are only muslims terrorists?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Postby tsian » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:08 am

I don't think anyone is denying those people who flew planes into the WTC were terrorists. They were. The Cole... thats a tougher one, but yeah, I'd say they were terrorists too. People who fight the elections.. well, they are certainly the enemy of the United States. Whether they are truly enemies to the Iraqis is hard to say. When the Iraqi Governing Council suggests an extension to the election, are we to concider them the enemy now?

Certainly those in Iraq who indiscriminantly target civillians are terrorists and 'the enemy'.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Exalted Ugu » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:14 am

Now hold on a minute... What makes the cole bombing an act of terrorism? Assuming that it was bin Laden, had not the American government declared bin Laden an enemy and ordered his assassination? Why is the Cole an invalid target?

Larry, i doubt that you could come up with any coherent definition of 'terrorist', without specific exemptions for the US and it's allies.

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby LarryTGC » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:30 am

Larry, i doubt that you could come up with any coherent definition of 'terrorist', without specific exemptions for the US and it's allies.


Lets try this one;

Terrorist - Group or individual not bound to the Geneva convention that initiates or carries out attacks on innocent and unsuspecting civilians in an effort to terrorize a population via destruction, death, and media munipilation.

Now hold on a minute... What makes the cole bombing an act of terrorism?


Thats a decent question. Is it terrorism? Does it fit my definision? No.

Although the same group involved does infact consist of terrorists.
The terrorists that blew up the USS Cole committed and ACT OF WAR against the United States. Same with the Khobar Towers.
The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was also an act of war. And a terrorist attack.

***I cannot believe I'm wasting my time explaining the obvious***

Assuming that it was bin Laden, had not the American government declared bin Laden an enemy and ordered his assassination?


Enemy yes, assination, not to my knowledge. Clinton let alot of terrorist attacks slide. He even passed up a opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody in 1996 from Sudan despite the fact Bin Laden had previously attack and declared war on the US.

Why is the Cole an invalid target?


I guess that depends on where your sympathies lie.
If you lean toward Global Jihad one would assume it is a valid target.
If you stand with America and other like minded nations it is an invalid target.

I think I will change my terminolgy from terrorist to enemy. Or maybe use both. Or one on Mon, Wed, Fri. And the other on Tues. Thurs. and Sat.

And sinister foreigners in turbans on Sunday.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby Exalted Ugu » Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:48 am

"Terrorist - Group or individual not bound to the Geneva convention that initiates or carries out attacks on innocent and unsuspecting civilians in an effort to terrorize a population via destruction, death, and media munipilation. "

When you say 'not bound' to the geneva convention, are you saying not a signatory, or not a participant. You will note that many countries, including your own, use legalistic manoeuvering to avoid their geneva convention responsibilities. Further, by this definition, the wars on vietnam and the nuclear attack on hirosima are monstrous terrorist acts. Also, your governments have always maintianed their right to attack anyone, for any reason. And I doubt that you'd believe it, but a 500 pound bomb hitting the wrong hosue both causes terror and sends a direct message to anyone who happens to survive.
As for media manipulation, you'll have to explain what you mean by maniupulation in this context. Most terrorists simply send manifestoes or explanations to media outlets, and leave it up to the media to broadcast them.

"Thats a decent question. Is it terrorism? Does it fit my definision? No. "
Then why did you include it(the USS Cole attack) in a sentence as a terrorist act? It seems that you really don't apply your own definition too stringently, or perhaps you don't actually have a definition, rather defining any millitary action you disapprove of as terrorism. Again, emotionalism rather than reason.

"Enemy yes, assination, not to my knowledge."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1558918.stm
There is some debate about this, many people now say that beureaucratic restrictions prevented the effective assassination of OBL, but it should be noted that he was not a high-priority target at this time, and relaxing those restrictions intended to protect the lives of innocents who may have been near OBL would have been not only unwise on the local american scene (where the Right were already castigating clinton for wasting time on this terrorism thing) but internationally, where an illegal american strike that only killed a terrorist would be pretty much ignored, but one that killed civilians would raise cries of terror on the part of the US.

