone would hold this point of view.
Conversely, I would be interested in your perspective on the terrorist status of the police / armed forces of established and recognized nations that kill civilians (but say that they have only ever intended to kill terrorists)
Whether or not the US has innocent blood on its hands is another matter (and another thread) entirely.
I don't hold the view you are trying to imply.
I said that if in fact it was an accident, then they are not terrorists. Facts need to be considered.
Please stop Chubby Checkering my words. I thought I was fairly clear.
If someone blows up a building that is full of innocent civillians, but they say that they thought it was full of military people only, does that mean that they are not terrorists?
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
There is ZERO question that your opinion would be exactly the opposite if the building was in washington and the attackers were Muslim.
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
There is ZERO question that your opinion would be exactly the opposite if the building was in washington and the attackers were Muslim. [/QUOTE] That would depend on wether they did it on purpose. Although I am not sure how you do that on accident. And it would depend also on why they did it, but once again, how would that happen exactly.
You see the US military does not hide among the civilians it is protecting. So if you want to wage war with the US you know where to hit it and don't have to guess.
I guess I am the only one here that sees that difference.
I don't know a lot about Dresden, but as far as Nagasaki, that sucked, but who struck out and started that conflict?
It was the leaders of Japan, don't blame the US for their decisions. It ended the war. Enough said.
*IT* ended the war because the leaders of Japan suddenly realized they were dealing with a nation that was, by all humanitarian accounts and unspoken rules of fair warplay, insane. Atomizing tens of thousands of people? Um, yeah, that's fair. War is hell, but the US proved itself to be Satan.
Comments
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
The Provisional IRA maintained that it only attacked viable military targets (but civillians often got killed). The Israeli Defense Force frequently kills innocent civillians (but maintains that it does not target them intentionally). Which of these is the terrorist organization?
Perhaps more importantly, who gets to decide which organization is the terrorist organization?
Once again the key word (very important) is intentional.
Terrorist groups' intent is to kill even innocent people.
Originally posted by tonton
I wrote the following a year and a half ago. Since then the death count has only gotten worse.
Did you think the death count was going to go down? Why not start with the latest terrorist bombing and beat the PLO or Hamas over the head for creating a 1000 more Sharons?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again the key word (very important) is intentional.
Terrorist groups' intent is to kill even innocent people.
If someone blows up a building that is full of innocent civillians, but they say that they thought it was full of military people only, does that mean that they are not terrorists?
Originally posted by segovius
RAF bombing of Dresden.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You're right, it's like I always say - there are no 'good guys and bad guys' where killing's concerned.
There's just people who are into violence and people who aren't.
All the rest is merely the BS the killers spin to justify their killing and keep the sheep supporting it.
I don't know a lot about Dresden, but as far as Nagasaki, that sucked, but who struck out and started that conflict?
It was the leaders of Japan, don't blame the US for their decisions. It ended the war. Enough said.
Found this link today at my favorite blog.
THE COVENANT OF THE HAMAS - MAIN POINTS
...
On the Destruction of Israel:
-----------------------------
'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)
...
Spiritual Leader indeed.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
If someone blows up a building that is full of innocent civillians, but they say that they thought it was full of military people only, does that mean that they are not terrorists?
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
Come on.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
Come on.
I don't really know what to say to this...
What if might not be the truth...but you only have the word of the people responsible for the bombing? How do you decide their intent?
Originally posted by Scott
Did you think the death count was going to go down? Why not start with the latest terrorist bombing and beat the PLO or Hamas over the head for creating a 1000 more Sharons?
I don't think anyone here is saying that the terror attacks in Israel are a good thing...why would we need to examine they ways in which they are detrimental to the eventual hope for peace?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I don't really know what to say to this...
What if might not be the truth...but you only have the word of the people responsible for the bombing? How do you decide their intent?
Um, well the history of conflict of the US has been fairly noble. The US does not embrace imperialism. I am not sure what evil and underhanded reasons the US would kill innocent people, though I would love to hear it from you...
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, well the history of conflict of the US has been fairly noble. The US does not embrace imperialism. I am not sure what evil and underhanded reasons the US would kill innocent people, though I would love to hear it from you...
Right, last I heard we still pay for our oil.
How dare we "impose" democracy and then pay people for oil?
