 |
|
Dre of Compton
|
 |
Apoliton Missionary
Apr 2003
time: 15:27
|
|
I am an irish nationalist who supports the use of terrorism- against military targets, such as barracks, airfeilds, civilian owned cafes where 99% of the customers are soldiers, ammunition tramsport trucks, that sort of thing, but i do not in any war, support the use of neuclear weapons, i see their use and all, but i do not agree with the use of them ecsept as was said before, "The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated" but only if that means not killing ALL of the population of that country/state/whatever
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Bebro, I think you are taking the analogy a bit to far. The concepts you introduce aren't translatable. A nation can't escape - the land stays where it is at. The only options are to give up or to fight. |
But terrorism isn´t about nations, it is about individuals or oganizations who kill other individuals. Thats the main difference (although I agree that it is extremely difficult to draw exact lines here  ).
One could argue that terrorists often are only labeled as such, when they are (or at least call themselves) actually freedom fighters. But if we not even try do look at concrete circumstances to find out if actions are really in self-defense or terrorist than we simply can´t argue about anything. So, we have to look at means, goals, level of support and (various other factors) to say if one individual/group is rather terrorist or not.
quote:
Also, who would the wife and kids be? Neighbouring nations of the same ethnicity or kinship? I'm guessing that you intended civilians in the same nation, but that doesn't fit. In your analogy, I get the impression that the wife and kids have only an emotional relationship with the aggressor. In a nation, the civilians and the army have a much more dependant relationship, as the army can not function without a civilian support structure.
For the analogy to work we would have to assume that the wife is busy reloading your enemys weapon for him, which does make her a viable target, right? |
Who poses a direct threat? If you say everyone of the other side (because eg. also civilians could work for the army etc.etc.) then you open the floodgates for every possible reaction.
Americans could then say, "Hey, we were justified to nuke Japan completely, not only two cities!" (because those civilians there produced weapons, food, fuel, etc. for Japan´s army)
Palestinians could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Israelis" as well as Israelis could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Palestinians!" because it is a matter of interpretation who started the conflict.
....and so on, and so on. So this wouldn´t allow any peaceful solution as long as one side has not reached total victory. But many experts believe that conflicts like ME or Northern Ireland can finally only be solved politically, so waiting for one side´s victory may be a dead end.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
But terrorism isn´t about nations, it is about individuals or oganizations who kill other individuals. Thats the main difference (although I agree that it is extremely difficult to draw exact lines here ). |
Umm, no... Terrorism is violence for a political goal, right? As such, it is not about individuals anymore...
quote:
So, we have to look at means, goals, level of support and (various other factors) to say if one individual/group is rather terrorist or not. |
No, I think we only have to look at the goals. Reid (the shoebomber) is considered a terrorist even though he worked completely alone, based on the goals of his attempted bombing. Likewise with the guy who shot two people at LAX.
You touch on an important point, though: my arguments concerns only "resistance" in conflicts between nations. People like McVeigh, who are terrists in their own country, are simply criminals.
quote:
Who poses a direct threat? If you say everyone of the other side (because eg. also civilians could work for the army etc.etc.) then you open the floodgates for every possible reaction.
Americans could then say, "Hey, we were justified to nuke Japan completely, not only two cities!" (because those civilians there produced weapons, food, fuel, etc. for Japan´s army) |
Well, I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't mean a carte blanche to nuke away with wild abandon, though. Capitulation should be induced with minimal loss of life on the aggressors side, but only as long as the victim is safe.
In WW2, the US decided that two bombs were necessary, or it was believed that Japan would think it was a one trick pony. I think it is beyond question that this decision saved american lives, and I thus consider it justified. If Japan hadn't capitulated, the US would have been justified in bombing city after city until Japan waved the white flag...
Do you see the distinction? It's just like a policeman making an arrest: As long as the cop isn't in danger, he is authorized to shoot for the legs. But if the cop fears for his life, he is authorized to kill. The severity of his response is directly related to the threat level.
quote:
Palestinians could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Israelis" as well as Israelis could say "Hey, we are justified to kill all Palestinians!" because it is a matter of interpretation who started the conflict. |
Which is another good reason as to why we need an international court with some clout behind it...
This is actually the focal point of my beliefs. In order to make this a better world, we need to look beyong the simplistic view of "terrorist" vs. "soldier". We need to look at who broke the law, not who is the best at propaganda or who can build the most tanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
|
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Umm, no... Terrorism is violence for a political goal, right? |
That describes war. Is your position that war=terrorism? That´s of course debatable, I just want to clarify where we are.
quote:
Well, I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't mean a carte blanche to nuke away with wild abandon, though. Capitulation should be induced with minimal loss of life on the aggressors side, but only as long as the victim is safe. |
But that´s not the same as you said earlier: "The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated."