"He even passed up a opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody in 1996 from Sudan despite the fact Bin Laden had previously attack and declared war on the US. "
That there was any credibility to the Sudanese offer was and is in dispute, that it even WAS a sudanese offer wass in dispute. As it is usually presented on rightist pages, you'll hear this described as 'backchannel diplomacy' which means in point of fact that a man with no diplomatic credentials appeared in washington trying to sell bin Laden. According to the clinton administration, they attempted to verify his offer but were unable to.

"I guess that depends on where your sympathies lie.
If you lean toward Global Jihad one would assume it is a valid target.
If you stand with America and other like minded nations it is an invalid target.
"
*laughs* this is, of course, the fallacy of False Dilemma. Where you attempt with your posted options to either force me to admit to agreement with the terrorist Global Jihad or to 'stand with' (a term loaded with the sort of petty emotionalism i'm coming to expect from you) America. Aside from the ridiculous notion that all americans believe the same things, there are numerous other options of belief. Perhaps i, like many other completely rational people, believe that when their must be a war, the ONLY valid targets are millitary. And since the US and Bin Laden had declared war upon one another, the Cole must have been a valid target, was it not a millitary vessel on deployment? Would not the US take any opportunity to strike at the millitary apparatus of a nation it was at war with? I most certainly do not support the Global Jihadi's cause, but if they limit themseves to attacking millitary and governmental targets, i don't see anything wrong with their methodology. indeed, had the 9-11 terrorists attacked only the pentagon, it would not have been a terrorist event at all (aside from the civilians on the planes, who would fall into the US's own category of Collatteral damage, like the housekeeping staff in Saddam's palaces)

"I think I will change my terminolgy from terrorist to enemy. Or maybe use both. Or one on Mon, Wed, Fri. And the other on Tues. Thurs. and Sat."
If you wish to speak with precision, you would use each term where it is appropriate. Not all enemies of the US are terrorists, and from any reading of US history or current foreign policy, not all terrorists are US enemies. Why not refine your use of language to appropriately apply terminology, instead of selecting for emotional impact or to use the media's hot-button terminology of the week?

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby LarryTGC » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:54 am

Where you attempt with your posted options to either force me to admit to agreement with the terrorist Global Jihad or to 'stand with' (a term loaded with the sort of petty emotionalism i'm coming to expect from you) America.


Yeh pretty much. I am curious to know where your sympathies lie. As far as I can tell you are often an apologist for the terrorists/insurgents/enemy/sinister..........., and out right anti-coalition.

Surely your not trying to position yourself as a highminded superior intellectual moral relativist with no leaning one way or the other. Are you?

If you wish to speak with precision, you would use each term where it is appropriate.


Ok enlighten me.
Let me ask you this question;

Is alqueda a terrorist organization?

Assuming your answer is yes, then that would make members of that organization terrorists, would it not?

So wouldnt an attack on a military target by that organization be a terrorist attack?

Or would it be an attack committed by terrorists that is not a terrorist attack?

Very confusing stuff.

Clinton/binladen/Sudan

This audio says it all,
http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

About the USS cole attack.....

Are you attempting to say Bin Laden was justified in attacking the Cole because it was a 'valid' target in your eyes?

This kind of goes to what terra was saying. What target of terrorists would be 'valid' for coalition troops to target in your eyes??

Terrorist blend in with their victims and use them as human sheilds. They use Mosques and schools for weapon and ammo depots.

Would a mosque be a valid target?

When you say 'not bound' to the geneva convention, are you saying not a signatory, or not a participant.


Both.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:01 am

Surely your not trying to position yourself as highminded superior intellectual moral relativist with no leaning one way or the other. Are you?


The logical fallacy is to assume there are only two sides and that it is a black and white situation.

Would a mosque be a valid target?


Out of curiosity, why specifically a mosque?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Exalted Ugu » Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:22 am

"Yeh pretty much. I am curious to know where your sympathies lie. As far as I can tell you are often an apologist for the terrorists/insurgents/enemy/sinister..........., and out right anti-coalition."
My sympathies lie with innocent dead on both sides, i sympathize neither with the careless and often malevolent US millitary establishment nor with the vicious terrorist organizations. I am both anti-coalition and anti-al qaeda. Should the United States ever decide to undertake a serious al qaeda elimination program, i would cheer it, but only under the condition that the US millitary treat innocent civilians in third world countries and at home as if they were members of their own families. By which i mean that no civilian death can be justified unless it is absolutely, physically neccessary. No sacrafice of innocents.