Face it: were it not for Americans buying their oil they would have ZERO income. That their corrupted officials keep it out of the hands of the destitute, oh well. Welcome to the club. Tourism sure as hell isn't going ot be a source of income for any Middle East country. Blame themselves for that. Much vaunted hospitality of Muslims is going to waste so long as the good ones let the bad ones ruin it for everyone.
Anyway while I despise the self-defeating hypocrisy and nationalism of Israel (the government), I certainly applaud the blasting of that Hamas piece of crap. Wheelchair and age is not a free pass for terrorists or criminals.
Keep looking up.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, well the history of conflict of the US has been fairly noble. The US does not embrace imperialism. I am not sure what evil and underhanded reasons the US would kill innocent people, though I would love to hear it from you...
I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about whether or not terrorist groups can justify their actions by claiming that they have only ever intended to kill soldiers or police. You appear to believe that they can. I am, quite frankly, astounded that anyone would hold this point of view.
Conversely, I would be interested in your perspective on the terrorist status of the police / armed forces of established and recognized nations that kill civilians (but say that they have only ever intended to kill terrorists)
Whether or not the US has innocent blood on its hands is another matter (and another thread) entirely.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
I wasn't talking about the US, I was talking about whether or not terrorist groups can justify their actions by claiming that they have only ever intended to kill soldiers or police. You appear to believe that they can. I am, quite frankly, astounded that anyone would hold this point of view.
Conversely, I would be interested in your perspective on the terrorist status of the police / armed forces of established and recognized nations that kill civilians (but say that they have only ever intended to kill terrorists)
Whether or not the US has innocent blood on its hands is another matter (and another thread) entirely.
I don't hold the view you are trying to imply.
I said that if in fact it was an accident, then they are not terrorists. Facts need to be considered.
Please stop Chubby Checkering my words. I thought I was fairly clear.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I said that if in fact it was an accident, then they are not terrorists. Facts need to be considered.
And how are these facts established when the only indication of intent are the statements of the responsible party?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
And how are these facts established when the only indication of intent are the statements of the responsible party?
You are fishing.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
If someone blows up a building that is full of innocent civillians, but they say that they thought it was full of military people only, does that mean that they are not terrorists?
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
There is ZERO question that your opinion would be exactly the opposite if the building was in washington and the attackers were Muslim.
Originally posted by giant
Um, yes. If in fact that is the truth. Accidents happen. Let's say an old lady veers off the road and hits a building and it collapses and kills all inside, is she a terrorist.
There is ZERO question that your opinion would be exactly the opposite if the building was in washington and the attackers were Muslim. [/QUOTE] That would depend on wether they did it on purpose. Although I am not sure how you do that on accident. And it would depend also on why they did it, but once again, how would that happen exactly.
You see the US military does not hide among the civilians it is protecting. So if you want to wage war with the US you know where to hit it and don't have to guess.
I guess I am the only one here that sees that difference.
Oh well.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You see the US military does not hide among the civilians it is protecting.
Tell that to the CIA, special ops and mercs like dyncorp.
Originally posted by giant
Tell that to the CIA, special ops and mercs like dyncorp.
Come on now you are stretching. Every government has intel agencies.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Come on now you are stretching. Every government has intel agencies.
And governments have laws. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand or my response to your comment.
Not to mention that not every government has an intel agency, but that's just an off-topic factual error on your part
So let's get back to what we were talking about:
You were saying how the attack on the pentagon wasn't a terror attack. Continue.
Originally posted by giant
And governments have laws. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand or my response to your comment.
Not to mention that not every government has an intel agency, but that's just an off-topic factual error on your part
So let's get back to what we were talking about:
You were saying how the attack on the pentagon wasn't a terror attack. Continue.
See, I knew you were baiting me into something.
The attack on the pentagon was not, a terrorist attack IMO. It was an act of war. But they just didn't stop there they targeted innocent people.
So they are terrorists.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't know a lot about Dresden, but as far as Nagasaki, that sucked, but who struck out and started that conflict?
It was the leaders of Japan, don't blame the US for their decisions. It ended the war. Enough said.
*IT* ended the war because the leaders of Japan suddenly realized they were dealing with a nation that was, by all humanitarian accounts and unspoken rules of fair warplay, insane. Atomizing tens of thousands of people? Um, yeah, that's fair. War is hell, but the US proved itself to be Satan.