<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 17 2004, 11:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 17 2004, 11:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I stand corrected. One example down, two still standing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I do like threes though.... so how about we add His Holiness the Dalai Lama <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 17 2004, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 17 2004, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A terrorist is the definition given by the other side to the person who is fighting for what he/she thinks is right. Note that the "terrorist" could just as easily label the other side terrorists too, because unless you have a single absolute moral code, everyone is right and everyone else is wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd have to disagree here - 'terrorism' describes a very specific range of actions. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, to cite some of the most obvious examples, were described as terrorists by their political opponents, but seeing that neither of them used any means of intimidation, and quite definetely no violent ones, to take influence, they just were none. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is my point. They were called terrorists, yet they were fighting for (what tuned out to be) good. The people who called them terrorists were wrong to do so. Now, lets bring that up to date. Lets replace Nelson Mandella with Osama Bin Laden. They were both called terrorists by the opposition, they both fought for what they believe is right. Putting aside the violence (i may get back to that later), there is no difference between the two. They are both national heros too. Now, we all know that the opposition was wrong to call NM a terrorist, yet, at the time, they were positive he was. Now, now do we know that we are equally wrong about OBL? We don't. There is no way of telling.
I don't think there are any terrorists in the world, there are just people fighting for what they think is right.
Violence (ok, so I got back to it)
Everybody has their own way of doing stuff. Some people sit down quietly at tables and talk it over, some go and bomb cities. If we are going to define a terrorist by the number of innocent lives he takes in making his point (which seems to be the most common way) then America are the biggest terrorists of all. They killed more civilians in their war on terror than the attacks on 9/11. Suddenly, the tables are turned. Now, OBL is the right guy, albeit going about it the wrong way, and America is the over-reacting terrorist with no respect for any other humans apart from Americans.
Because of the figures, I would imagine that most americans would rather viloence didn't come into the equation, so we end up with everybody being as bad as each other. If, however, we do count violence, I think we can all see where the finger points.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Jan 17 2004, 12:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Jan 17 2004, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we are going to define a terrorist by the number of innocent lives he takes in making his point (which seems to be the most common way) then America are the biggest terrorists of all. They killed more civilians in their war on terror than the attacks on 9/11. Suddenly, the tables are turned. Now, OBL is the right guy, albeit going about it the wrong way, and America is the over-reacting terrorist with no respect for any other humans apart from Americans. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing an essential part of the equation. There is no question that OBL intended to kill civilians whereas America did not intend to kill civilians.
Also, we could debate the ethical differences of a "first strike" vs a "response attack" as well. If you want to write a discussion rather than "point fingers" please do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--cri.tical+Jan 17 2004, 07:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cri.tical @ Jan 17 2004, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're missing an essential part of the equation. There is no question that OBL intended to kill civilians whereas America did not intend to kill civilians.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yes, OBL intended to kill civillians, I agree with you on that. The question is, if amreica did not intend to kill civillians, why did they bomb major cities, with, wait for it, Civillians living in them? They may not have intended, but they most certainly did. Hang on, you say, what about "collateral damage"? The cillians in the WTCs were considered collateral damage to OBL. He had a point to make, and they just happend to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, we could debate the ethical differences of a "first strike" vs a "response attack" as well. If you want to write a discussion rather than "point fingers" please do so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reasons for the attacks on America go way back. I dont think OBL just woke up on the 10th and thought, I know, I'll send a couple of planes into the WTC just for the heck of it. It may have been the first strike, but it was a very heavily provoked one. I am sure all of us saw the dancing in the streest after the towers collapsed. That's because they hate america, imposing their "correct" western ideals on a completely different culture.
"You're missing an essential part of the equation. There is no question that OBL intended to kill civilians whereas America did not intend to kill civilians."
Are you sure of that? The record of america targeting civilians in their last wars of the decade is pretty extensive. You seem to beleive at face value what the army is claiming, they dont get the benefit of the doubt with me because ive seen them caught in lying over and over and over again, particularly during the war on Serbia.
