This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Freedom Fighters? or Terrorists?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magnerz
The being american thing was to do with the fact that you seemed to pigeon hole all terrorism as acts perpertrated by islam extremists, the american "war on terror" doesn't really even try to combat non-islam based terrorism, unless i'm missing something...
I don't support, terrorism, especially the type committed in the name of religion, infact this is possibly the worst "cause" for terrorist acts.
On the collateral damage side of things, you kind of are trying to dub it down a bit when you say it isn't an intentional act to inspire fear, the thing is, is that it does inspire fear, and whether intentional or not, it does happen, and IS preventable. It may make the perpertraters of the act less responsible, but when it has many parallels with a number of terrorist acts; violence and civilian casualties, then is it really so much better?
Post by
MyTie
IT looks like you got caught MyTie. The simple inclusion of Allah in the definition of Terrorist's motives clues anyone in to who you assert is a terrorist. Note how general your definition of Freedom Fighter was.
I don't want to argue with you about this though. I just hope you see that flaw.Terrorist does not have to be a islamic jihadist, but an islamic jihadist is a terrorist. I went with the dictionary definition of terrorist that thronnar put forward of terrorist, since it encompasses all terrorists, instead of the islamic variety solely. You seem to think that I only label jihadists as terrorists and that is all I think terrorists can be. I wonder how you explain this then:6) North Korea employs terror for political gain.
I realize that there are all sorts of terrorists, and I never said that terrorists are only jihadists. I was simply using that as an example in that post.
I think this post summarizes my perspective of terrorism nicely:I have read the Qur'an. Am I a cool kid now?with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasonsDo you remember when I was talking about motives? This is a motive. It was not the intention of the colonists to intimidate or coerce. It was their intention to create a new country, to become free. They were fighting for freedom, not fighting to intimidate and coerce.
Freedom Fighting Motive = Freedom
Terrorism Motive = Coercion and Intimidation (aka terror)Perhaps you were selectively reading my posts though. I can see how you could take my words out of context. Well played.
Post by
MyTie
The being american thing was to do with the fact that you seemed to pigeon hole all terrorism as acts perpertrated by islam extremists, the american "war on terror" doesn't really even try to combat non-islam based terrorism, unless i'm missing something...
I don't support, terrorism, especially the type committed in the name of religion, infact this is possibly the worst "cause" for terrorist acts.
This is turning into a double post. Let me restate my words more clearly, so you can understand them.
Radical Islamic Jihadists = Terrorists.
All Terrorists =/= Radicla Islamic JihadistsOn the collateral damage side of things, you kind of are trying to dub it down a bit when you say it isn't an intentional act to inspire fear, the thing is, is that it does inspire fear, and whether intentional or not, it does happen, and IS preventable. It may make the perpertraters of the act less responsible, but when it has many parallels with a number of terrorist acts; violence and civilian casualties, then is it really so much better?I agree that it is preventable, and it does inspire fear, however let's look at the definition of terrorism again:ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with
the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasonsIt was not the US' intent to blow up innocent civilians to inspire the rest of them to fear us. I stand by my assertion that the US Military is not a terrorist organization. Inadvertant acts that cause terror is not actively perpetuating terrorism. Again, I don't think that the inadvertant acts are therefore justified, but they aren't terrorism.
Post by
Adamsm
It was not the US' intent to blow up innocent civilians to inspire the rest of them to fear us. I stand by my assertion that the US Military is not a terrorist organization. Inadvertant acts that cause terror is not actively perpetuating terrorism. Again, I don't think that the inadvertant acts are therefore justified, but they aren't terrorism.I'd almost agree with that Mytie... except the USA standard battle plan, even back in the Revolutionary day, is Shock and Awe; hit them hard, hit them fast, and leave them broken, shattered and busted up in the gutter. Something like that, it's going to cause fear even in allies. Like it has been said earlier in the thread; people still remember that for attacking one military base, the US military dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilian japanese targets and that's a form of terrorism mixed in with their Shock and Awe strat.
Post by
Deepthought
It was not the US' intent to blow up innocent civilians to inspire the rest of them to fear us. I stand by my assertion that the US Military is not a terrorist organization. Inadvertant acts that cause terror is not actively perpetuating terrorism. Again, I don't think that the inadvertant acts are therefore justified, but they aren't terrorism.
Your definition of terrorist makes no mention of innocent civilians and without that point the definition of terrorist that you have chosen to use can be applied to the US Military (indeed, to any offensive military action).
Post by
Skyfire
Like it has been said earlier in the thread; people still remember that for attacking one military base, the US military dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilian japanese targets and that's a form of terrorism mixed in with their Shock and Awe strat.
Way to pull the nuclear drop out of context (only quoted you because you left it lying around).
