 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs |
Sorry for quoting something from pages ago, but I just saw the thread.
This is the basis for Cybergnu's stance in all the various ME threads, and is the reason there is no room for progress in a debate on the matter with him (sure, you can post back and forth, but there is zero chance - none, zip, nada, of actually making progress). I'm not ripping on you, Cyber, just to be clear - it's an observation, and not one designed to be nasty. It's an absolute position, and thus there isn't room to manuever.
Since the victim is granted a blank moral check, nothing is out of bounds. Nothing. There is no proportionality. But there are a lot of conflicts in which identifying an "aggressor" isn't all that simple. One also may wish to get into Cyber's defintion of aggression, but I'm not going there righ tnow.
Let's take Kashmir as an example, simply because I think most of us have at least heard of it and probably know a little bit about it. I'm no expert on the matter, but here are the basics as I know them: the Brits want India & Pak to be one big state when they leave. The Muslims won't stand for it, demand their own country, Pakistan. Ok, that's done. But who gets Kashmir? India does, based on the wishes of the non-elected ruler of that area at the time of the partition (Hindu leader, mostly Muslim population). Decades of bloodletting commence. More at 11.
Anyway, who is the aggressor? India, because it kept a province whose leader chose to join it (one could obviously question the legitimacy of the leader)? Or Pakistan, because it funds/trains/otherwise supports people who go into Kashmir and blow things up? Who was the "aggressor" in each of the 3 wars between the two countries (IIRC, 2 of the 3 were over Kashmir)?
What if each side shares the blame for conflict? Who is the aggressor then?
So the statement "The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs" does not allow for gray areas. It also doesn't allow for much debate.
So don't bother arguing that point. Either you accept that civilians can be targetted (because, to one degree or another, they contribute toward their side's ability to wage war) or you do not.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
All Terrorism is not about civilians only. We should remember that the worse act of terrorism against the US before 9/11 was the attack on the Marine Barracks in Lebanon. These guys were not civilians, obviously, and in any "war", barracks are totally legitimate targets. Don;t expect anyone at the Pentagon to say that was a valid attack and not terrorism. Same deal with attacks on US instalations in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the Cole, the bombing of the CIA station in beirut in 1983 (Intelligence locations are legitimate targets in war), and Perhaps as well, the attack on the Pentagon (surely a valid target of war) in 9/11. Many attacks labelled terrorist in the Occupied territories are against soldiers (is blowing a tank up with a mine a terrorist attack?), or what about in kashmir, where many of the attacks are on Indian security forces? And the same is true for attacs by the FARC and Tamil Tigers in their respective places. So the "problem" with terrorism is not just "killing the innocent"
And for those who agree with the "no rules in war", then why should the acts of people like Saddam Hussein in crushing revolts, both in the South by the Shia and the Kurds, ever be held against him? It was "war" after all, and according to many here, all is fair. Mass gassingd then don;t seem to be very wrong morality at all, since morality has no place in war, or so some seem to think here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
Imran, obviously you didnt read about the cute baby convention being held on the cole, where 45,893 infants were killed by terrorists.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
raghar
|
|
I wish somewhere else.
Oct 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
I am unaware on how differently the Gitmo prisoners are being treated. I do agree that the enemy combatant thing is kind of cheesy, but I do believe they are following the geneva convention. I have yet to see any of them on tv for example.
Yes they are still being held, but that is because we are still at war in afghanistan and against terrorism. |
BDSM BDSM BDSM. Chainded blindfolded low space around and so on. Most girls are creazy when they would have blindfold.
They possibly a little decreased the restriction, after some journalist did quality photos, but still something you'd strongly dissagree even for accused criminals.
They are for sure not treated under geneva convention as combatants. Where is could have they own clothes thing? Should have proper space and treated as...
In old mediterian culture (around -300 BC ) prissoners of war were taken pefore public and shown as greatnes of the, was it republic?
Terrorism. If they are to be released after end they would have it until guantanamo fall appart. Or until US state would end.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
raghar
|
|
I wish somewhere else.
Oct 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
Panag if your family member was injured we should end this discusion, you are clearly unable to continue now.