If i throw a grenade inside a grocery store and kill your sister , but i state that my intentions were to kill the thief inside, not your sister, will you say to me "oh well, mistakes happen, thanks for getting that thief!" Most likely you will be heavily enraged and not in the mood to listen to my creepy justifications that your sisters death was "an accident". That would never hold in a court of law, but somehow, when a huge army is doing it, that somehow absolves them from the blame just by using the words "accident". Yeah, we just like, dropped bombs on the wrong part of the city, accident, sorry guys!
Why should iraquis feel any different?
And about Nelson Mandela, i was probably wrong in calling him a pacifist, what i wanted to say was that he was not a terrorist, he would not attack white civilians because they were white, he was for armed struggle, but just armed struggle. Oppressed people have the right to armed struggle, and as sad as i feel for soldiers in iraq , the iraqui people also have a right to self-defense, and human dignity.
And if you turn back the clock to 1986, seeing Cheney call Mandela a terrorist while republicans (and democrats, before someone tells me im a "bleeding heart liberal" or somethin) supported death squads all over latin america is kinda funny.
Mandela was fighting for human rights, racial equality and freedom. You cant compare Mandela to OBL, yes they were both labeled terrorists, but the resemblence stops there. OBL wants arab governements that keeps women down and take the coran literrally and interpreted by high priests, hes an religious dictator, if you will. I dont see how one can seriously compare Mandela and OBL.
I got little to add here. A person who commits acts that are aimed to make a person or organisation change its course into the direction of that the person prefers. Just nitpicking: 1) It is not always aimed at civilians. Directly aiming at the government system is quite regular ( assassination of ministers) 2) It can also be targetted at lifeless things, like monuments. Blowing up the Arc de Triomphe or the Statue of Liberty without harming civilians is definately an act of terrorism. 3) It is not always aimed at a government; for example, environmental fundamentalists may try terrorize farmers or companies that produce animal-tested products.
Apart from the definition, it would be good to remember that a "terrorist" is not per definition a bad person. It is just another qualification, like director, social worker, or GP. A cow can be green, horned, and spotted at the same time. A terrorist can be a freedomfighter, a student, and a christian at the same time.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 17 2004, 10:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 17 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Mandela was fighting for human rights, racial equality and freedom. You cant compare Mandela to OBL, yes they were both labeled terrorists, but the resemblence stops there. OBL wants arab governements that keeps women down and take the coran literrally and interpreted by high priests, hes an religious dictator, if you will. I dont see how one can seriously compare Mandela and OBL. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My point is not what they were fighting for though. Personally I agree that mandella was fighting for good, but i believe that obl is fighting for wrong. That is just my opinion though. Whet they are fighting for is irrelevant though. My point is that they are fighting for what they believe is right, and who are we to tell them it isn't?
"My point is that they are fighting for what they believe is right, and who are we to tell them it isn't? "
Well if you beleive that throwing a 3 year old child in the middle of traffic is right, and im standing there watching you, i am going to try to stop you. I am not saying you would, just making an example.
What i am trying to say is that some things are wrong, whatever some people might think it is right. They may beleive that attacking the WTC or attacking that Serbian TV station was right, but its not.
if someone tries to molest your child, who are you to tell him he isnt right? catching my drift?
And i must say i agree with Urza that terrorism sometimes does not have to precisely target civilians, historical monuments and the like can also be destroyed to try to terrorize people for political goals.
EDIT: But maybe you can clarify this for me urza:
"3) It is not always aimed at a government; for example, environmental fundamentalists may try terrorize farmers or companies that produce animal-tested products."
You do mean that they blow farms up, or labs, right? Or else i might think that you want to label environemental activists as terrorists. Do you think that the indian farmers that burned Mosantos frankenstein crops in India were terrorists? (if you heard about that one) Personnally i dont think so, because the aim was not to terrorize Mosanto, but to get them to stop planting crops that were pollenating their own and modifying their genes, so that mosanto could sue them afterwards for stealing their patented frankencrops, like they did that canadian farmer.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 17 2004, 04:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 17 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And about Nelson Mandela, i was probably wrong in calling him a pacifist, what i wanted to say was that he was not a terrorist, he would not attack white civilians because they were white, he was for armed struggle, but just armed struggle. Oppressed people have the right to armed struggle, and as sad as i feel for soldiers in iraq , the iraqui people also have a right to self-defense, and human dignity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've think we've landed in somewhat of a grey area here in sofar as what constitutes non-terrorist forms of self-defence.