*thumbs up*
Post by
MyTie
It was not the US' intent to blow up innocent civilians to inspire the rest of them to fear us. I stand by my assertion that the US Military is not a terrorist organization. Inadvertant acts that cause terror is not actively perpetuating terrorism. Again, I don't think that the inadvertant acts are therefore justified, but they aren't terrorism.I'd almost agree with that Mytie... except the USA standard battle plan, even back in the Revolutionary day, is Shock and Awe; hit them hard, hit them fast, and leave them broken, shattered and busted up in the gutter. Something like that, it's going to cause fear even in allies. Like it has been said earlier in the thread; people still remember that for attacking one military base, the US military dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilian japanese targets and that's a form of terrorism mixed in with their Shock and Awe strat.
Would you suggest the US military fight more gently? Perhaps not to make the enemy soldiers fearful we could bake them cupcakes before engaging in battle? Because we want to portray our military as having might makes them terrorists? That is too much of a stretch to label the US military as a terrorist organization. Police use intimidation to pull people over, and arrest them. Are police officers also terrorists? Are you doing injustice to the men and women that protect and serve their country by devaluing the word terrorist and misapplying it?Your definition of terrorist makes no mention of innocent civilians and without that point the definition of terrorist that you have chosen to use can be applied to the US Military (indeed, to any offensive military action).That would be true, if their intention was to intimidate and coerce. From what I can tell, the intentions of military people is to complete missions, like removing Sadam Hussein from power. The missions may be unethical, or unjustified, but they aren't done with the intent to make people afraid. When we go over there, the US milititary actually spends a lot of time/manpower/money giving stuff away to the civilians, and building houses for them, giving gifts, that sort of thing. Image is HUGE to winning a war over there. The US military knows that they need a positive image with the civilians there. Fear is not actively pursued.
Post by
Squishalot
Just a few thoughts, since I've missed the main boat of the discussion.
1) I do think MyTie's statements about terrorists being motivated by fear and intimidation are incorrect, especially in view of his 'motives' for Freedom Fighters.
Freedom Fighting Motive = Freedom
Terrorism Motive = Coercion and Intimidation (aka terror)
The
motive
for terrorism (and yes, I'm going into semantics) is generally freedom from foreign oppression/influence. Their
tools
are coercion and intimidation, to spark fear in their targets, in the belief that fear will result in less oppression.
The motive for freedom fighting is freedom from domestic oppression/influence (generally). They also use intimidation, to spark fear into their targets, in the belief that fear of retaliation will result in less oppression.
The primary difference, IMO, is that freedom fighters are generally domestic. They deal with issues inside their own borders, their own government, their own people. It's an internal threat that they are dealing with. Kinda like beating up the bully in the playground to get him to stop.
Terrorists are generally dealing with international issues. They reach out and strike overseas, on other people's land, because they're dealing with an international threat (oppression/influence). This would be the equivalent of going over to the next school and lynching the bully there, because he comes over and pushes some kids around at your school.
The reason why terrorism loses its 'legitimacy' is because it's not seen as 'right' to take matters into your own hands by going overseas and dealing with things. This is also why the US is frowned upon, for its action in Iraq. Consider the following two statements.
The destruction of the World Trade Towers was undeniably a terorrist act - it used destructive force to spark fear into the people of the US and other western countries, it took action outside of their jurisdiction, and it did so with the motive of influencing the US Government to cease its meddling in the Middle East, for the purposes of removing a perceived threat.
The invasion of Iraq was undeniably a terrorist act - it used destructive force to spark fear into the people of Iraq and neighbouring countries, it took action outside of their jurisdiction, and it did so with the motive of deposing a national leader and influencing the Iraqi people to install a western-friendly leader*, for the purposes of removing a perceived threat to the US.
* Because I'm likely to get called out on this, do you seriously think that any decisions made while under the guns of Saddam Hussein are any more coerced than decisions made while under the guns of the US?
Ok, and on a side note:
7) The people that make the honest mistakes in wartime should not be punished, like the pilot that drops the bomb on the civilians, while following orders, from an altitude that he cannot visually see the target, while under the understanding that he is destroying a military target.
If that's the case, it's not the pilot at fault, but the fire-control unit who gave them the orders. If I'm not mistaken, all pilots are required to seek confirmation before opening fire (except in self defense from clear enemy targets), and so, someone had to give the approval to fire up on the civillian target. If they do so without confirmation, then they should be given significantly more than a slap on the wrist.
Post by
TheMediator
Like it has been said earlier in the thread; people still remember that for attacking one military base, the US military dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilian japanese targets and that's a form of terrorism mixed in with their Shock and Awe strat.
Way to pull the nuclear drop out of context (only quoted you because you left it lying around).
*thumbs up*
Its completely in context. What are you talking about? Attacking a civilian target to inspire fear = Attacking a civilian target to inspire fear.
Post by
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
That would be true, if their intention was to intimidate and coerce. From what I can tell, the intentions of military people is to complete missions, like removing Sadam Hussein from power. The missions may be unethical, or unjustified, but they aren't done with the intent to make people afraid.
Missions may be done with the intent to make people afraid. Can you honestly tell me that noone in the think tank seriously believed that one of their motives for the war was intimidating the rest of the Middle East into falling in line? Iran, Afghanistan, etc?