I see no limitations for the use of force there, not even implied. So if those Civilians support an army in various ways, why not get rid of them completely, since all those who provide such support are valid targets?
quote:
WW2, the US decided that two bombs were necessary, or it was believed that Japan would think it was a one trick pony. I think it is beyond question that this decision saved american lives, and I thus consider it justified.
|
According to your statement this is irrelevant because the victim (USA) of an aggressor (Japan) is always right - no other/further justification needed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Umm, no... Terrorism is violence for a political goal, right? As such, it is not about individuals anymore...
|
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Terrorism, at least what we call terrorism, can and often is about individuals. Freeing this militant, assassinating that politician, or avenging the death of a leader. Often the personally motivated attacks aren't very logical and are more expressions of rage than a desire to acheive a political goal.
quote:
No, I think we only have to look at the goals. Reid (the shoebomber) is considered a terrorist even though he worked completely alone, based on the goals of his attempted bombing. Likewise with the guy who shot two people at LAX.
You touch on an important point, though: my arguments concerns only "resistance" in conflicts between nations. People like McVeigh, who are terrists in their own country, are simply criminals.
|
So if there were a well defined international court, you would be as opposed to terrorism as anybody. At least you're not totally warped.
quote:
Well, I don't see a problem with that. It doesn't mean a carte blanche to nuke away with wild abandon, though. Capitulation should be induced with minimal loss of life on the aggressors side, but only as long as the victim is safe.
In WW2, the US decided that two bombs were necessary, or it was believed that Japan would think it was a one trick pony. I think it is beyond question that this decision saved american lives, and I thus consider it justified. If Japan hadn't capitulated, the US would have been justified in bombing city after city until Japan waved the white flag...
Do you see the distinction? It's just like a policeman making an arrest: As long as the cop isn't in danger, he is authorized to shoot for the legs. But if the cop fears for his life, he is authorized to kill. The severity of his response is directly related to the threat level.
|
The Israelis received land in an agreement with the de facto power at the time through the Balfour Declaration. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant for the moment.
They assembled in Palestine after nearly two millenia of diaspora, and upon declaring independence, were immediately the victims of aggression by a coalition of Arab states who for the most part have continued aggressive activities to this day.
As the victims of aggression, how can you not respect their right to self-defense? And if the Palestinians could legitimately deny both the right of return to the Israelis, and the right to form a government of their own choosing, then what rights do the Israelis hold?
quote:
Which is another good reason as to why we need an international court with some clout behind it...
This is actually the focal point of my beliefs. In order to make this a better world, we need to look beyong the simplistic view of "terrorist" vs. "soldier". We need to look at who broke the law, not who is the best at propaganda or who can build the most tanks. |
There are rules to war that soldiers are expected to follow. There are officers who are expected to maintain order amongst them. There are very good reasons why soldiers are less of a threat than terrorists. In that case it is very important who is a terrorist and who is a soldier. If it were up to me, the title would be less important than how they act. An army that intentionally kills civilians, like the Germans did in their invasion of the Soviet Union, would be regarded as terrorist. However, terrorists who only target legitimate military targets, and who wear identifiable uniforms and follow the other rules of warfare would be recognized as soldiers. Right now the basic definition seems to be official military are soldiers and unofficial are terrorists.
Aside from that, I agree. The biggest problem you are running into though is that you seem to be deluding yourself into believing that international law will work even without the threat of force. In order to enforce the will of the court, you would need to be willing to wage an aggressive war against the criminals and be willing to accept that innocent people will die. There's simply no other way to make sure the court has teeth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Thought about it and I have to say yes, terrorism can be a legitimate form of warfare. I think it depends on where and under what conditions it is used. For instance, in Algieria in the 50s and 60s you had the French pushing natives off their lands, settling it themselves, severely restricting native rights with racist policies, and put down any opposition rather severely, all with the idea of making Algeria France.
This is terrorism done by a 'legitimate' authority and the native population had little other choice. Saying its a legitimate form of warfare in some circumstances doesn't mean I approve of planting bombs in cafes and such, just that I'm not about to villify them because they passed some imaginary line that the French certainly weren't too concerned with themselves.
quote:
And because terrorism is warfare, and we have a war on terrorism, I have no problem with detaining enemy combatants. Sure we still have combatants in custody, but that is because the war on terror is not over. Hell, we aren't even done with the war in Afghanistan, we aren't going to release those people until the war on terror is over. Which is probably never, or until some lefty president gets into office and feels sorry for them like Bill Clinton. |
If you're willing to call it a legitimate form of warfare why treat prisoners differently? Whats funny about most of the guys in Guantanamo is they weren't terrorists, they fought US troops in Afghanistan in the conventional way, they were just part of the wrong organization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
BeBro:
quote:
That describes war. Is your position that war=terrorism? That´s of course debatable, I just want to clarify where we are.
|
Hmm, in one sense I guess it is. But I again want to stress that the important distinction is aggression vs. defense, not the means.
quote:
But that´s not the same as you said earlier: "The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated."
I see no limitations for the use of force there, not even implied. |
Well, I've clarified it for you in this thread. How much can be implied in one sentence? Not that much. I assume your point is that the clarifications are contradictory to the initial statement, right? If so, I disagree. Our entire culture assumes that we will act with restraint when we can.