I agree that oppressed (depending on how we define "oppressed") people have the right to self-defense.
However, planting bombs in locations that are designed to cause maximum civilian loss of life, such as planting a bomb in a crowded restaurant, and spraying people with AK 47 fire is an act of _terrorism_. It is designed to shock and scare people. And ultimately to force a government into making some sort of deal. Who wants to be blown up the whole time ? Nobody.
So while Mandela may have had the moral high ground to resist, and resist with arms, he endorsed terror tactics. This IMO makes him a former-terrorist, irrespective of whether he was fighting for a "good" cause or not.
"However, planting bombs in locations that are designed to cause maximum civilian loss of life, such as planting a bomb in a crowded restaurant, and spraying people with AK 47 fire is an act of _terrorism_. It is designed to shock and scare people. And ultimately to force a government into making some sort of deal. Who wants to be blown up the whole time ? Nobody."
Thats not what Mandela was doing, or supporting, are you suggesting that?
As I see it, terrorist is merely "freedom fighter" spoken through the mouth of the victim.
When people fight opressors, they are named "terrorists". The word might originally have meant something else, or had another definition, but today it is used as the negative version of "freedom fighter". When someone does a violent act, no matter how they do it or who they hit, if they do it to someone high up they will be terrorists to those high up. Think about it, you will never see someone calling themselves terrorists, so it stands to reason that there is no one behavior that makes one a terrorist.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 18 2004, 01:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 18 2004, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "However, planting bombs in locations that are designed to cause maximum civilian loss of life, such as planting a bomb in a crowded restaurant, and spraying people with AK 47 fire is an act of _terrorism_. It is designed to shock and scare people. And ultimately to force a government into making some sort of deal. Who wants to be blown up the whole time ? Nobody."
Thats not what Mandela was doing, or supporting, are you suggesting that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, Mandela was in jail for the most part, so certainly not doing.
I can't tell you with 100% certainty that he truly supported the ANCs bombing of public places. I think he did though.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 18 2004, 06:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 18 2004, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "My point is that they are fighting for what they believe is right, and who are we to tell them it isn't? "
Well if you beleive that throwing a 3 year old child in the middle of traffic is right, and im standing there watching you, i am going to try to stop you. I am not saying you would, just making an example. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What if that kid was Hitler?
Not saying it was, just making an example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What i am trying to say is that some things are wrong, whatever some people might think it is right. They may beleive that attacking the WTC or attacking that Serbian TV station was right, but its not.
if someone tries to molest your child, who are you to tell him he isnt right? catching my drift? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Completely, as the father of the child, I would have the right to say that it was wrong, but, unlike in your child example, America is not the world's parent.
And, surely if attacking the WTCs was wrong, then bombing all the civilians in retalitaion was wrong too? If not, what makes it right?
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Jan 18 2004, 04:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Jan 18 2004, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if that kid was Hitler? Not saying it was, just making an example. .... Completely, as the father of the child, I would have the right to say that it was wrong, but, unlike in your child example, America is not the world's parent.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well... If Hitler had been thrown into traffic as a three year old maybe you wouldn't be here playing devils advocate and spewing anti-American hatred. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not sure how you draw that second conclusion. You just made a big point about the relativity of right and wrong... and then you say "as the father of the child, I would have the right." By your earlier logic, you don't have any rights. No man has the right to say anything is anymore right than any other man.
If you are going to elevate OBL to the level of Nelson Mandela or America, then you must elevate the child molester to the level of the father.
a) devils advocate - just trying to get you to think, instead of going "OMG OBL IS T3H 3V1L!!"
b) As the father of the child, I have the responsibility to portect it, so if I feel when the molestor is doing is wrong, I have the right and responsibility to stop him. Ok, so that doesn't actually make child molesting wrong, but it gives me the right to stop it. America does not have the right.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 18 2004, 12:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 18 2004, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> EDIT: But maybe you can clarify this for me urza:
"3) It is not always aimed at a government; for example, environmental fundamentalists may try terrorize farmers or companies that produce animal-tested products."
