Bin Laden is Dead - Page 12
Old 05-06-2011, 08:58 AM   #221 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,017
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
The difference for me and this is really just my opinion.

A "terrorist" fights his battles (war) with no consideration of civilian casualties, in some cases pick their targets to maximize them 9/11, UK, Spain. Causing "terror" among the masses.

Say what you want about the USA, and there wherefores and whys, they attempt to minimize as many civilian casualties as possible. It becomes a military action with strategic military targets, right or wrong, which is why the group we are discussing has been hiding amongst them.

It is not an Arab thing for sure, IRA, T.Macveigh etc... terrorists, no consideration for civilian life.
So how do you explain the firebombings of Dresden during WWII? The Tokyo Air Raids? The second nuclear explosion on Nagasaki? All during WWII and all specifically targeted civilians so as to cripple the resolve of the enemy? By definition they would be terrorist attacks? Nagasaki was at no point really considered a military target of importance and much of the historical records points to dropping the second as a show of:

a. force to the soviets
b. payback for Pear Harbour
c. Racism

And how do you measure terrorism? Does the soldier who raids a home of innocent people and threaten them, when they're in a state of panic, constitute terrorism? To the victim, I'm sure it does (and yes it does happen, mostly due to faulty intelligence, but I digress).

Oh and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the use of Agent Orange on civilian populations? There was no though of minimizing civilian casualties there. Civilians were purposefully targeted so as to simply break the resolve of the enemy.
Claudius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 09:13 AM   #222 (permalink)
far away

Senior Member
 
archie63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Panama City
Posts: 981
Representing:
Default

What i get from your reasonig (and i could be wrong) is the fact that you want to call "other" terrorist before call the "so called terrorist" with that name. So be it if you like, but then please don't deny the fact that Bin Laden was a "terrorist".
Oh well deny it if you like.
P.s. The examples you bring, althought correct, are 60 years old, and the world is changed by chance
archie63 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 10:37 AM   #223 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,017
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archie63 View Post
What i get from your reasonig (and i could be wrong) is the fact that you want to call "other" terrorist before call the "so called terrorist" with that name. So be it if you like, but then please don't deny the fact that Bin Laden was a "terrorist".
Oh well deny it if you like.
P.s. The examples you bring, althought correct, are 60 years old, and the world is changed by chance
My point is, should the historical record then classify them as terrorist attacks? Even brining in the current example of the home being raided CAN be seen as a terrorist attack. Hell, I wanted to use the criteria provided.

Really, my reasoning behind all of this is to show the complete ambiguity of the term politically and historically. At no point in this thread have I stated, that bin Laden is not guilty of a crime. I call it mass murder. And I'd be completely happy at leaving it with that. My point, is that terrorism, is far too subjective a term and the term alone seems to either incite unneccessary fear or provide a catch all label.
Claudius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 10:43 AM   #224 (permalink)
is praying Ross makes us forget Drummomd so people stop whining

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 72,886
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
My point is, should the historical record then classify them as terrorist attacks? Even brining in the current example of the home being raided CAN be seen as a terrorist attack. Hell, I wanted to use the criteria provided.

Really, my reasoning behind all of this is to show the complete ambiguity of the term politically and historically. At no point in this thread have I stated, that bin Laden is not guilty of a crime. I call it mass murder. And I'd be completely happy at leaving it with that. My point, is that terrorism, is far too subjective a term and the term alone seems to either incite unneccessary fear or provide a catch all label.
So killing thousands of civillians all over the world to make a point in the name of religion/politics is what....a serial killer, nothing more?
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 10:55 AM   #225 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,290
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
So how do you explain the firebombings of Dresden during WWII? The Tokyo Air Raids? The second nuclear explosion on Nagasaki? All during WWII and all specifically targeted civilians so as to cripple the resolve of the enemy? By definition they would be terrorist attacks? Nagasaki was at no point really considered a military target of importance and much of the historical records points to dropping the second as a show of:

a. force to the soviets
b. payback for Pear Harbour
c. Racism

And how do you measure terrorism? Does the soldier who raids a home of innocent people and threaten them, when they're in a state of panic, constitute terrorism? To the victim, I'm sure it does (and yes it does happen, mostly due to faulty intelligence, but I digress).