"Surely your not trying to position yourself as a highminded superior intellectual moral relativist with no leaning one way or the other. Are you? "
Actually, with the exception of the term 'moral relativist', yes i am. I neither sympathise with the terrorists or with the US administration. Frankly, i'd like to see them all locked up somewhere to fight it out amongst themselves. Since that's not going to happen, i oppose all unneccessary loss of innocent human life. It should be noted here that i do not consider a soldier on any side to be innocent, under any circumstances. Anyone who takes up arms is a valid target. See below.

"Ok enlighten me.
Let me ask you this question;
Is alqueda a terrorist organization?
Assuming your answer is yes, then that would make members of that organization terrorists, would it not?
"
Is al qaeda a terrorist organization? Yes. Would it make members of that organization terrorists, no. Terrorism is a deed and a methodology, it is NOT some objective moral status that can be conferred by organizational membership. Al Qaeda members who commit terrorism are terrorists, those who commit valid millitary attacks are irregular or geurilla soldiers. Just as american millitary forces can be soldiers or terrorists depending on what they are called upon to do. A US special forces soldier involved in training death squads and torturers in El Salvador is a terrorist and a trainer of terrorists, an Infantry Squaddie manning his post in Baghdad is most likely not. Anyone who commits or assists a terrorist act is a terrorist, but the very cellular nature of Al Qaeda means that no cell horizontal to another can logically be blamed for the actions of that cell, they have no ability to aid or oppose such action. Each member should be judged on his own actions and decisions.

"Or would it be an attack committed by terrorists that is not a terrorist attack? "
As again, terrorism is a specific methodoloy, not some moral condemnation that attaches to anything a person does. Tell me, in your view, if a terrorist goes to the grocery store for some Hummus, is that a terrorist act? Is he terroristically taking the bus home? When he kisses his children on the forehead before putting them to bed, is that a terrorist act? No, of course not. Terrorist attacks are terrorist acts, millitary attacks are millitary acts.

"This audio says it all, "
Frankly, i don't have the time or interest to listen to anything produced by newsmax.com. Give me something in writing.

"About the USS cole attack.....
Are you attempting to say Bin Laden was justified in attacking the Cole because it was a 'valid' target in your eyes?
"
Are you attempting to say that a US warship, under US colours in a foreign port is NOT a valid millitary target? Tell me, what IS a valid millitary target, in your eyes?

"This kind of goes to what terra was saying. What target of terrorists would be 'valid' for coalition troops to target in your eyes??"
Terrorists themselves, obviously. Also terrorist camps, meeting places and caches.

"Terrorist blend in with their victims and use them as human sheilds.
They use Mosques and schools for weapon and ammo depots.
Would a mosque be a valid target?
"
If it had weapons or similar millitary eqipment in it, of course. But every effort must be made to minimise civilian casualties. This does not mean levelling every house for a block with bombs, it means attacking it with soldiers who aren't just going to shoot anyone who moves. I realize that this makes the war much harder for an ill-funded army too obsessed with high-tech weaponry, but when you claim a higher morality than your enemy, you need to demonstrate it.


As for your definition of terrorist, you seem to be implying that any country that signs the geneva convention is automatically exempt from terrorist status, no matter what it's actual actions are. Am i correct in this reading? You have no objection to the slaughter of civilians or innocent persons by a country that has signed the Geneva convention?