You do mean that they blow farms up, or labs, right? Or else i might think that you want to label environemental activists as terrorists. Do you think that the indian farmers that burned Mosantos frankenstein crops in India were terrorists? (if you heard about that one) Personnally i dont think so, because the aim was not to terrorize Mosanto, but to get them to stop planting crops that were pollenating their own and modifying their genes, so that mosanto could sue them afterwards for stealing their patented frankencrops, like they did that canadian farmer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The aim of a terrorist is not to terrorize (that would only give a rather weird definition). The aim of the terrorist is to make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants. Those ultimate goals can be very varying: liberating palestine, destroying the state of Israel, etc etc. (and please don't let this degenerate into a P/I discussion). I don't know anything about Mosantos really. As you explain it, it would perfectly fit into my description of terrorism. The actor tries to make someone else do something he or she would not have done otherwise. I totally support the terrorists in this case <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
If you're determined to find a definition for the word that encompases all and only the negative uses of this type of action, you aren't going to get anywhere, because that simply isnt possible. Even the American definition leaves the term open enough to apply to freedom fighters and actions that most would consider righteous:
"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United Statesor of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
Under this definition, violent protest by the iraqi people against their oppresor (I'm thinking saddam here, but apply this to the invading American force if you want ;) would be considered an act of terrorism, since the American definition is based around government laws - A violent act that breaks the law and is intended to bring about change makes you a terrorist, even if the law is wrong or your actions justified as a means to bring about the desired change. Since there is no objective way of determining wether or not the change you are fighting for is 'good' or 'bad', and no way of really weighing wether your actions are justified or not, you cannot define the term terrorist in a way that only encompases the "bad" terrorists.
Because of that, the term terrorist should not be seen as automatically negative, terrorism can most definately be a good thing, and a terrorist can be righteous. Of course, the term has been tainted and will never be seen as anything other than negative by the general populace.
EDIT: Also, under the American definition, the only thing distinguishing "Shock and Awe" tactics from terrorism are the fact that they're carried out by the army, who absolve themselves from the majority of state laws when they go into battle. The exact same act, carried out for the exact same reasons by a band of iraqi freedom fighters would be classified as terrorism.
"The aim of a terrorist is not to terrorize (that would only give a rather weird definition). The aim of the terrorist is to make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants. "
Terrorize: the means
make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants: the end
For me , you cant have a terrorist that doesnt wanna terrorize, the person has to want to terrorize people as a way to acheive his / her goal.
For example, a palestinian who blows himself up in an israeli pizzeria, where the goal is to terrorize the populace into accepting a 2 state settlement, i would consider him a terrorist.
A palestinian who fires his RPG at a tank inside gaza thats been ruining your village and killing people for 3 days straight, i would consider that act self-defense.
<!--QuoteBegin--AsterOids+Jan 20 2004, 10:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Jan 20 2004, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "The aim of a terrorist is not to terrorize (that would only give a rather weird definition). The aim of the terrorist is to make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants. "
Terrorize: the means
make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants: the end
For me , you cant have a terrorist that doesnt wanna terrorize, the person has to want to terrorize people as a way to acheive his / her goal.
For example, a palestinian who blows himself up in an israeli pizzeria, where the goal is to terrorize the populace into accepting a 2 state settlement, i would consider him a terrorist.
A palestinian who fires his RPG at a tank inside gaza thats been ruining your village and killing people for 3 days straight, i would consider that act self-defense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Look: you are meeting a from in your townhall. You go there by car. Driving is not the aim,meeting your friend is the aim. Sure, you have made a deliberate choice on how to go there, but this is totally unimportant. The terrorist thinks of terrorism as the only real option left, and therefore choses it.
In your example: accepting a 2-state agreement is the goal. terrorizing people is not. For lo! why else would they stop when their ultimate goal is reached?