Oh and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the use of Agent Orange on civilian populations? There was no though of minimizing civilian casualties there. Civilians were purposefully targeted so as to simply break the resolve of the enemy.
This is dumb CG, and I understand the point you are making for argument sake,

In your argument, every country, every religion, every battle fought ever in the history of the world is a form of terrorism, and Bin Laden in no different than any of them. If you want to argue semantics thats fine, by your definition though I scare my neighbours kids at Halloween, so I am the same is Bin Laden.

Don't tell me that is a reach either, because it is exactly what you did.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 01:05 PM   #226 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,017
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
This is dumb CG, and I understand the point you are making for argument sake,

In your argument, every country, every religion, every battle fought ever in the history of the world is a form of terrorism, and Bin Laden in no different than any of them. If you want to argue semantics thats fine, by your definition though I scare my neighbours kids at Halloween, so I am the same is Bin Laden.

Don't tell me that is a reach either, because it is exactly what you did.
You think I reached? I used your definition and I proved how false that definition is. Your reaction is based off as such (sorry) and your example really doesn't do anything to dispute my example.

And I do think this is much more than simple semantics. Terrorism is a loaded term and if we're going to consider bin Laden (and even McVeigh) terrorists, as well as the IRA, the previous acts of the ANC etc. and label groups as such within set parameters and throw terms out willy-nilly then examples in present and past history should be examined as well.

As well, when using the term, 'terrorist' we tend to believe the punishment suits the crime as was evidenced by many arguments here. If we use that same frame work and apply it to ourselves, well, then I receive a response as I just did.

Thanks.
Claudius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 01:05 PM   #227 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,017
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffb View Post
So killing thousands of civillians all over the world to make a point in the name of religion/politics is what....a serial killer, nothing more?
There is a distinct difference between a serial killer and a mass murderer.
Claudius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 01:17 PM   #228 (permalink)
far away

Senior Member
 
archie63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Panama City
Posts: 981
Representing:
Default

As Benzo said its semantic so this could be never ending..but there's a problem, international organisations like ONU define wars and terror and define some events as war and others as terrorist act, and this because there're international rules. For sure you can consider a rule wrong but you have to follow that rule 'till it change. Then there's the misuse of the rules and it's another matter. And right or wrong if a state attack another state it's called war. If a group attack civilians is terror in the common use of the term. One can disagree and say that bombing Berlin and killing a lot of civilian was terrorism, but most people call that war
archie63 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 01:54 PM   #229 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
My point is, should the historical record then classify them as terrorist attacks? Even brining in the current example of the home being raided CAN be seen as a terrorist attack. Hell, I wanted to use the criteria provided.

Really, my reasoning behind all of this is to show the complete ambiguity of the term politically and historically. At no point in this thread have I stated, that bin Laden is not guilty of a crime. I call it mass murder. And I'd be completely happy at leaving it with that. My point, is that terrorism, is far too subjective a term and the term alone seems to either incite unneccessary fear or provide a catch all label.
Maybe I'm missing something here - I'm tired, it's been a long week - but Bin Laden stated many times that he was a terrorist as well as his intention to terrorize.
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 02:00 PM   #230 (permalink)
is praying Ross makes us forget Drummomd so people stop whining

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 72,886
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
Maybe I'm missing something here - I'm tired, it's been a long week - but Bin Laden stated many times that he was a terrorist as well as his intention to terrorize.
This argument is ridiculous.The asshole is dead, mass murderer, terrorist....whatever. Let's move on.