If some of my family would be killed by terroristic act I would try to collect pieces and don't became tool for goverment. If I would have some objections against that terrorist group I would take care "personally". If you'd cry too much in public you'd become gov tool and that is not smart thing. There is not too much difference if someone would die with granate explosion or in pain at home. If you dislike the suden moment, or hate feeling they could have been more, it happens, get over it. I personally think that people living in poverty and without proper medical help are dieing more than from it than from terrist attack. And yes best weapons are removing poverty, proper medical care and don't deprive citizens of their rights. There is very few things that could be more offending than if some minority is deprived of something that people around things is completelly normal and avilable for everyone.
I think if we will continue this disscusion we will get into how is working a society and talks about marginals and other element, but I don't think I would be nice in this discussion. I have some bad experience and it could go personal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Skywalker, you have illustrated another crucial factor in the terrorism verse conventional discussion considering the US and other powers that have been subject to terrorism have enormous amounts of money to spend on precision weapons, air power, manpower, etc... To the point where it is IMPOSSIBLE for any smaller organization to combat it in a traditional sense.
This would be fine if stronger powers harmed no one and created no situations worth struggling against but that is not the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
Terrorism is not warfare, its a criminal activity. The effect of 9-11 was not that we in the US were weakened. We were angered, and now two governments have paid the price by being removed. Taking out governments is the product of a successful war. Terrorism will never accomplish that.
Terrorism doesn't accomplish any of the goals it sets. It doesn't change policy. In fact, it hardens the policy of those who are attacked to against the terrorists. I don't understand terrorism, it doesn't seem to work at all. It seems only to foment hate and revenge and in the end those who perpetrate these acts suffer the consequences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I'm not specifically talking about America or WTC, but terrorism in general. Targetting civilians is wrong, but so are alot of things that governments do to oppress citizens. Restricting of rights, racist policies, ethnic cleansing(not only the mass murder kind but the systematic removal of an ethnic group from a locale) and such. All these things are wrong and I don't think by stepping over some invisible line like deliberately targetting civillians you should immediately be considered more evil and what you're fighting for discredited.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogman
Terrorism is not warfare, its a criminal activity. The effect of 9-11 was not that we in the US were weakened. We were angered, and now two governments have paid the price by being removed. Taking out governments is the product of a successful war. Terrorism will never accomplish that.
Terrorism doesn't accomplish any of the goals it sets. It doesn't change policy. In fact, it hardens the policy of those who are attacked to against the terrorists. I don't understand terrorism, it doesn't seem to work at all. It seems only to foment hate and revenge and in the end those who perpetrate these acts suffer the consequences. |
I would disagree, the point is that terrorism does not achieve goals in the same way as conventional warfare goals have been laid out. The aim isn't to bring down governments, conquer land or defeat militaries. Its usually to focus international attention on the issue that is being fought over. It also expects and sometimes hopes for a brutal response that can gain the attention of international critics and critics within the home government. How much is a government willing to do before it changes its policies? Its a game of chicken.
A really good movie, and not to swayed to either side, is the Battle of Algiers. Its about a terrorist campaign in Algiers, the French were incredibly successful(and pretty brutal) in putting it down, a real victory. Yet they had gained international criticism and stronger discontent at home with the French presence in Algeria. A few years later France pulled out of Algeria. Right-wing people who comment on the resistance in Algeirs talk about how it failed, the French military was doing quite well against the resistance before it pulled out, but they failed to realize that the aims were not only military, but political and the troubles had a great effect on the politics and citizens of France.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
The thing with terrorism is that when push comes to shove two can play that game. When you start targetting someone's civilians you have to seriously consider to what extent you can tolerate someone paying you back in kind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
That's what made them terrorists then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alvaro
"
The US Army uses 5.56mm ammo which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention due to the nature of the impact (likely to hurt/kill more than one person with a single round).
|
Last edited by Joseph on 04-05-2003 at 09:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alvaro
The US Army uses 5.56mm ammo which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention due to the nature of the impact (likely to hurt/kill more than one person with a single round).
|
That's not quite true. The 5.56 round used in the M-16 is designed to tumble when it penetrates a body, imparting a great deal of its energy and ripping up a lot of tissue. Its predecessor, the 30.06 round was designed to rip straight through. Consequently the 30.06 will have much more energy remaining after passing through someone's body and will be much more likely to have enough energy to harm someone else. The Geneva convention banned ammo designed to especially to cause extra tissue damage. AT the time of the convention this included primarily hollow point and dum-dum ammo, both of which are designed to fragment on impact. The M-16 round might be considered banned becauise it too causes a disproportionate amount of internal damage due to the tendency to tumble that I mentioned above.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2003 20:54
|