Compare the statement "murder in self-defense is OK". Turn to the next person around you, and ask "do you think murder in selfdefense is OK?". If he/she says "yes", follow up with "So you think it is OK to execute prisoners?". If the person doesn't know you, he/she will probably move away a little and worry about his/her own personal safety, after which they'll say something like "what, are you nuts? Of course not!" Do you see what I mean?
quote:
So if those Civilians support an army in various ways, why not get rid of them completely, since all those who provide such support are valid targets?
|
They are valid targets, as long as the aggressor wont capitulate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Felch:
quote:
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Terrorism, at least what we call terrorism, can and often is about individuals. Freeing this militant, assassinating that politician, or avenging the death of a leader. Often the personally motivated attacks aren't very logical and are more expressions of rage than a desire to acheive a political goal. |
From dictionary.com:
Tarrorism: 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 reasons.
Bold added for emphasis.
Of course it will deal with individuals: everything humanity does will. But the aim is not to free a militant because he is a nice guy that everyone likes, the aim is to free a militant as part of the political struggle. The aim is not to assassinate a politician because you don't like the looks of his suit, or to steal his wallet, the aim is to scare his fellow politicians into thinking "if we continue on our current course of action we might be next".
quote:
So if there were a well defined international court, you would be as opposed to terrorism as anybody. At least you're not totally warped.
|
I'm opposed to aggression. It's not a complicated concept... I don't care whether it is "warfare" or "terrorism", aggression should be fought, period.
quote:
The Israelis received land in an agreement with the de facto power at the time through the Balfour Declaration. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant for the moment.
They assembled in Palestine after nearly two millenia of diaspora, and upon declaring independence, were immediately the victims of aggression by a coalition of Arab states who for the most part have continued aggressive activities to this day.
As the victims of aggression, how can you not respect their right to self-defense? And if the Palestinians could legitimately deny both the right of return to the Israelis, and the right to form a government of their own choosing, then what rights do the Israelis hold?
|
We've been over this before, and I've repeatedly shown that jews as an ethnic group has no valid legal or historical claim to palestine... I don't think this thread is the right place for it, though. If you wish to discuss it further, there are numerous old threads of the subject.
quote:
There are rules to war that soldiers are expected to follow. There are officers who are expected to maintain order amongst them. There are very good reasons why soldiers are less of a threat than terrorists. In that case it is very important who is a terrorist and who is a soldier. If it were up to me, the title would be less important than how they act. An army that intentionally kills civilians, like the Germans did in their invasion of the Soviet Union, would be regarded as terrorist. However, terrorists who only target legitimate military targets, and who wear identifiable uniforms and follow the other rules of warfare would be recognized as soldiers. Right now the basic definition seems to be official military are soldiers and unofficial are terrorists.
|
But this is still based on the idea that it is OK to kill a guy in uniform, but not someone who bakes his bread. Again, I think the division of "civilian" and "military" is outdated, what we should divide into is "aggressor" and "victim". If you worry about the wellfare of your countrys civilians: Just make sure you don't attack someone.
quote:
Aside from that, I agree. The biggest problem you are running into though is that you seem to be deluding yourself into believing that international law will work even without the threat of force. In order to enforce the will of the court, you would need to be willing to wage an aggressive war against the criminals and be willing to accept that innocent people will die. There's simply no other way to make sure the court has teeth. |
I'm not deluding myself in the slightest. The problem isn't conceptual (if a nation won't act in accordance to the ruling of the court, that is considered an act of aggression in itself. Just compare to normal courts in any western country), the problem is "how do we build a fair court?" and "if we could build a fair court, how do we force the strongest nations to abide by the decisions?". Neither the US or China has shown much respect for international law lately... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Also, Dresden followed London, the allies didn't start the war, niether did the Brits. So anything that shortened it was ok, to those that waged it. Only in the aftermath was Dresden considered wrong, unarmed.
Nagasaki built fighters, Hiroshima, I don't recall, something though. At any rate the Japanese should not have expected quarter. Total warriors, waging a total war.
The US and Britain didn't start the war, so anything that facilitated its end was considered productive.
Regarding terrorism, it's war on innocent people. I understand that. It's a power play on the part of aggressors. Those that take part in such tactics play with oblivion. If the US were to ever engage in Jihad one day, there would be no day 2 for our enemies. |
So it's ok to attack civilians when there is a 'total war'? If in someway it can be characterized to 'shorten a war'? You can either say it is never ok to target civilians or that it is sometimes ok to target civilians. Obviously you believe that in WW2 it was ok to target civilians under those circumstances.
How are you any different from an ordinary terrorist? And no you don't understand it. They aren't the aggressors!!! Terrorism occurs BECAUSE people are being pushed down and humilated. You have to understand that anger and that mindset.
And before you protest, remember during our revolution, Americans engaged in terrorism as well. Tar and feathering tax collectors and killing loyalists (who really weren't doing anything) in order to frighten the Brits is not too far from what is going on today.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-05-2003 17:08
|