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
TheMediator
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.
If a 'terrorist organization' is organization that employs certain methods to directly inflict fear for the purpose of fulfilling certain objectives... I don't think there can be an agreement.
Post by
MyTie
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.
If a 'terrorist organization' is organization that employs certain methods to directly inflict fear for the purpose of fulfilling certain objectives... I don't think there can be an agreement.
When I said "can we agree", I meant everyone but TheMediator. I thought that was understood. Your views are so radical, I have difficulty understanding anything it is you say. It appears that you just disagree with everything I say in an attempt to anger me. Ironically, this causes apathy.
So... can everyone but TheMediator agree that the US Military could not accurately be described as a terrorist organization.
Post by
Adamsm
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.
If a 'terrorist organization' is organization that employs certain methods to directly inflict fear for the purpose of fulfilling certain objectives... I don't think there can be an agreement.
I have to agree there. But those are my personal feelings.
Post by
Squishalot
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.
If a 'terrorist organization' is organization that employs certain methods to directly inflict fear for the purpose of fulfilling certain objectives... I don't think there can be an agreement.
When I said "can we agree", I meant everyone but TheMediator. I thought that was understood. Your views are so radical, I have difficulty understanding anything it is you say. It appears that you just disagree with everything I say in an attempt to anger me. Ironically, this causes apathy.
So... can everyone but TheMediator agree that the US Military could not accurately be described as a terrorist organization.
I actually don't think Mediator is that out of line. I know you don't want to argue semantics, but consider that you're arguing:
1) Terrorism is based on an act of terror; and
2) The US military should not be described as a terrorist organisation.
If the US military performs acts of terror, why shouldn't they be described as a terrorist organisation? What makes them above the KGB or the Gestapo? (Or the Mafia, or the IRA, or Al Qaeda, or any other group)
I don't think it's reasonable to acquit them of their actions simply because they're the US military, without appearing hypocritical when you
slam
criticise other organisations for their acts.
Edit: I'll concede that the majority of its operations are not terrorist acts, so in that respect, it would be reasonable to say that it is not a terrorist organisation. However, that doesn't acquit them of committing terrorist acts when the operations are so defined.
Post by
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
So... can everyone but TheMediator agree that the US Military could not accurately be described as a terrorist organization.
No.
Post by
TheMediator
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.
If a 'terrorist organization' is organization that employs certain methods to directly inflict fear for the purpose of fulfilling certain objectives... I don't think there can be an agreement.
When I said "can we agree", I meant everyone but TheMediator. I thought that was understood. Your views are so radical, I have difficulty understanding anything it is you say. It appears that you just disagree with everything I say in an attempt to anger me. Ironically, this causes apathy.
So... can everyone but TheMediator agree that the US Military could not accurately be described as a terrorist organization.
First off, I know you get angry. Don't try to play it off, because it you really didn't care, you'd be smart enough (or would you?) to ignore what I said.
Secondly, there you go again acting like you speak for everyone.
YOU
describe it that way. I'm sure one of the reasons that young Muslims might be persuaded to join Al-Queda is that they believe the US and its military are terrorist forces.
Post by
Squishalot
Secondly, there you go again acting like you speak for everyone.
YOU
describe it that way. I'm sure one of the reasons that young Muslims might be persuaded to join Al-Queda is that they believe the US and its military are terrorist forces.
And why wouldn't they? There are several countries going around, making military threats, reminding the world that they have military force. These countries have nuclear armaments, have a track record for ignoring the UN when it suits them, and attempt to bully their neighbours into submission.
Iran and North Korea are two of them. The US was another one, while Dubya was at the helm. Obama looks a little more mild-mannered, and less likely to shock-and-awe.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
consider that you're arguing:
1) Terrorism is based on an act of terror
Based off intent to incite terror. I was in the military. It was never my intent to make people fear me. Just, speaking from experience.First off, I know you get angry. Don't try to play it off, because it you really didn't care, you'd be smart enough (or would you?) to ignore what I said.
Secondly, there you go again acting like you speak for everyone. YOU describe it that way. I'm sure one of the reasons that young Muslims might be persuaded to join Al-Queda is that they believe the US and its military are terrorist forces.Ah... ok. Anything else?
Post by
Deepthought
Based off intent to incite terror.
I'll repeat what I said before. No-one blows themselves up just to create terror. They do it to help service a "higher goal". The US military creates terror, but also to service a "higher goal".
Post by
MyTie
Based off intent to incite terror.
I'll repeat what I said before. No-one blows themselves up just to create terror. They do it to help service a "higher goal". The US military creates terror, but also to service a "higher goal".
The motives of another organization, and the labeling of such organization as 'terrorist' is another topic entirely. Speaking just about the US Military, and looking at the definition, can we agree that the US Military is not acting with the intent to incite fear?
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't think that the US military forces ever intend to incite fear. I think it could be argued a political motive by the politicians in charge. But, speaking about the military itself, the organization is not one built on the desire and intent to incite fear into any person.
Post by
Lecks
The motives of another organization, and the labeling of such organization as 'terrorist' is another topic entirely. Speaking just about the US Military, and looking at the definition, can we agree that the US Military is not acting with the intent to incite fear?
Nope, inciting fear is part of a military's purpose. But that doesn't make them a terrorist organization, and I don't think the US military is.
Hmm, maybe fear isn't the right word, could be intimidation that I'm thinking of. I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between those two words though.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Well, I guess I'm done in this thread. I don't think I'm going to make any more progress perpetuating my viewpoints. Night all.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't think that the US military forces ever intend to incite fear. I think it could be argued a political motive by the politicians in charge. But, speaking about the military itself, the organization is not one built on the desire and intent to incite fear into any person.
That just means that the individuals themselves aren't terrorists.
By the definition you're working with, I'm happy to concede (as I've said before) that the US military is not a terrorist organisation. But I reserve the right to change this if you amend the definition of a terrorist.
Well, I guess I'm done in this thread. I don't think I'm going to make any more progress perpetuating my viewpoints. Night all.
MyTie, the reason you're not making any progress is because you're trying to start from an unreasonable standpoint.
You can't start off with the presumption that the US military is not a terrorist organisation without firstly a) defining what a terrorist organisation is; b) defining what an act of terrorism is; and c) defining what the purpose of the US military is.
And you can't also start off with the presumption that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation when you haven't a) defined what a terrorist organisation is; b) defined what an act of terrorism is; and c) defined what the purpose of Al Qaeda is.
Given your definitions of terrorism, neither of them are terrorist organisations. Given the colloquial definition of terrorism (the "we all know what terrorism means" definition that you suggested earlier), then they both commit terrorist acts, but for 'noble' motives.
What are the few loose characteristics you want to agree on?
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.
This, and Well, I guess I'm done in this thread.
this.
Post by
270853
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.