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby TerraFrost » Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:03 am

i'm currious - how, exactly, do terrorist organizations operate? you say that because of their cell structure, one cell can act without consulting with another. however, al-queda seems to have a clear heirarchy, with bin Ladin and his doctor at the top.

so if al Queda has a cell structure, despite their heirarchy of leadership, it seems that the US army would have a cell structure, too. they have a heirarchy, with the president and varrious generals at the top. at the bottom are batallions who presumably interact very infrequently with other batallions.

also, you suggest that valid targets for terrorists would be terrorist camps, meeting places, and caches. how frequently do terrorists meet? pursuant to their cell structure (as i understand the term), these meetings could only consist of members of their local cell. also, how casual are their meetings? if they just conduct their meetings at random members' houses, then how do you distinguish terrorist meetings from friendly get-togethers?

i suppose the chief thing i'm currious about is how feasable is it to kill only terrorists? is it akin to developing a treatment that only kills HIV (ie. something that's not very easy) or is it more akin to using pesticides that kill only insects (which i think has already sorta been done?)?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Exalted Ugu » Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:16 am

Exactly like the Army, though the degree of authority that bin Laden exersized over his cells is rather unclear. Moreover, this is complicated by the fact that Middle Eastern terrorists can also subscribe to the 'leaderless resistance' concept developed by American anti-Abortion Terrorists, to whit, small groups of committed terrorists carry out an act and then claim it for the group, enhancing the prestiege of the group while making the 'organization' almost impossible to penetrate. Though there is certainly an element of hierarchy to Al Qaeda, there is almost certainly some leaderlessness as well. And i think that anyone who orders a terrorist act is as much culpable as the actual terrorists, hence bin Laden IS a terrorist, who should be caught and tried.

As to the rest of your point, that is the difficulty, is it not. I don't really know how anyone could accomplish this feat, though i know that dropping bombs whenever the CIA picks up a 'maybe' isn't it. I don't think that bombs, no matter how sophisticated, have any place in a war against Terrorism, as they inevitably place the user in a similarily immoral category as the terrorist. Any use of a bomb in a city is going to kill innocent people, anyone with a functioning brain knows this, all i ask is that the US treat other people's loved ones with the same respect and care as they would their own. If Bush had his people act like every terrorist had one of their own children captive in his hideout, then maybe this war would get fought morally.

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby LarryTGC » Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:59 am

My sympathies lie with innocent dead


Just out of curiosity, if this is the case, why did you oppose the ouster of Saddams regime?
Assuming you did.

I am both anti-coalition and anti-al qaeda.


Are you anti-'insurgent'. You know, the ex ba'ath party members blowing stuff up and cutting peoples heads off in an effort to scare people away from voting booths?

Are you pro UN and member nations that oppose the war? France, Germany, Syria..........

i sympathize neither with the careless and often malevolent US millitary establishment


Really? I think our military goes out of its way to protect innocent life. Even risking itself and prolonging the mission to do so. I think the current US military is as compassionate to innocents as any in the history of the world.

Al Qaeda members who commit terrorism are terrorists, those who commit valid millitary attacks are irregular or geurilla soldiers.


So alqueda is an irregular organization. Or a geurilla organization. Those have a soothing ring to it. Irregular surely doesnt sound as bad as terrorist.

I think im going to start calling the U.S. military, a U.S. Humanitarian Organization.

Are you attempting to say that a US warship, under US colours in a foreign port is NOT a valid millitary target? Tell me, what IS a valid millitary target, in your eyes?


Thats exactly what im saying.
A valid military taget would be a small rubber boat closing in on a US warship in a foreign port.

But the U.S. Humanitarian Organization warship didnt open fire.

Terrorists themselves, obviously. Also terrorist camps, meeting places and caches.

But every effort must be made to minimise civilian casualties.


Every effort is taken. Are mistakes made? Yeh, but rarely considering what the troops go thru and the nature of an enemy that uses human sheilds and so forth.

when you claim a higher morality than your enemy, you need to demonstrate it.


If you can not see the higher morality of U.S. forces over the enemy than you are in a fact a moral relativist. I think your highminded superior intellect has gone to your head.

-Larry
-TGC
Last edited by LarryTGC on Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:17 am

Really? I think our military goes out of its way to protect innocent life. Even risking itself and prolonging the mission to do so. I think the current US military is as compassionate to innocents as any in the history of the world.


I wouldn't call the indiscriminant use of 'smart bombs' on targets that might be enemies 'carefull'. In fact, any campaign that relies heavily on bombs (which do go astray) in lieu of simply sending in soldiers to get the job done is certain to cause problems for civillians. I wouldn't call the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi civillians 'carefull'. How many weddings does the US have to bomb for it to be screwing up? How is going to war on faulty intelligence a benefit to civillians?