Comments
I do like threes though.... so how about we add His Holiness the Dalai Lama <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'd have to disagree here - 'terrorism' describes a very specific range of actions. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, to cite some of the most obvious examples, were described as terrorists by their political opponents, but seeing that neither of them used any means of intimidation, and quite definetely no violent ones, to take influence, they just were none. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is my point. They were called terrorists, yet they were fighting for (what tuned out to be) good. The people who called them terrorists were wrong to do so. Now, lets bring that up to date. Lets replace Nelson Mandella with Osama Bin Laden. They were both called terrorists by the opposition, they both fought for what they believe is right. Putting aside the violence (i may get back to that later), there is no difference between the two. They are both national heros too. Now, we all know that the opposition was wrong to call NM a terrorist, yet, at the time, they were positive he was. Now, now do we know that we are equally wrong about OBL? We don't. There is no way of telling.
I don't think there are any terrorists in the world, there are just people fighting for what they think is right.
Violence (ok, so I got back to it)
Everybody has their own way of doing stuff. Some people sit down quietly at tables and talk it over, some go and bomb cities. If we are going to define a terrorist by the number of innocent lives he takes in making his point (which seems to be the most common way) then America are the biggest terrorists of all. They killed more civilians in their war on terror than the attacks on 9/11. Suddenly, the tables are turned. Now, OBL is the right guy, albeit going about it the wrong way, and America is the over-reacting terrorist with no respect for any other humans apart from Americans.
Because of the figures, I would imagine that most americans would rather viloence didn't come into the equation, so we end up with everybody being as bad as each other. If, however, we do count violence, I think we can all see where the finger points.
You're missing an essential part of the equation. There is no question that OBL intended to kill civilians whereas America did not intend to kill civilians.
Also, we could debate the ethical differences of a "first strike" vs a "response attack" as well. If you want to write a discussion rather than "point fingers" please do so.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, OBL intended to kill civillians, I agree with you on that. The question is, if amreica did not intend to kill civillians, why did they bomb major cities, with, wait for it, Civillians living in them? They may not have intended, but they most certainly did. Hang on, you say, what about "collateral damage"? The cillians in the WTCs were considered collateral damage to OBL. He had a point to make, and they just happend to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, we could debate the ethical differences of a "first strike" vs a "response attack" as well. If you want to write a discussion rather than "point fingers" please do so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reasons for the attacks on America go way back. I dont think OBL just woke up on the 10th and thought, I know, I'll send a couple of planes into the WTC just for the heck of it. It may have been the first strike, but it was a very heavily provoked one. I am sure all of us saw the dancing in the streest after the towers collapsed. That's because they hate america, imposing their "correct" western ideals on a completely different culture.
Are you sure of that? The record of america targeting civilians in their last wars of the decade is pretty extensive. You seem to beleive at face value what the army is claiming, they dont get the benefit of the doubt with me because ive seen them caught in lying over and over and over again, particularly during the war on Serbia.
If i throw a grenade inside a grocery store and kill your sister , but i state that my intentions were to kill the thief inside, not your sister, will you say to me "oh well, mistakes happen, thanks for getting that thief!" Most likely you will be heavily enraged and not in the mood to listen to my creepy justifications that your sisters death was "an accident". That would never hold in a court of law, but somehow, when a huge army is doing it, that somehow absolves them from the blame just by using the words "accident".
Yeah, we just like, dropped bombs on the wrong part of the city, accident, sorry guys!
Why should iraquis feel any different?
And about Nelson Mandela, i was probably wrong in calling him a pacifist, what i wanted to say was that he was not a terrorist, he would not attack white civilians because they were white, he was for armed struggle, but just armed struggle. Oppressed people have the right to armed struggle, and as sad as i feel for soldiers in iraq , the iraqui people also have a right to self-defense, and human dignity.
And if you turn back the clock to 1986, seeing Cheney call Mandela a terrorist
while republicans (and democrats, before someone tells me im a "bleeding heart liberal" or somethin) supported death squads all over latin america is kinda funny.
Mandela was fighting for human rights, racial equality and freedom. You cant compare Mandela to OBL, yes they were both labeled terrorists, but the resemblence stops there. OBL wants arab governements that keeps women down and take the coran literrally and interpreted by high priests, hes an religious dictator, if you will. I dont see how one can seriously compare Mandela and OBL.
1) It is not always aimed at civilians. Directly aiming at the government system is quite regular ( assassination of ministers)
2) It can also be targetted at lifeless things, like monuments. Blowing up the Arc de Triomphe or the Statue of Liberty without harming civilians is definately an act of terrorism.
3) It is not always aimed at a government; for example, environmental fundamentalists may try terrorize farmers or companies that produce animal-tested products.
Apart from the definition, it would be good to remember that a "terrorist" is not per definition a bad person. It is just another qualification, like director, social worker, or GP. A cow can be green, horned, and spotted at the same time. A terrorist can be a freedomfighter, a student, and a christian at the same time.
My point is not what they were fighting for though. Personally I agree that mandella was fighting for good, but i believe that obl is fighting for wrong. That is just my opinion though. Whet they are fighting for is irrelevant though. My point is that they are fighting for what they believe is right, and who are we to tell them it isn't?
Well if you beleive that throwing a 3 year old child in the middle of traffic is right,
and im standing there watching you, i am going to try to stop you. I am not saying you would, just making an example.
What i am trying to say is that some things are wrong, whatever some people might think it is right. They may beleive that attacking the WTC or attacking that Serbian TV station was right, but its not.
if someone tries to molest your child, who are you to tell him he isnt right? catching my drift?
And i must say i agree with Urza that terrorism sometimes does not have to precisely target civilians, historical monuments and the like can also be destroyed to try to terrorize people for political goals.
EDIT:
But maybe you can clarify this for me urza:
"3) It is not always aimed at a government; for example, environmental fundamentalists may try terrorize farmers or companies that produce animal-tested products."
You do mean that they blow farms up, or labs, right? Or else i might think that you want to label environemental activists as terrorists.
Do you think that the indian farmers that burned Mosantos frankenstein crops in India were terrorists? (if you heard about that one)
Personnally i dont think so, because the aim was not to terrorize Mosanto, but to get them to stop planting crops that were pollenating their own and modifying their genes, so that mosanto could sue them afterwards for stealing their patented frankencrops, like they did that canadian farmer.
I've think we've landed in somewhat of a grey area here in sofar as what constitutes non-terrorist forms of self-defence.
I agree that oppressed (depending on how we define "oppressed") people have the right to self-defense.
However, planting bombs in locations that are designed to cause maximum civilian loss of life, such as planting a bomb in a crowded restaurant, and spraying people with AK 47 fire is an act of _terrorism_. It is designed to shock and scare people. And ultimately to force a government into making some sort of deal. Who wants to be blown up the whole time ? Nobody.
So while Mandela may have had the moral high ground to resist, and resist with arms, he endorsed terror tactics. This IMO makes him a former-terrorist, irrespective of whether he was fighting for a "good" cause or not.
Thats not what Mandela was doing, or supporting, are you suggesting that?
When people fight opressors, they are named "terrorists". The word might originally have meant something else, or had another definition, but today it is used as the negative version of "freedom fighter". When someone does a violent act, no matter how they do it or who they hit, if they do it to someone high up they will be terrorists to those high up. Think about it, you will never see someone calling themselves terrorists, so it stands to reason that there is no one behavior that makes one a terrorist.
Thats not what Mandela was doing, or supporting, are you suggesting that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Mandela was in jail for the most part, so certainly not doing.
I can't tell you with 100% certainty that he truly supported the ANCs bombing of public places. I think he did though.
Well if you beleive that throwing a 3 year old child in the middle of traffic is right,
and im standing there watching you, i am going to try to stop you. I am not saying you would, just making an example. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if that kid was Hitler?
Not saying it was, just making an example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What i am trying to say is that some things are wrong, whatever some people might think it is right. They may beleive that attacking the WTC or attacking that Serbian TV station was right, but its not.
if someone tries to molest your child, who are you to tell him he isnt right? catching my drift? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Completely, as the father of the child, I would have the right to say that it was wrong, but, unlike in your child example, America is not the world's parent.
And, surely if attacking the WTCs was wrong, then bombing all the civilians in retalitaion was wrong too? If not, what makes it right?
Not saying it was, just making an example.
....
Completely, as the father of the child, I would have the right to say that it was wrong, but, unlike in your child example, America is not the world's parent.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well... If Hitler had been thrown into traffic as a three year old maybe you wouldn't be here playing devils advocate and spewing anti-American hatred. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not sure how you draw that second conclusion. You just made a big point about the relativity of right and wrong... and then you say "as the father of the child, I would have the right." By your earlier logic, you don't have any rights. No man has the right to say anything is anymore right than any other man.
If you are going to elevate OBL to the level of Nelson Mandela or America, then you must elevate the child molester to the level of the father.
C'mon Boggle <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
b) As the father of the child, I have the responsibility to portect it, so if I feel when the molestor is doing is wrong, I have the right and responsibility to stop him. Ok, so that doesn't actually make child molesting wrong, but it gives me the right to stop it. America does not have the right.
EDIT:
But maybe you can clarify this for me urza:
"3) It is not always aimed at a government; for example, environmental fundamentalists may try terrorize farmers or companies that produce animal-tested products."
You do mean that they blow farms up, or labs, right? Or else i might think that you want to label environemental activists as terrorists.
Do you think that the indian farmers that burned Mosantos frankenstein crops in India were terrorists? (if you heard about that one)
Personnally i dont think so, because the aim was not to terrorize Mosanto, but to get them to stop planting crops that were pollenating their own and modifying their genes, so that mosanto could sue them afterwards for stealing their patented frankencrops, like they did that canadian farmer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The aim of a terrorist is not to terrorize (that would only give a rather weird definition). The aim of the terrorist is to make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants. Those ultimate goals can be very varying: liberating palestine, destroying the state of Israel, etc etc. (and please don't let this degenerate into a P/I discussion).
I don't know anything about Mosantos really. As you explain it, it would perfectly fit into my description of terrorism. The actor tries to make someone else do something he or she would not have done otherwise. I totally support the terrorists in this case <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United Statesor of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
Under this definition, violent protest by the iraqi people against their oppresor (I'm thinking saddam here, but apply this to the invading American force if you want ;) would be considered an act of terrorism, since the American definition is based around government laws - A violent act that breaks the law and is intended to bring about change makes you a terrorist, even if the law is wrong or your actions justified as a means to bring about the desired change. Since there is no objective way of determining wether or not the change you are fighting for is 'good' or 'bad', and no way of really weighing wether your actions are justified or not, you cannot define the term terrorist in a way that only encompases the "bad" terrorists.
Because of that, the term terrorist should not be seen as automatically negative, terrorism can most definately be a good thing, and a terrorist can be righteous. Of course, the term has been tainted and will never be seen as anything other than negative by the general populace.
EDIT: Also, under the American definition, the only thing distinguishing "Shock and Awe" tactics from terrorism are the fact that they're carried out by the army, who absolve themselves from the majority of state laws when they go into battle. The exact same act, carried out for the exact same reasons by a band of iraqi freedom fighters would be classified as terrorism.
Terrorize: the means
make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants: the end
For me , you cant have a terrorist that doesnt wanna terrorize, the person has to want to terrorize people as a way to acheive his / her goal.
For example, a palestinian who blows himself up in an israeli pizzeria, where the goal is to terrorize the populace into accepting a 2 state settlement, i would consider him a terrorist.
A palestinian who fires his RPG at a tank inside gaza thats been ruining your village and killing people for 3 days straight, i would consider that act self-defense.
Terrorize: the means
make an organisation or a person do something that the terrorist wants: the end
For me , you cant have a terrorist that doesnt wanna terrorize, the person has to want to terrorize people as a way to acheive his / her goal.
For example, a palestinian who blows himself up in an israeli pizzeria, where the goal is to terrorize the populace into accepting a 2 state settlement, i would consider him a terrorist.
A palestinian who fires his RPG at a tank inside gaza thats been ruining your village and killing people for 3 days straight, i would consider that act self-defense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look: you are meeting a from in your townhall. You go there by car. Driving is not the aim,meeting your friend is the aim. Sure, you have made a deliberate choice on how to go there, but this is totally unimportant. The terrorist thinks of terrorism as the only real option left, and therefore choses it.
In your example: accepting a 2-state agreement is the goal. terrorizing people is not. For lo! why else would they stop when their ultimate goal is reached?