Their message was two fold - 1) we will not tolerate people who ignore what we say and continue to flaunt their weapons of mass destruction; and 2) we will come in and take you out if you don't abide by (1).
I'm pretty sure that second message was a fear message aimed at Iran and co.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
1) I do think MyTie's statements about terrorists being motivated by fear and intimidation are incorrect, especially in view of his 'motives' for Freedom Fighters.
Not like I drew that out of a hat. That is the definition if you look it up in the dictionary.
Post by
Squishalot
1) I do think MyTie's statements about terrorists being motivated by fear and intimidation are incorrect, especially in view of his 'motives' for Freedom Fighters.
Not like I drew that out of a hat. That is the definition if you look it up in the dictionary.
Then the dictionary definition is biased. Fear and intimidation is a tool, not a motive. Either that, or the attack on the twin towers wasn't terrorism, up to you.
Post by
Deepthought
That would be true, if their intention was to intimidate and coerce.
MyTie, no one blows themselves up to just scare people. They do it for a "higher purpose", but in doing so intimidate and coerce. The same is true of the America's military actions.
Post by
Squishalot
Quote attributed to bin Laden (sourced from
Wiki
):
Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people
So does he have the wrong definition of terrorism? Are the so-called 'terrorist attacks' not actually
terrorist
attacks?
Does anyone really care about the dictionary definition?
Post by
MyTie
Quote attributed to bin Laden (sourced from
Wiki
):
Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people
So does he have the wrong definition of terrorism? Are the so-called 'terrorist attacks' not actually
terrorist
attacks?
Does anyone really care about the dictionary definition?
Sounds like he is describing an act meant to coerce the United States. We are arguing semantics, and it tires me. I think we all know what terrorism means, and could eventually agree on a few loose characteristics.
For the sake of sanity, can we agree that the US Military and its personel are not a terrorist organization? If we can, I'll be satisfied at that.
Post by
Magnerz
MyTie, it doesn't have to be a competition about being right and wrong here - all of your posts don't have to be infallible, and no-one should realistically expect that of any other person. Furthermore, when people quote you and pick you up on a point, there is little point moving to further things you've raised as a defence. Sure you may have later covered something else which crosses over, but your opening statement of "
Terrorist Motives
= Slaughter anyone and everyone neccessary, including yourself,
to spread the peaceful message of Allah
." clearly has a glaring flaw, whether it was a jibe or your actual opinion i'm not sure, but surely you can see where people are coming from when they then question your definition of a terrorist versus that of a freedom fighter.
I'm not here to pick a fight, and sorry if it seems this way, but i like a rational debate, and putting down things like that, even if it is to get a reaction, and then defending yourself instead of admitting a possible slip-up on your part isn't constructive...
Anyway, trying to get back to the topic at hand here; I reckon Squishalot has hit the nail bang on the head by breaking it down, the over-arching concept is in many cases too broad. A definition helps people to catagorise terrorists versus freedom fighters, and thus gains one party high-ground (be it moral or legal) over another. Yet most people here would agree that there is indeed already a lot of overlap between the two.
As for the pilot bombing a mission objective, although i don;t know the case in hand here, i'd argue that it was not the fault of the pilot, rather the fault of the intelligence report/miscommunication which arose and resulted in said orders to bomb said target. That is to do with hierarchy in the military, where subordination is heavily frowned upon, saying the pilots had a choice to bomb/not to bomb whilst technically true isn't really the basis for an argument... the point of the way in which military operations are organised is that the orders are given and followed; simple. Usually people who carry out said missions don't get to call up and have a chat about it, or get to choose whether or not to follow orders.
The dropping of the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is likely to be a hotly debated thing for ages to come yet, essentially the argument of the US at the time is that it was a "necessary evil", or "the lesser of two evils". Very Machievellian again, but war was here used as an excuse for the distruption of social norms... mass murder of that scale would normally never have been sanctified... similarly the allies horrific firestorm tactics when bombing the German town of Dresden in WW 2 could and is considered by many people to be a war-crime, some may say an act of terrorism... where we return to perspectives again.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, it doesn't have to be a competition about being right and wrong here - all of your posts don't have to be infallible, and no-one should realistically expect that of any other person. Furthermore, when people quote you and pick you up on a point, there is little point moving to further things you've raised as a defence. Sure you may have later covered something else which crosses over, but your opening statement of "
Terrorist Motives
= Slaughter anyone and everyone neccessary, including yourself,
to spread the peaceful message of Allah
." clearly has a glaring flaw, whether it was a jibe or your actual opinion i'm not sure, but surely you can see where people are coming from when they then question your definition of a terrorist versus that of a freedom fighter.
I'm not here to pick a fight, and sorry if it seems this way, but i like a rational debate, and putting down things like that, even if it is to get a reaction, and then defending yourself instead of admitting a possible slip-up on your part isn't constructive...
I agree completely. I could have worded it better.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.