Last edited by jeffb; 05-06-2011 at 02:02 PM.
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 06:47 PM   #231 (permalink)
LX
with pink peppercorns

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,549
Representing:
Default

The argument isn't that ridiculous. What is at stake is the US defining itself either as a nation among nations or an imperialist state. Much of what they do tries to gain the benefits of each position. But should they be able to have it both ways? Like I said - just end the war on terror. It is a concept that is laden (no pun intended) with imperialist notions and misuses of power, not to mention that it doesn't help to resolve outstanding issues that lead to extremist behaviors. I really worry that it is also something that cannot simply be stopped. It is not a war that can be won, so how does it end? What they really need is a war on war. Because we've reached a point where victories, even as short-lived as they were in the past, are just not feasible anymore. There is just pointless violence and waste.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 09:26 PM   #232 (permalink)
LX
with pink peppercorns

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,549
Representing:
Default

LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 10:59 PM   #233 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
The argument isn't that ridiculous. What is at stake is the US defining itself either as a nation among nations or an imperialist state. Much of what they do tries to gain the benefits of each position. But should they be able to have it both ways? Like I said - just end the war on terror. It is a concept that is laden (no pun intended) with imperialist notions and misuses of power, not to mention that it doesn't help to resolve outstanding issues that lead to extremist behaviors. I really worry that it is also something that cannot simply be stopped. It is not a war that can be won, so how does it end? What they really need is a war on war. Because we've reached a point where victories, even as short-lived as they were in the past, are just not feasible anymore. There is just pointless violence and waste.
How do you deal with threats though? You have to understand that if these guys could, they'd blow cities like New York, Washington, Los Angeles into smithereens.
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 11:16 PM   #234 (permalink)
LX
with pink peppercorns

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,549
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
How do you deal with threats though? You have to understand that if these guys could, they'd blow cities like New York, Washington, Los Angeles into smithereens.
I don't have a huge problem with the way they handled this operation. They can handle threats pretty well going forward now. The sense of uncertainty is now on the other side. There's no need for the kinds of overkill and expenditures that we've seen. And overall - international cooperation is going to bring more success than empire building, especially when it comes to the nuclear equation.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 11:20 PM   #235 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
I don't have a huge problem with the way they handled this operation. They can handle threats pretty well going forward now. The sense of uncertainty is now on the other side. There's no need for the kinds of overkill and expenditures that we've seen. And overall - international cooperation is going to bring more success than empire building, especially when it comes to the nuclear equation.
Ok, I do agree with some of that. I hope the 'Arab spring' continues. I don't think they're trying to build an empire though.
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 11:31 PM   #236 (permalink)
LX
with pink peppercorns

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,549
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
Ok, I do agree with some of that. I hope the 'Arab spring' continues. I don't think they're trying to build an empire though.
The US has been concerned with empire for over a century now. There has always been counterbalancing forces, and in terms of the cold war there was a lot of positive aspects to their use of power. The Bush administration committed to empire building more overtly than any other in some time. There's really no other explanation for their rushing into Iraq. And by declaring a war on terror they were suggesting it was them against the world. You were either with them, on their terms, or against them. The Barbarians were at the gates, and it was time to move those gates outwards.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 05:26 AM   #237 (permalink)
a nacho hound

Senior Member
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South of Portland, home of the Blazers
Posts: 4,918
Representing:
Default

got that turkey, dead or alive, don't matter, dude's a chump

good work Navy

Obama's still a chode, they want to give him all the credit, like people will still vote for him
Toby is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 11:07 AM   #238 (permalink)
is praying Ross makes us forget Drummomd so people stop whining

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 72,886
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby View Post
Obama's still a chode, they want to give him all the credit, like people will still vote for him
He's fine, and deserves a ton of credit. Very ballsy move. And sorry but a lot of people will vote for him and if he doesn't get a second term it'll be by a hair. No dumbass republican candidate is very desireable. And Obama hasn't been that bad at all imo considering the shit he inherited from that moron George W. Lush.

Last edited by jeffb; 05-07-2011 at 12:00 PM.
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 02:53 PM   #239 (permalink)
LX
with pink peppercorns

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,549
Representing:
Default

Better a chode than santorum.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 03:33 PM   #240 (permalink)
is praying Ross makes us forget Drummomd so people stop whining

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 72,886
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
Better a chode than santorum.
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24