Just out of curiosity, if this is the case, why did you oppose the ouster of Saddams regime?


Mainly because I oppose wars of aggresion based on flimsy, false intelligence. Wars based on human rights, I'm more supportive of, however the US' continued support of other (often worse) right's abusers leads me to believe that human rights was by no means a driving motive in the war in Iraq.

Are you pro UN and member nations that oppose the war? France, Germany, Syria..........


I would certainly rather see the Security Council deal with issues than any country acting unilaterally. That is what it is there for. I don't particularly support France et al as they were against the war primarily for economic reasons.

Irregular surely doesnt sound as bad as terrorist.


Look up the definition of an 'Irregular Army'. Then look up the definition of 'Humanitarian Organisation'. Note that Ugu said that many people in Al Queda were terrorists, but that not everything they did was a terrorist act. Not everything the US Army does is a military act, either.

hats exactly what im saying.
A valid military taget would be a small rubber boat closing in on a US warship in a foreign port.


Now then, if the US pledges to kill me, is there no valid US military target for me to attack, in your eyes?

Every effort is taken. Are mistakes made? Yeh, but rarely considering what the troops go thru and the nature of an enemy that uses human sheilds and so forth.


Have you found any stories talking about the use of human shields in this war? Anything that says even a minor fraction of the civillian casualities in this war have been because of shields? If not, then this is a useless arguement. The vast amount of civillian casualities have been 'collateral damage'. And whether it's collateral damage from Iraq troops or, more often (due to the vastly superior fire power) from American troops, collateral damage is murder put into a nice package.

If you can not see the higher morality of U.S. forces over the enemy than you are in a fact moral relativist. I think your highminded superior intellect has gone to your head.


We attacked Saddam because he has weapons of Mass destruction (he didn't, whoops, lets move on). We attack him because he treats his civillians badly (Very noble. Oops, we are killing those same civillians and torturing people in our jails... umm.. but we're still better... right?)

Seriously, if the US was morally superior compared to Iraq, why would it ignore the Geneva conventions, conduct an illegal war, arrest entire families and hold large groups of people, the vast amount of whom are known to be innocent?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby TerraFrost » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:32 am

Have you found any stories talking about the use of human shields in this war? Anything that says even a minor fraction of the civillian casualities in this war have been because of shields? If not, then this is a useless arguement. The vast amount of civillian casualities have been 'collateral damage'. And whether it's collateral damage from Iraq troops or, more often (due to the vastly superior fire power) from American troops, collateral damage is murder put into a nice package.

i'm pretty confident terrorists use human shields. suicide bombers, for example, shield themselves from prying eyes by looking like everyone else. how else would they be able to get on the buses they're trying to blow up? other types of terrorists probably try to blend in, as well, although i think suicide bombers are the best example. or is your understanding of the term "human shield" different than mine? (not that there's anything wrong with a diff. understanding, heh).
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby tsian » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:45 am

However, we are talking about Iraq right now. Iraq had an army. Larry, as far as I know, is reffering to the use of civillians to literally block access or surround key military points -- as human shields. Not, as you describe, to blend into.

If his arguement has any basis, there must be a reason to believe that a vast majority of the civillian casualities were caused by the US attacking targets which made use of human shields as opposed to, say, bombing a wedding.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby LarryTGC » Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:08 am

Larry, as far as I know, is reffering to the use of civillians to literally block access or surround key military points


Well there were those dupes that went to Iraq to be voluntary human sheilds for Saddam before the war started.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/interna ... 1429102002

And then there were the human sheilds involuntarily used by Saddam.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003 ... 9085M.html

Then there is the use of human sheilds by terrorists/enemy/insurgents/irregular/guerilla/sinister...........
For short ill use (T.E.I.I.G.S.F.T)

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id= ... 03&tid=518

These T.E.I.I.G.S.F.T's always use human sheilds for protection and media munipilation.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:51 am

Yes, but is there any reason to believe human shields make up any significant amount of the casualities? Again, as I state in my post above, unless this is a case, there is no reason to bring up human shields (you have failed to address this). I also brought up quite a few other points that you have yet to respond to.

As to your links, I never denied human shields were used, i would take it as a given that some were used.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron