NationStates Jolt Archive

Regarding the past few days, and the resurgence of terrorism threads, I've come to see a lot of ignorant things being said about the topic.
Generally it is only in order to justify the need for revenge, the need to feel victorius and stand over the battered body of your fallen enemy (figuratively speaking ;) )

And that is the constant suggestion that "Terrorists" (which I'll define in here as your traditional AQ type person - someone who a member of a stateless political organisation that uses violence in order to achieve some political gain) aren't human beings.
"Terrorists can't be negotiated with", "They do these things because they hate us" and so on.

So I just thought, maybe it should be legitimately discussed.
Are terrorists subhuman killers, who kill out of sheer barbarism/fundamentalism or are terrorists human beings, that act according to a certain rationale?
If Terrorists are humans, are they covered by Human Rights as well? What are the rights of a Terrorist?
What are the motives of a Terrorist? Do these motives justify "killing all the terrorists we can find"?

If you want, you can also support your arguments using single terrorist leaders, or suicide bombers as examples. Biographies shouldn't be hard to find.

EDIT: There is another thread that also deals with a topic similar to this. It's part 3 of Aldranin's "I don't give a ...."-series.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431071

I proudly cast my vote for option #1. "Terrorist" are just like every other human on the planet, just people doing what they think is right.

To me, the only real difference between a "soldier" and a "terrorist" is that a soldier kills for a government.

I'd go into more detail, and argue more eloquently, but it is 3:05 AM here.

Remember, Jesus, the Budda, The Dali Lama, Ghandi all say anger and vengence is bad. Let go of your negetive emotions, they just weigh you down. Anger must be defeated if real justice is to flurish.

Anger leads to revenge which leads to counter-vengence on to the end of time. This is not a real justice and a lasting peace.

It depends on the terrorist.
Note that all terms are relative to my definition of the following.
If its the sort that massacres innocent people because they can, then I think they forfiet all rights and deserve what they get.
If its the 'freedom fighter' sort, who usualy dont kill civilians on purpose and msotly target government vehicles and such, I can sympathise to some degree, I dont agree with them, but I see their point of view and dont think that they should suffer unduely for it.

Just as something to chew over as well, here is a biography of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, probably the most dangerous terrorist leader on the planet.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_zawahiri.htm

I chose this link because it contained more information about himself than any others I went through (I don't know what it has to do with Atheism...just ignore that).

It depends on the terrorist.
Let's for the purposes of the argument take the most radical option and say that we are talking about the AQ Leadership and that kind here.

Terrorists are Humans too!
Don't make me stab you in the face. :mad:

There is a VERY narrow band of "terorists" tha could ever be considered "human"... but I'm too freakin' tired to go there....

I'll argue this tomorrow. :headbang:

Let's for the purposes of the argument take the most radical option and say that we are talking about the AQ Leadership and that kind here.
They get option #2, in that case.

all people are still people, in my opinion. Jesus loves and will forgive anyone, and who am I to hate he who God loves?

Not that you have to think the same, so please don't attack me (sad I have to put that up just for expressing my faith) that's just how I see it

Regarding the past few days, and the resurgence of terrorism threads, I've come to see a lot of ignorant things being said about the topic.

Ignorant things like terrorists can change for the better, or ignorant things like people that saw off the heads of civilians deserve dignity?

Generally it is only in order to justify the need for revenge, the need to feel victorius and stand over the battered body of your fallen enemy (figuratively speaking ;) )

Or perhaps ignorant things like, torture never has a point - it's not like you can get information out of it that can save the lives of your own soldiers, or anything.

And that is the constant suggestion that "Terrorists" (which I'll define in here as your traditional AQ type person - someone who a member of a stateless political organisation that uses violence in order to achieve some political gain) aren't human beings.
"Terrorists can't be negotiated with", "They do these things because they hate us" and so on.

Perhaps you were referring to ignorant implications like terrorists don't hate us.

So I just thought, maybe it should be legitimately discussed.
Are terrorists subhuman killers, who kill out of sheer barbarism/fundamentalism or are terrorists human beings, that act according to a certain rationale?

How about both? Fundamentalism generally seems rational to a fundamentalist.

If Terrorists are humans, are they covered by Human Rights as well? What are the rights of a Terrorist?

None once they have participated in the killing or enslavement of innocents in the name of terrorism. They have become officially criminal and thus have no rights as normal people.

What are the motives of a Terrorist? Do these motives justify "killing all the terrorists we can find"?

If that's what it takes to stop them, fucking yes. But, hopefully, it won't come to that.

Well this is getting personal awefully quick. :)
But I'll think of it like Socrates: As long as it makes them think...

a) Fundamentalism generally seems rational to a fundamentalist.
b) None once they have killed in the name of terrorism. They have become officially criminal and thus have no rights as normal people.
a) That's a good point. What I mean though is that generally, religious/fundamentalist concerns are only justifications, not reasons for people to take a certain action. That is just my view, and many people will probably disagree.
b) No one kills in "the name of terrorism". Terrorism is hardly what Terrorists want to achiev. They'd kill in the name of something else, like Allah, or democracy.

all that anger and hate can't be pleasent to walk around with

By the way, I love the this-is-how-it-is title and the immediate assumption that anyone opposing your argument is ignorant of everything terrorist, not to mention the answers equating this debate to some petty game of cowboys and Indians. My posts are biased, but this is ridiculous. You should have let me go ahead and post this, or just hijacked my thread like I suggested.

Or perhaps ignorant things like, torture never has a point - it's not like you can get information out of it that can save the lives of your own soldiers, or anything.

Besides the fact that torture clearly is a cruel and immoral act, a person being tortured will say anything to stop the pain, even if he doesn't know anything. You end up with wrong information, which can be even worse than not having any information at all.

None once they have participated in the killing or enslavement of innocents in the name of terrorism. They have become officially criminal and thus have no rights as normal people.

Careful where you go here. Many nations have engaged in state terrorism, so by this logic you'd have to consider their entire armed forces as terrorist groups and strip them and their leaders of all their rights. And as a matter of fact, in most nations criminals do have legal rights. Deciding "terrorists" should have their rights taken away is purely arbitrary and arbitrary actions are not a recipe for a justice system worthy of respect.

Terrorists and criminals are human, but it makes you wonder, why have they lost their sense of humanity. By punishment, how would it be effective if limitations to a convict's freedom or safety are not taken into review?

Well this is getting personal awefully quick. :)
But I'll think of it like Socrates: As long as it makes them think...


a) That's a good point. What I mean though is that generally, religious/fundamentalist concerns are only justifications, not reasons for people to take a certain action. That is just my view, and many people will probably disagree.
b) No one kills in "the name of terrorism". Terrorism is hardly what Terrorists want to achiev. They'd kill in the name of something else, like Allah, or democracy.

a) What exactly is a justification is not a reason presented to take an action? I'm so confused that sentence.
b) They kill innocents in the name of some bullshit fundamentalist cause, and whether they intend to or not, they are killing for terrorism.

-snip-
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "ignorant", granted. But it will stand there as it is, because it encourages discussion and discussion encourages progress.
Same goes for the title. A title is meant to get people to have a look and get involved.
And so far no one has actually given full answers. Eventually someone will provide a thought-out structured argument, and then the discussion begins.
If you don't want to, then don't.

a) What exactly is a justification is not a reason presented to take an action? I'm so confused that sentence.
I mean that first there is a reason they think a certain way, say...they can make money out of it. Then they need something to get others to get on board. Like Religion.
Be advised that these are examples, and I don't think AQ makes money out of being terrorists.
Also, forgive me if my sentences sometimes sound clumsy, English is my second language.

Besides the fact that torture clearly is a cruel and immoral act, a person being tortured will say anything to stop the pain, even if he doesn't know anything. You end up with wrong information, which can be even worse than not having any information at all.

Not if done properly. If you pull a toenail off and they still claim not to know anything, it's a pretty good indicator that they really don't know anything. But my point was that Leon was implying that torture is always pointless and never helpful, which is a stupid statement to make. Besides, most people that get tortured are people that most likely do know something.

Also, I was using "torture" loosely, to encompass Gitmo-esque events, since those inspired this thread.

Careful where you go here. Many nations have engaged in state terrorism, so by this logic you'd have to consider their entire armed forces as terrorist groups and strip them and their leaders of all their rights. And as a matter of fact, in most nations criminals do have legal rights. Deciding "terrorists" should have their rights taken away is purely arbitrary and arbitrary actions are not a recipe for a justice system worthy of respect.

I'm always careful. He's referring to human rights. If someone is a known terrorist, they should be treated as less than human, and thus their rights aren't human rights, so they have no human rights. Also, it depends on what you are referring to as state terrorism... if you're going to try to pin bogus acts of terrorism on places like the U.S. and the U.K., I really don't want to hear it, because I've heard it all before. If you're talking about things like how Saddam used to pay large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, then yes, I'm including stuff like that.

a) Besides, most people that get tortured are people that most likely do know something.
b) If someone is a known terrorist, they should be treated as less than human...
c)...if you're going to try to pin bogus acts of terrorism on places like the U.S. and the U.K., I really don't want to hear it, because I've heard it all before. If you're talking about things like how Saddam used to pay large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, then yes, I'm including stuff like that.
a) Debatable, but not here.
b) Which is the topic. Please try and put forth an argument, rather than attack people with a different view.
c) That's a little one-sided, don't you think?

Why do you automaticlly discount stuff by the US and UK? The US has funded many terrorist group, including Nicaraguan Cocaine runners who would massacre villages.

The US also cut off the suply of TB vacine to Nic in the middle of an outbreak, because we didn't like the gov the people had picked, even though they were no threat to us. So, we made poor farmers and peasent who had nothing to do with politics suffer.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "ignorant", granted. But it will stand there as it is, because it encourages discussion and discussion encourages progress.
Same goes for the title. A title is meant to get people to have a look and get involved.
And so far no one has actually given full answers. Eventually someone will provide a thought-out structured argument, and then the discussion begins.
If you don't want to, then don't.

I had a full argument on what I think of terrorist rights... and it was unbiased, and would have gotten a decent amount of attention tomorrow... but you made another thread, instead. So the discussion has already begun.

PS: As far as English being your second language, I could tell, which is why I didn't mock you all the more on assuming your opponents were ignorant; though I should, if you're going to continue to do so even though it makes you sound many times more ignorant than those you describe.

If you see it that way, I'm sorry. I wanted to make this a general discussion, moreso than yours, which was rather focussed on one aspect, and invited a lot of flames coming in from all sides.
I'll include a link to your thread here as well, just in case.

Why do you automaticlly discount stuff by the US and UK? The US has funded many terrorist group, including Nicaraguan Cocaine runners who would massacre villages.

The US also cut off the suply of TB vacine to Nic in the middle of an outbreak, because we didn't like the gov the people had picked, even though they were no threat to us. So, we made poor farmers and peasent who had nothing to do with politics suffer.

Because the reasoning behind countries like the U.S. and the U.K. is much more, for lack of a better word, reasonable. The U.S. didn't block the flow of vaccine because they wanted to kill the infidel and sleep with seventy-odd virgins, they did it because it was politically beneficial. The U.S. and U.K. also do this thing called "care" about whether or not they die. We don't lead gihads against people and suicide bomb areas filled with innocent people and saw off the heads of reporters for the sake of making some neurotic point.

I agree that revenge is a dish best served cold...

I agree that each and every suicide bomber and hostage taker should have a right to a free trial as every other human should.

However considering what they do to society grants much harsher penalties.

But... what one of you would not instantly kill a terrorist sitting in front of you explaining each and every one of the deaths caused by his bomb. Explaining that he thinks that it was right, and even necesary to kill those people in the two towers, explaining that each of his 'brothers in arms' will live in ecstasy for eternity because they killed so many people to 'FREE' their country.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF TERRORISM?????
WHERE IN ANY HOLY BOOK DOES IT SAY GO BLOW PEOPLE UP?????

This is why i chose option 2 that they no longer have rights as a human... because once they do this horrific damage...

Their not one.

Because the reasoning behind countries like the U.S. and the U.K. is much more, for lack of a better word, reasonable...
But you just said about 10 minutes ago that "fundamentalism can be rational to some people".
How can you judge then whose reasoning is good, and whose is bad?

c) That's a little one-sided, don't you think?

Heh, well according to the American media, it's only terrorism if someone else did it. :rolleyes:

I think it is generally accepted outside the US is then biggest sponsor of state terrorism. But, I guess if some people refuse to accept (or even consider it), that's their loss (and the loss of the families of those killed by the US's actions in Panama, Cuba, Nicuagura, Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Columbia etc) .

Of course, they do sound slightly hypocritical.

But you just said about 10 minutes ago that "fundamentalism can be rational to some people".
How can you judge then whose reasoning is good, and whose is bad?

1) Because I'm American, and 2) because I'm not driven by some random text that I hold to be undeniably true, I'm driven by what I deem logical on a case-by-case basis.

For people who think terroists are subhuman: I think you reach a gray area when you start trying to decide who is a terrorist. I heard of a boy in the US being convicted of terrorism (or whatever the official title was) because he wrote a story about zombies infesting his home town.

Anyway, I think that all people have human rights that can't be taken away for any reason. Think about it, these people attack your country because they want to bring down your country and destroy your government. If you decide, because of that, that you can take away rights and freedoms from people you're submiting to fear. You're destroy your country from the inside and doing the jobs of these terrorist for them.

Because the reasoning behind countries like the U.S. and the U.K. is much more, for lack of a better word, reasonable. The U.S. didn't block the flow of vaccine because they wanted to kill the infidel and sleep with seventy-odd virgins, they did it because it was politically beneficial. The U.S. and U.K. also do this thing called "care" about whether or not they die. We don't lead gihads against people and suicide bomb areas filled with innocent people and saw off the heads of reporters for the sake of making some neurotic point.

Which is worse: an act of terrorism by
a) a single (or small number of) clearly mentally-ill fundamentalists
-or-
b) a large, wealthy and supposedly democratically elected government

Heh, well according to the American media, it's only terrorism if someone else did it. :rolleyes:

I think it is generally accepted outside the US is then biggest sponsor of state terrorism. But, I guess if some people refuse to accept (or even consider it), that's their loss (and the loss of the families of those killed by the US's actions in Panama, Cuba, Nicuagura, Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Columbia etc) .

Of course, they do sound slightly hypocritical.

Right, the media taught me what to think of terrorism. Because I'm such a big fan of the U.S. media, which you'd know if you had any fucking clue what you were talking about, and happened to read the entire thread I posted on it. It's terrorism if too many absolutes are involved, such as when the shitty deeds are led by insane people who believe the words of some random text as complete truths. It's terrorism if the people don't care whether they die for it. It's terrorism if its sole external result is the spreading of fear throughout the masses.

1) Because I'm American,.

It's nice to see we're getting the opionion of the terrorists as well.

1) While torture may bring forth some useful information, it doesn't always.
2) The use of torture may cause the State that uses or condones it a terrorist State against its own people.
3) Terrorists may have certain rights -- such as the right to trial when found alive -- but such persons who commit terrorist acts have knowingly repudiated several, if not most or all, of their civil and political rights, which also come with associated responsibilities, something which is equally important to remember.
4) As persons who may be considered armed and who have proven themselves to be dangerous, it is perfectly comprehensible for the State to engage such individuals with proper force either pre-emptively (for advocating violence against the State), at the time, or afterwards. It is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens, particularly from foreign aggression.

What I don't like is liars- those who would lie for themselves at the expense of others' lives. This includes Usama bin Laden, this includes George W. Bush. Terrorists such as those in the Middle East cannot be all absolutely evil by themselves- lies and their effects will do the trick, push moderates to do extreme actions when they themselves are deceived.

Stop the lies, begin to understand.

Which is worse: an act of terrorism by
a) a single (or small number of) clearly mentally-ill fundamentalists
-or-
b) a large, wealthy and supposedly democratically elected government

It depends what else was done by the acts other than the deaths of many and the frightening of many more, obviously. You can't argue this so generally.

accully, cutting up the TB vaccine was not adventagous to us at all, Nic had nothing we needed, we did it for purely ideological reasons.

Your view of terrorism is very narrow. Very few militants wake up and say "man, I love killing white people." It's because they see the destruction and poverty the US and the West is causeing, and from their view, they are just striking back.

In WWII, Viet Nam, Korea, we did indeed bomb massive areas, with no regard for civilian caualties. We even went on a campaign of destruction of damns to cause flooding to cause famine amongst the peasents so the Viet Cong would have less of a base to draw support from.

We don't need to saw heads off, we just blow whole villages apart.


I'm not saying that the US us the ultimate evil, and "terrorists" are heros on white horses, whch of course they are not, I'm just saying you should take a less narrow, more even handed, open minded view of the world. Look at things from different perspectives.

Now it is about 4:30 AM here, so I shall finally retire. G'night all, it has been a pleasure. I shall return tomarrow.

Peace and happyness be with you all.

What I don't like is liars- those who would lie for themselves at the expense of others' lives. This includes Usama bin Laden, this includes George W. Bush. Terrorists such as those in the Middle East cannot be all absolutely evil by themselves- lies and their effects will do the trick, push moderates to do extreme actions when they themselves are deceived.

Stop the lies, begin to understand.

"What I don't like is liars," hmm? Well, what I don't like is idiots.

Right, the media taught me what to think of terrorism. Because I'm such a big fan of the U.S. media, which you'd know if you had any fucking clue what you were talking about, and happened to read the entire thread I posted on it. It's terrorism if too many absolutes are involved, such as when the shitty deeds are led by insane people who believe the words of some random text as complete truths. It's terrorism if the people don't care whether they die for it. It's terrorism if its sole external result is the spreading of fear throughout the masses.

:D

Heh, that post wasn't aimed at yourself, but I think your definition "It's terrorism if too many absolutes are involved" is a good one. The difference in my opinion is that I don't believe governments are any less likely to see things in absolutes either.

Quoting Bush: "if you're not with us, you're against us"

:D

Heh, that post wasn't aimed at yourself, but I think your definition "It's terrorism if too many absolutes are involved" is a good one. The difference in my opinion is that I don't believe governments are any less likely to see things in absolutes either.

Quoting Bush: "if you're not with us, you're against us"

Out of context, but otherwise fair. Some governments are less likely to see in absolutes, however, especially democratic ones with vastly mixed opinions. Anyway, it's 4:34 AM, be back around 12:00 or so when I wake up to bitch some more.

It depends what else was done by the acts other than the deaths of many and the frightening of many more, obviously. You can't argue this so generally.

True. My point is that elected governments are supposed to maintain civilisation, not destroy it. Also, a government acts on behalf of the population - if they commit crimes then, by proxy, the population is at least partly responsibly. At least a terrorist only represents him/herself.

What I think
Well, I think I might start by bringing up my case on the matter:
(Remember that here terrorist = AQ member)

A terrorist starts his/her life in an Arabic country. There he/she lives a normal childhood, often more interested in intellectual pursuits than the family trade, but not always.

Then, something happens of political significance. In Zawahiri's case, it was the Six-Day War of 1967. He/she is outraged by the perceived unfairness of this event, and is so outraged that he/she becomes politically active.

Once one becomes an activist, in most Arab countries one is bound to meet a radical religious/political teacher. While many at this stage decide not to listen, some do. That is understandable too, because usually radical Mullahs or Imams etc make logical arguments, using religious and political points to form a coherent ideological whole.

So our student starts to hang around the "wrong people", and is influenced by them. He/She comes to believe that democratic action is pointless (often true in despotic middle-eastern nations), and that force is the only way to achieve change. In Zawahiri's case, he was member of the organisation that assassinated the Egyptian President, Sadat.

Now, the Terrorist is usually arrested while planning, or comitting a criminal act (it may also be a terrorist act already). It follows some time in a prison where torture, corruption but also Islamic extremism is ripe. Considering that our terrorist already had contact to his Islamist teacher, he/she is quite willing to go down the road and become more radical, while the hate for his captors grows.

When he/she is released, there is no way of getting back into the community, so our terrorist looks for other outlets. In Zawahiri's case, that was Bin Laden's militia in Afghanistan.

Many terrorists now stay in their home countries and become repeat offenders, some might even make it back into a normal life. But those that we know now instead blamed the US for the conditions they lived in. For the original offensive political experience, for the prisons (usually supported by the government), for Palestine and Israel. Add to that a bit of Arab nationalism, and you have a terrorist with an anti-American agenda.

From now on, the logic goes that if you remove the US-influence, things will turn out the way you want them to. So you start a campaign to remove that factor.

With AQ, this has now morphed into a global war against the US, aimed at getting Americans to leave the Middle-East alone, no more, no less. In order to achieve this goal, human casualties are "collateral damage". It is the shock-value that counts. Had AQ wanted to kill many people, they could've flown the planes into a football stadium. Instead they went for the symbolism of bringing down the towers.
But at all times, it is a political goal that they try to achieve.

And that is why I believe it is simplistic to say that they are subhuman, that they are only after killing people, or even that it is impossible for AQ and the US to negotiate and coexist.

Poverty is the root of terrorism. You give the people warmth, a place to live and a full stomach, then they are willing to negotiate anything.

Poverty is the root of terrorism. You give the people warmth, a place to live and a full stomach, then they are willing to negotiate anything.Bin Laden had plenty of money. Terrorism is a perverted form of Idealism. These people fight against what they see as an oppressive enemy, and since that enemy is superior technologically, they consider that justification for fighting dirty.
People tend to get hooked on some "Ideal" during their young adulthood or youth. It's almost always been someone from the upper class that led the masses in revolt, Lenin, Castro, Ché, Pol Pot...
As for their rights, terrorists give up their right to be part of society, but no more, and no less. Torturing a terrorist is terror, no matter who's doing it. It's okay to protect society from such monsters but it isn't okay to become a monster to protect society.

Bin Laden had plenty of money. Terrorism is a perverted form of Idealism. These people fight against what they see as an oppressive enemy, and since that enemy is superior technologically, they consider that justification for fighting dirty.
People tend to get hooked on some "Ideal" during their young adulthood or youth. It's almost always been someone from the upper class that led the masses in revolt, Lenin, Castro, Ché, Pol Pot...
As for their rights, terrorists give up their right to be part of society, but no more, and no less. Torturing a terrorist is terror, no matter who's doing it. It's okay to protect society from such monsters but it isn't okay to become a monster to protect society.

But his followers don't. But you're right. Money doesn't solve terrorism. It also requires filling of the inner self, which proper religion and not fanaticism can do.

I absolutely agree with your last statement. However, it sometimes takes a monster to stop a monster. Where the line is drawn between "goodie monster" and "baddie monster", is, of course, up to the people in power.

Poverty is the root of terrorism. You give the people warmth, a place to live and a full stomach, then they are willing to negotiate anything.

No ignorance and bigotry are the two sources of terrorism. Poverty is a contributor.

I think different types of terrorism is caused in different ways. Unfortunately, it seems that religion (and not just islam) seems to make the problem worse.

Poverty is not the only cause. Look at Northern Ireland. Although that's recently calmed down, it's never been in poverty on the same level as many other countries which apprently harbour terrorists.

However, in the middle east where most terrorists apprently come from, there is a strong religious presence (as there is in N.I.) as well as large areas of poverty where people cannot go to school. However, I hope that good governance in Iraq and Afghanistan can change that.

Therefore, I think that terrorism usually (but not always) happens when religion gets mixed in politics, when they should be apart. I agree with carops that ignorace and bigorty are causes, and that poverty is a contributor.

However, I hope that good governance in Iraq and Afghanistan can change that.

We're screwed

Therefore, I think that terrorism usually (but not always) happens when religion gets mixed in politics, when they should be apart.


It's because my religion and politics are mixed that I have no already/will never become a guerilla or terrorist or whatever. Otherwise, I'd say force is nessicary in fighting imperialism. I still think it is, I just won't do it, it is not Christain. "Love thy enemy" and all, Jesus'll set everyone straight after we die, I suppose.

I have alot of anger, anf it's only through my politics being so closly tied to my religion that I am a peaceful man.

So God ain't as bad as all that.

Terrorist are fighters of the opposing army, they dont have planes or tanks, therefore fear and terror are their main weapons. Whilst inhumanity is certainly present within many, we either call both western soldiers and terrorists inhuman, or neither inhuman, your choice.

Terrorist are fighters of the opposing army, they dont have planes or tanks, therefore fear and terror are their main weapons. Whilst inhumanity is certainly present within many, we either call both western soldiers and terrorists inhuman, or neither inhuman, your choice.

The difference is the way in which the terrorists go about their fighting. A terrorists main aim is to inspire fear in a civilian population in order to bring about a change by any means, even if this includes killing non-combatants. A soldier does not use any means (at least should not) to obtain their objective. They dont aim to attack civilians. They aim to bring down only those who are attacking them directly

Most terrorists have simply been brainwashed by fundamentalist leaders. Targeting terrorists themselves is pointless, as there will always a fresh stream. The problems are the religious leaders of these groups, people like Bin Laden and this guy:
Just as something to chew over as well, here is a biography of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, probably the most dangerous terrorist leader on the planet.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_zawahiri.htm

Every time a terrorist blows himself up he gains nothing. However, these leaders have told him he will go to heaven, usually by warping the Koran and interpreting it how they see fit. Guess who actually gains something out of the attack? That's right, the religious leaders. They use their power to get other people to do the dirty work. They need to be dealt with, as a source. Terrorists themselves deserve the exact same rights as other criminals in this country, as do the people who create terrorists (although they should be dealt with more ruthlessly when it comes to capturing).

Once you take away one person's rights, the government can make exceptions for anyone it wants. To say you are in support of due process, but then say "except for these people" is hyppocricy.

The difference is the way in which the terrorists go about their fighting. A terrorists main aim is to inspire fear in a civilian population in order to bring about a change by any means, even if this includes killing non-combatants. A soldier does not use any means (at least should not) to obtain their objective. They dont aim to attack civilians. They aim to bring down only those who are attacking them directly

terrorist target people and destroy infrastructure
soldiers target infrastructure and destroy people

whilst the aims may be deviant, the results are usually the same. If am not mistakened, the US military alone killed around 12000 Iraqi civilians at the least (4x 9/11). One would always say "but terrorists dont represent a country" ... well I beg you look at the approval figures of the war/s ... these soldiers dont represent countries either, but rather a minority, just like the terrorists. Yet each are content on killing off the peaceful majority.

You think soldiers don't target civilians, or use terror to achieve their goals? ha!

WWII - bombers intentially attacked civilians to break enemy moral.
Occupation of the Phillipeans - widespread torture of civilians by US marines
Viet Nam - same as WWII, but also events such as the Mai Li Massacure, CIA assassinations, and arbitrary destruction of villages. Every peasent became a target. Not to mention that the South Vietnamese gov created by the US was a murderous dictatorship that ruthlessly oppressed the people. Why do you think so many joined the Viet Cong?
Russian Troops durrung WWII raped and killed scores of civillians durrung WWII.
German soldiers killed Gypsys, Jews, Blacks, the handicaped, any "undesirables"
Bosnian troops commit genocide in the Balkands

And hundreds of others.


Come on now people

all people are still people, in my opinion. Jesus loves and will forgive anyone, and who am I to hate he who God loves?


Jesus forgives those who repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness, otherwise they get sent to someplace not so nice( and I don't mean Gitmo :eek: )

You think soldiers don't target civilians, or use terror to achieve their goals? ha!

WWII - bombers intentially attacked civilians to break enemy moral.
Occupation of the Phillipeans - widespread torture of civilians by US marines
Viet Nam - same as WWII, but also events such as the Mai Li Massacure, CIA assassinations, and arbitrary destruction of villages. Every peasent became a target. Not to mention that the South Vietnamese gov created by the US was a murderous dictatorship that ruthlessly oppressed the people. Why do you think so many joined the Viet Cong?
Russian Troops durrung WWII raped and killed scores of civillians durrung WWII.
German soldiers killed Gypsys, Jews, Blacks, the handicaped, any "undesirables"
Bosnian troops commit genocide in the Balkands

And hundreds of others.


Come on now people

But these things are the only purpose of terrorism. Armies are supposed to be above this although they may not always be. You also fail to point out that most of the events you have described are considered war crimes but when it comes to terrorism they have no qualms

The last two were the only ones called "war crimes" and tried. The rest no one gave a shit.

And the porpose of terrorism isn't to kill, it's to disrupt the enemy, to make the people lose faith in the government who is supposed to protect them, and there is always a final political goal.

I'm always careful. He's referring to human rights. If someone is a known terrorist, they should be treated as less than human, and thus their rights aren't human rights, so they have no human rights.

And presumably, you get to make the call as to who is "less than human". That is exactly what I said - it's purely arbitrary. And that defeats the purpose of anyone having rights at all. You can't be selective. Either everyone has these freedoms, or nobody has because they can be taken away at will.

Also, it depends on what you are referring to as state terrorism... if you're going to try to pin bogus acts of terrorism on places like the U.S. and the U.K., I really don't want to hear it, because I've heard it all before. If you're talking about things like how Saddam used to pay large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, then yes, I'm including stuff like that.

That is a clear, hypocritical contradiction right there. Overthrowing a democratically elected government in Chile and installing a dictator, Pinochet, who then killed and imprisoned thousands of innocent Chileans, is that not state terrorism? Same thing happened in Panama. Hell, the USA even propped up Saddam Hussein, and gave him chemical weapons, before suddenly deciding he was evil.

Not if done properly. If you pull a toenail off and they still claim not to know anything, it's a pretty good indicator that they really don't know anything. But my point was that Leon was implying that torture is always pointless and never helpful, which is a stupid statement to make. Besides, most people that get tortured are people that most likely do know something.

Just when I thought I'd lost all the hope I had for the human race, it turns out there's even more to lose. In my opinion, that is disgusting. Torture doesn't need to be "done properly", it needs to not be done at all. And I wonder how such a casual attitude towards torture can really allow anything you have to say about rights taken seriously.

To me, the only real difference between a "soldier" and a "terrorist" is that a soldier kills for a government.

Soldiers do not intentionally target civilians, terrorists do.

Of course they deserve rights! Although I disagree with terrorism because of its nature and because I dont personally agree with its aims, why is it any better that our armies go and kill terrorists because of their beliefs when that is precisely what they are doing to us? Its legitimised hypocrisy, two wrongs don't make a right.

all people are still people, in my opinion. Jesus loves and will forgive anyone, and who am I to hate he who God loves?

If I am not mistaken, Jesus will only forgive those who ask for forgiveness. As most of the present day terrorists do not believe in Jesus I doubt they will ask Him for forgiveness.

Of course they deserve rights! Although I disagree with terrorism because of its nature and because I dont personally agree with its aims, why is it any better that our armies go and kill terrorists because of their beliefs when that is precisely what they are doing to us? Its legitimised hypocrisy, two wrongs don't make a right.

Although i dont think we should attack the terrorists as much as attack the causes of terrorism, I do feel that there is a difference when we attack the terrorists after they have attacked us first.

Although i dont think we should attack the terrorists as much as attack the causes of terrorism, I do feel that there is a difference when we attack the terrorists after they have attacked us first.

Perhaps, but if someone kills another it doesnt make it any better to kill them for it. Anyway, most of the major terrorist strikes have been suicide attacks, therefore you are condemning by association, not guilt.

Soldiers do not intentionally target civilians, terrorists do.
That's not true. In many cases soldiers have, do, and will target civilians. There's been several cases mentioned on this page already. Generally it is accepted that soldiers only target civilians when it is strategically expedient- i.e. blowing up factories, run, owned, and operated by civilians, is generally considered acceptable if it is a strategically important target.

Terrorists generally do the same- the perceive the death of civilians as a strategic act to acheive a particular aim. This is not ALWAYS true, but is generally so.

Perhaps, but if someone kills another it doesnt make it any better to kill them for it. Anyway, most of the major terrorist strikes have been suicide attacks, therefore you are condemning by association, not guilt.

It doesnt make it any better I agree but I can see why some would consider it an acceptable path of action in such a case. I am condemning by association but for someone to join a terrorist group they must have thought about the actions they would perform for the group. They have a whole number of chances to renounce their allegiance to such a group but if they choose not to then they have only themselves to blame

It doesnt make it any better I agree but I can see why some would consider it an acceptable path of action in such a case. I am condemning by association but for someone to join a terrorist group they must have thought about the actions they would perform for the group. They have a whole number of chances to renounce their allegiance to such a group but if they choose not to then they have only themselves to blame

What about the army? They join a group knowing they may have to kill for their beliefs - In fact the beliefs of the government, not even themselves necessarily. Terrorists may be prepared to kill but they are not really much different to what we use to stop them. Two sides of the coin, each with different methods and beliefs.

What about the army? They join a group knowing they may have to kill for their beliefs - In fact the beliefs of the government, not even themselves necessarily. Terrorists may be prepared to kill but they are not really much different to what we use to stop them. Two sides of the coin, each with different methods and beliefs.

But the terrorists in this case did not attack soldiers. They attacked civilians. If a soldier is killed at the very least he/she knew what they were getting themselves into

But the terrorists in this case did not attack soldiers. They attacked civilians. If a soldier is killed at the very least he/she knew what they were getting themselves into

Are you implying that civilians are not killed in the middle east? I'm sure a lot of civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its far from over yet.

The last two were the only ones called "war crimes" and tried. The rest no one gave a shit.

And the porpose of terrorism isn't to kill, it's to disrupt the enemy, to make the people lose faith in the government who is supposed to protect them, and there is always a final political goal.

Nobody gave a shit because it was the way it will always be: The winner tries the loser for the crimes the loser commited during war.

Think about it: If the Germans/Japanese had won the war (theoretically) wouldn't they have accused Britain, Canada, and the U.S.o.A. of war crimes for deliberately attacking population centers? THe fact is, nearly always the losers are tried for war crimes they commited while the winners' war crimes are judged as something neccesary to defeat the enemey.

On the "purpose of terrorism" part you were right. The thing that I see coming from the terrorist attack so recently in Britain is that there will be more limits to political freedoms and civil rights as a result, like in the U.S.o.A.

At the risk of sounding biased, it is a FACT that the "town hall" style mettings that Bush has, to have input from everyone, don't have input from everyone. In several instances, opponents of the President have been screened from the meetings (the Denver three for example) and this is in (i belive) violation of the first amendment of the constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not really on topic, but still a good idea, I guess

Hamas is the Palestinians’ largest and most influential Muslim fundamentalist movement. It has an extensive social service network, as well as a terrorist wing that has carried out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Terrorists have attacked again, and this time at the center of our world, New York City and Washington DC. It is a deplorable and horrendous act that can never be condoned by any God fearing people. Like many other attacks in the past, the terrorists are linked to groups that abuse the name and laws falsely attributed to Islam to commit crimes that are abhorred and strongly condemned by God in the Quran.

Are you implying that civilians are not killed in the middle east? I'm sure a lot of civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its far from over yet.

But do you think the soldiers that commited these actions were given the order to do so? The terrorists on the other hand planned their attacks on civilians well in advance

But do you think the soldiers that commited these actions were given the order to do so? The terrorists on the other hand planned their attacks on civilians well in advance

Alright fair enough, but to get to the issue, you think this means they should have no rights? Harold Shipman had rights!

Alright fair enough, but to get to the issue, you think this means they should have no rights? Harold Shipman had rights!

yes but he was british

Alright fair enough, but to get to the issue, you think this means they should have no rights? Harold Shipman had rights!

I never said they should have no rights. I believe they should be given the same rights as anyone else but they should also live up to their actions and be punished accordingly just as anyone else would be

yes but he was british

Whats that got to do with anything? Make sure you know you are treading a fine line when you answer, you already have made me think you are a racist.

I never said they should have no rights. I believe they should be given the same rights as anyone else but they should also live up to their actions and be punished accordingly just as anyone else would be


I Agree with this person ^ ^ ..just so you know whare i stand

I never said they should have no rights. I believe they should be given the same rights as anyone else but they should also live up to their actions and be punished accordingly just as anyone else would be

I never said they shouldnt be, I believe they should be punished, but the debate is on whether they should have rights.

America and the uk need to get rid of all their muslim military personnel they can not be trusted. Before the war on Afghanistan the clerics issued a Fatwa permitting Muslim soldiers to take part in the fighting if there was no alternative, and the council delivered the ruling to Capt. Muhammad. But on October 30, the editor of the Arabic London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the clerics who signed this Fatwa had changed their minds and abrogated their previous Fatwa with a new one prohibiting participation of Muslim soldiers in the war in Afghanistan.

Holy crap. This thread name disgusts me.

A very common (but immoral) saying: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This saying is so fulled with bull. Freedom fighters attack government offices, police stations, military bases, supply debots, and supply lines. A terrorist, on the other hand, kills innocent people. As an example, when the Jews were fighting the British and Arabs for the freedom of Israel, there were three organizations: Haganah, Irgun, Stern Gang. The Haganah and Irgun were freedom fighters, while the Stern Gang were terrorists. The Haganah was more defensive for the most part, until 1948 when the British pulled out early. The Irgun were more offensive, attacking militants. The Stern Gang was hated by both the Irgun and Haganah, as they would attack non-militants. Many Stern Gang members were put on trial and jailed after Israel won its Independence.

No, terrorists are not human. They are animals, filled with nothing but hate for anyone not like themselves. Anyone who thinks of them as a human is just as bad as the terrorist, a person who would kill you on sight.

Whats that got to do with anything? Make sure you know you are treading a fine line when you answer, you already have made me think you are a racist.

I only said it because i had nothing else to say and it fits what everyone thinks of me. And anyway im not predjudice in anyway...i hate everybody equally

I never said they shouldnt be, I believe they should be punished, but the debate is on whether they should have rights.

Yeah sorry about that but I got sidetracked somewhere in the last few pages.

In WWII, Viet Nam, Korea, we did indeed bomb massive areas, with no regard for civilian caualties. We even went on a campaign of destruction of damns to cause flooding to cause famine amongst the peasents so the Viet Cong would have less of a base to draw support from.

It is true that we bombed areas, which were legitimate military targets. Unfortunately, the weapons we had at those times were not as accurate as the weapons we have today. Unfortunately, that led to many civilian deaths. The alternative would have been to not bomb the military target which is ludicrous.

As far as the dams in Vietnam are concerned, they were legitimate targets. The idea was to destroy the rice fields that were used to feed the enemy troops. Yes, I know civilians have to eat also, but the food supply for the enemy army is a legitimate target.

America and the uk need to get rid of all their muslim military personnel they can not be trusted. Before the war on Afghanistan the clerics issued a Fatwa permitting Muslim soldiers to take part in the fighting if there was no alternative, and the council delivered the ruling to Capt. Muhammad. But on October 30, the editor of the Arabic London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the clerics who signed this Fatwa had changed their minds and abrogated their previous Fatwa with a new one prohibiting participation of Muslim soldiers in the war in Afghanistan.

Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you? Not all muslims are terrorists. We dont need racist implications like that around here.

But do you think the soldiers that committed these actions were given the order to do so? The terrorists on the other hand planned their attacks on civilians well in advanceI clearly remember Aussie bomber pilots refusing allied orders cos they were sure to have civilian collateral casualties...

I don't have a source...But I remember clearly...

This happens often...
when its foot soldiers who refuses it...they change him to a more dangerous job...or they send him to an office job.

A pilot is only subject to an «office Job.

Its not the first time pilots go public about refusing not-military bombings.


either way he is not likely to go public while his life is still in the Army's hands.

Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you? Not all muslims are terrorists. We dont need racist implications like that around here.

Its not racist to call a dog a dog and its not racist to call a muslim a terrorists.

I clearly remember Aussi bomber pilots refusing allied orders cos they were sure to have civilian collateral casualties...

I dont have a source...But I remember clearly...

thei happens often ..but this time the Aussi pilots went public about it.

when its foot soldiers who refuses it...they change him to a more dangerous job...or they send him to an office job.

either way he is not likely to go public while his life is still in the Army's hands.

I dont know enough about this to add anything but thanks for the info. I'll have to look it up

Well being now that London has now suffered at the hands of these deluded CRAZY individuals (not saying they arent intelligent but hey so was Hitler) this ugly act against humanity is rearing its ugly head again. I cant help but want these animals brought to justice and executed. These acts cannot be condoned nor the individuals mollycoddled. We dont have to be barbaric about but justice must be extracted especially for those slaughtered by these fanatics. And yes I am a bloodlusting American. We are still pretty bitter about 911 ourselves. At least we executed the creep who blew up Okalahoma city. I think it is a normal human reaction to devalue these creeps.

Its not racist to call a dog a dog and its not racist to call a muslim a terrorists.

Wow i'm glad it wont be long till you get kicked off

Bs- 77

Its not racist to call a dog a dog and its not racist to call a muslim a terrorists.

Well I'll have you know I've reported that post, the first time I ever reported a post. Its scum like you that are the problem.

Its not racist to call a dog a dog and its not racist to call a muslim a terrorists.

yes but not ALL muslims are Terrorist....

Well I'll have you know I've reported that post, the first time I ever reported a post. Its scum like you that are the problem.

i bet he's shaking in his little cotton socks

Al-Qaeda's leadership oversees a loosely organized network of cells. It can recruit members from thousands of "Arab Afghan" veterans and radicals around the world. Its infrastructure is small, mobile, and decentralized—each cell operates independently with its members not knowing the identity of other cells. Local operatives rarely know anyone higher up in the organization's hierarchy.

Al-Qaeda's leadership oversees a loosely organized network of cells. It can recruit members from thousands of "Arab Afghan" veterans and radicals around the world. Its infrastructure is small, mobile, and decentralized—each cell operates independently with its members not knowing the identity of other cells. Local operatives rarely know anyone higher up in the organization's hierarchy.

What is your point here?

i bet he's shaking in his little cotton socks

I'm sure he is, thank you for your input.

I'm sure he is, thank you for your input.

pleasure :D

I'm sure he is, thank you for your input.

Have you guys heard of free speech? Just as long as its what you want to hear right! yes as long as I agree with you I'm alright!

Perhaps, but if someone kills another it doesnt make it any better to kill them for it. Anyway, most of the major terrorist strikes have been suicide attacks, therefore you are condemning by association, not guilt.

Madrid and London were not suicide attacks. Cell phones were used to trigger the bombs in Madrid and timers triggered the bombs in London.

Have you guys heard of free speech? Just as long as its what you want to hear right! yes as long as I agree with you I'm alright!

I fully agree with free speech, but you can't just slander every muslim by saying they are terrorists! Its not true, and its not necessary.

Have you guys heard of free speech? Just as long as its what you want to hear right! yes as long as I agree with you I'm alright!

Are you refering to me?....my post merely implied that someone of any real caliber wouldnt care if they were reported or not

That's not true. In many cases soldiers have, do, and will target civilians.

They are the exception not the rule. With terrorists targeting civilians and non-military targets is the rule rather than the exception.

Madrid and London were not suicide attacks. Cell phones were used to trigger the bombs in Madrid and timers triggered the bombs in London.

Mobile phoneS?..was it realy?...i wonder how they did that...do you know?....do tell

It is true that we bombed areas, which were legitimate military targets. Unfortunately, the weapons we had at those times were not as accurate as the weapons we have today. Unfortunately, that led to many civilian deaths. The alternative would have been to not bomb the military target which is ludicrous.

As far as the dams in Vietnam are concerned, they were legitimate targets. The idea was to destroy the rice fields that were used to feed the enemy troops. Yes, I know civilians have to eat also, but the food supply for the enemy army is a legitimate target.

So basically this boils down to the statement that civilian targets are legitimate if they are strategically expedient. I don't see how this doesn't permit terrorists to use the same maxim.

You're saying that it is ok for some civilians to die in order to reach a political end. This is no different from what the terrorists believe: they are in a war for the 'hearts and minds' of the West: their political objective is fear, leading to non-involvement of the West in the middle-east. I disagree with terrorist tactics in general, and the objectives of these terrorists specifically, but I don't think you can really say that there is a strong moral difference between terrorist actions and actions taken by conventional armies, especially given the (apparent) acceptance of the west for 'counter-insurgency' tactics, which are generally EXACTLY the same as those undertaken by Arab terrorists.

We can look at Cuba for example: the US supported and occasionally outright planned attacks on civilian targets in order to overthrow Castro in the build up to the Missle Crisis. These were clearly 'terrorist' acts by our understanding (including random shootings, bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure, etc). However, they were accepted because they were considered strategically necessary. We can easily see more examples in the case of the Contra in SA.

So basically, there is no firm difference in tactics here; the political objectives are different, but that's about it.

I fully agree with free speech, but you can't just slander every muslim by saying they are terrorists! Its not true, and its not necessary.
People judge people based on the group they are in. It's the way of the world unfortunately. Muslims will be disliked for 9/11 regardless of weather or not they support it. Just like Americans are seen around the world as war mongers even though alot of americans were against the war. Only thing we can do is not judge people on the group they come from and try to get others to do the same. Odd's are the rest of the world will keep judging people though.

They are the exception not the rule. With terrorists targeting civilians and non-military targets is the rule rather than the exception.
I don't think this is true: look at Iraq. By far the most attacks are aimed at US soldiers and Iraqi security forces. The US Cole bombing is another high profile example. Historically, and practically, I think that terrorists attack targets either overtly military (i.e. troops) or 'legitimate targets' by most standards (recruiting stations, for example). Most attacks on the west seem to target civilians, but in the World as a whole, it is still generally true that 'terrorists' target military and particularly government figures or installations.

People judge people based on the group they are in. It's the way of the world unfortunately. Muslims will be disliked for 9/11 regardless of weather or not they support it. Just like Americans are seen around the world as war mongers even though alot of americans were against the war. Only thing we can do is not judge people on the group they come from and try to get others to do the same. Odd's are the rest of the world will keep judging people though.

But you did it yourself just a few posts ago

Soldiers do not intentionally target civilians, terrorists do.

that's not true at all, and I gave many examples to the contrary.


If I am not mistaken, Jesus will only forgive those who ask for forgiveness. As most of the present day terrorists do not believe in Jesus I doubt they will ask Him for forgiveness.

Not the way I see it. Jesus loves EVERYONE, and as I said, who am I to hate whom he loves? Besides, you don't know how God judges. Maby he only judges motives, not the act, mabt he judges on a scale we humans can't really wrap our minds around.

I never said they should have no rights. I believe they should be given the same rights as anyone else but they should also live up to their actions and be punished accordingly just as anyone else would be

here, we agree entirly




And I do not agree that the damns to cause famine were legitamate targets. Besides, the intention was to starve the civilian peasents, so the Viet Cong would have less of a base to draw from.

The attack in the Pentagon was a miltiary target, yet is called a terrorist attack. Bombing of villages in Viet Nam were civilian tagets, yet are called military attacks.

I must admit I have southern Irish in me my grand-father was irish point taken! thank you.

People judge people based on the group they are in. It's the way of the world unfortunately. Muslims will be disliked for 9/11 regardless of weather or not they support it. Just like Americans are seen around the world as war mongers even though alot of americans were against the war. Only thing we can do is not judge people on the group they come from and try to get others to do the same. Odd's are the rest of the world will keep judging people though.

So what are you exactly trying to say? Because there is the unfortuneate fact that the world will see muslims this way, it is OK to see them this way when it is blatantly untrue? If you are not too ignorant too see the nature of peoples prejudice, why are you so ignorant as to join them?

And that is the constant suggestion that "Terrorists" (which I'll define in here as your traditional AQ type person - someone who a member of a stateless political organisation that uses violence in order to achieve some political gain) aren't human beings.
"Terrorists can't be negotiated with", "They do these things because they hate us" and so on.

I must point out that it is not accurate to link those statements to the belief that terrorists forfeit their Human rights. Their motives are irrelevant, what matters is that they kill innocent people with no warning. End of rights. The reason they can't be negotiated with is not that they can't be appeased or anything, it's because listening to them would tell anyone and everyone with a grievance that blowing people up gets you what you want.

So I just thought, maybe it should be legitimately discussed.
Are terrorists subhuman killers, who kill out of sheer barbarism/fundamentalism or are terrorists human beings, that act according to a certain rationale?
If Terrorists are humans, are they covered by Human Rights as well? What are the rights of a Terrorist?
What are the motives of a Terrorist? Do these motives justify "killing all the terrorists we can find"?

You're missing the point. Whether they act according to a rationale or not is not the point, and whether they are 'Human' or not does not dictate their rights. All Humans should have rights which are protected, but when they violate the rights of others - especially on a scale such as these terrorists favor - then their own rights are forefiet. Now yes, in general it's far more preferable to ascertain guilt BEFORE we go removing rights, but this is a war and we can't compromise our intelligence network and we can't betray the informants.

I don't think this is true: look at Iraq. By far the most attacks are aimed at US soldiers .

No attacks at British forces then?

I don't think this is true: look at Iraq. By far the most attacks are aimed at US soldiers and Iraqi security forces. The US Cole bombing is another high profile example. Historically, and practically, I think that terrorists attack targets either overtly military (i.e. troops) or 'legitimate targets' by most standards (recruiting stations, for example). Most attacks on the west seem to target civilians, but in the World as a whole, it is still generally true that 'terrorists' target military and particularly government figures or installations.

They are fighting a foreign army. What difference would it make for them to scare their own populations who have no say in how the enemy act

I must admit I have southern Irish in me my grand-father was irish point taken! thank you.

Well I'm glad you took the point, I'd be worried that I missed it otherwise!

No attacks at British forces then?

No thats what the American troops are busy doing :D

Only joking

No thats what the American troops are busy doing :D

Only joking


:p Sharp sir. very sharp

I clearly remember Aussie bomber pilots refusing allied orders cos they were sure to have civilian collateral casualties...

I don't have a source...But I remember clearly...

This happens often...
when its foot soldiers who refuses it...they change him to a more dangerous job...or they send him to an office job.

A pilot is only subject to an «office Job.

Its not the first time pilots go public about refusing not-military bombings.


either way he is not likely to go public while his life is still in the Army's hands.

If you remember it so clearly and it has happened often, surly you can find a source.

What the hell happened to the human race?

So what are you exactly trying to say? Because there is the unfortuneate fact that the world will see muslims this way, it is OK to see them this way when it is blatantly untrue? If you are not too ignorant too see the nature of peoples prejudice, why are you so ignorant as to join them?

Every one is a terrorist. EVERY ONE! We all terrorize, are bigoted, hate, limit and assign limits. We associate with those that think/act as we do. We bully those that are weaker and hate those that bully us. We have our religion and can't figure out those that don't believe as we do. Terrorism is just a buzz-word that is popular right now. The real word is xenophobia. What we don't know frightens us. Even scientists on the brink of discovery suffer from a form of it...not knowing if they will find the key to a cure or loose a new scourge on the planet. Forget long winded diatribes against those that voice their 'hatreds', rather, have the courage to voice your own and find out something about yourself.
Its a dog eat dog world!

Its not racist to call a dog a dog and its not racist to call a muslim a terrorists.

Are you saying, "All Muslims are terrorists?" If so, that is racist.

What the hell happened to the human race?

Some people lost...and turned into people like Gaba Lutz

Every one is a terrorist. EVERY ONE! We all terrorize, are bigoted, hate, limit and assign limits. We associate with those that think/act as we do. We bully those that are weaker and hate those that bully us. We have our religion and can't figure out those that don't believe as we do. Terrorism is just a buzz-word that is popular right now. The real word is xenophobia. What we don't know frightens us. Even scientists on the brink of discovery suffer from a form of it...not knowing if they will find the key to a cure or loose a new scourge on the planet. Forget long winded diatribes against those that voice their 'hatreds', rather, have the courage to voice your own and find out something about yourself.
Its a dog eat dog world!

Then go and find a bigger dog than yourself...

Now that terriorism has reared its barbaric ugly head again its bringing about all sorts of problems. Racism is occuring, which is one thing they want, economies are being disrupted , another big thing they want, and most of all they want everyone to turn on each other. Terrorist are barely human at the most basic level and they should have a bare minimum of rights just the right to exist in jail basically. We dont have to be barbaric about it. They should never see their familes ever again once they commit acts of violence. Its only human to get this angry and feel hatred toward these cowardly fanatics. 911, Spain and now the London bombings have all hurt the world terribly and the animals who did it are still out there. Islam does not teach to go out and cowardly murder anyone and everyone who differs from you, or does not share your views from what little i know it is about peaceful coexistence and their God is the same as our God. Right now im going to sit back and wait for Hurricane Dennis to come and hopefully survive this terroristic act of nature.

Every one is a terrorist. EVERY ONE! We all terrorize, are bigoted, hate, limit and assign limits. We associate with those that think/act as we do. We bully those that are weaker and hate those that bully us. We have our religion and can't figure out those that don't believe as we do. Terrorism is just a buzz-word that is popular right now. The real word is xenophobia. What we don't know frightens us. Even scientists on the brink of discovery suffer from a form of it...not knowing if they will find the key to a cure or loose a new scourge on the planet. Forget long winded diatribes against those that voice their 'hatreds', rather, have the courage to voice your own and find out something about yourself.
Its a dog eat dog world!

Many people may bully others but most of the time they do not kill or cause large scale destruction to do so. If you voice your own hatreds then what about children around you. They will latch on to these and integrate them into themselves.

Mobile phoneS?..was it realy?...i wonder how they did that...do you know?....do tell

I do recall that was reported in the news. I could be wrong and I'm to lazy to Google it right now.

Are you saying, "All Muslims are terrorists?" If so, that is racist.
You're missing the point I am trying to make. Whether I believe that or not, but that is what has become associated with muslims whether I agree or not!

...Its buisness as usual in london...we tend to get on with thing.....its a throwback from the blitz see

"Number 22 went last night mother. best put kettle on" etc

I do recall that was reported in the news. I could be wrong and I'm to lazy to Google it right now.

Fair enough..im just facinated to know how it is exaclty they did it...

Fair enough..im just facinated to know how it is exaclty they did it...

I think there was a thread about it yesterday or the day before. I'll have a quick look and see if i can find it

I think there was a thread about it yesterday or the day before. I'll have a quick look and see if i can find it

ah thankue, awfully good of you

But you did it yourself just a few posts ago

:D Good catch Chu.

"The two less suicidal methods would be either using a mobile phone, simply hooking the wires from the vibrator of a mobile phone into a simple amplifier circuit, and then to the detonators. The disadvantage of this system would be that if a complete stranger dialled the wrong number at the wrong moment, the effects could be catastrophic. The advantage is that the device can be detonated at any time, from anywhere in the world."

Wierd the BBC website is telling how to make an atom bomb

I'm much to drunk to continue here, but before I go, I'd like to ooint out that I am glad to see that, no matter the saide you are on, most of the people here have earned my respect as, like, good, repsected, people, and I hope I ahve don the same.

I respenct most of you as intelligent folk! Even if I don't agree with you. That's whay I was trying to say.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

UN is not only irrelevant but on the verge of becoming terminal
I no longer care if Arabs and Muslims get offended,some comments
are meant to be taken personally to show the un-acceptible action.

Fair enough..im just facinated to know how it is exaclty they did it...

I think they hooked the detonating device up to the ringer. Then when they dial the cell phone number the bomb explodes.

Or perhaps ignorant things like, torture never has a point - it's not like you can get information out of it that can save the lives of your own soldiers, or anything.
Actually torture doesn't work. The suspect only tells you things that you want to hear, true or not.

None once they have participated in the killing or enslavement of innocents in the name of terrorism. They have become officially criminal and thus have no rights as normal people.
I agree that they forfeit the right to liberty and some others, and anyone they are attacking has a right to kill them, but I would be against sentencing them to death once they are caught.

I'm much to drunk to continue here, but before I go, I'd like to ooint out that I am glad to see that, no matter the saide you are on, most of the people here have earned my respect as, like, good, repsected, people, and I hope I ahve don the same.

I respenct most of you as intelligent folk! Even if I don't agree with you. That's whay I was trying to say.

Have a drink on me. I'll pay you back in compliments at some point

I think they hooked the detonating device up to the ringer. Then when they dial the cell phone number the bomb explodes.

Quite deviouse....filthy terrorists fighting their dirty underhanded war

UN is not only irrelevant but on the verge of becoming terminal
I no longer care if Arabs and Muslims get offended,some comments
are meant to be taken personally to show the un-acceptible action.

$ 5.00 says he will not make it to 100 posts. Any takers?

$ 5.00 says he will not make it to 100 posts. Any takers?

I like my money too much to fall for that

Want to know why Terrorists aren't humans? They find enjoyment out of killing. I relate this to Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Damer, etc, merely heartless murderers. They grin like little girls when their goals get accomplished, and those goals often include the deaths of as many civilians as they can get their hands on. And whoever said that the only difference between "Soldiers" and "Terrorists" is that soldiers kill for a government (I don't feel like finding it and quoting it), you sort of missed the fact that soldiers try to avoid citizen deaths; terrorists strive for it.

Another thing about terrorism that people don't pay attention to: appeasement. Sorry guys, but it doesn't work. Look at 9/11: terrorists sought their goals to be fulfilled, they didn't get it (got a war instead), so they kept coming. Now, look at Madrid: terrorists sought their goals, Spain pussied out, terrorists moved on to create more violence since something happened. Appeasement only creates more violence. So London got the brunt of that attack. I feel horrible for those that were affected by it, but this attack only proves one thing. The terrorists won't give up either until they get what they want (Muslim controlled world) or until we ignore them enought that they realize that it's just not working. Maybe then they'll finally come out and fight us like men.

Want to know why Terrorists aren't humans? They find enjoyment out of killing. I relate this to Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Damer, etc, merely heartless murderers. They grin like little girls when their goals get accomplished, and those goals often include the deaths of as many civilians as they can get their hands on. And whoever said that the only difference between "Soldiers" and "Terrorists" is that soldiers kill for a government (I don't feel like finding it and quoting it), you sort of missed the fact that soldiers try to avoid citizen deaths; terrorists strive for it.

Another thing about terrorism that people don't pay attention to: appeasement. Sorry guys, but it doesn't work. Look at 9/11: terrorists sought their goals to be fulfilled, they didn't get it (got a war instead), so they kept coming. Now, look at Madrid: terrorists sought their goals, Spain pussied out, terrorists moved on to create more violence since something happened. Appeasement only creates more violence. So London got the brunt of that attack. I feel horrible for those that were affected by it, but this attack only proves one thing. The terrorists won't give up either until they get what they want (Muslim controlled world) or until we ignore them enought that they realize that it's just not working. Maybe then they'll finally come out and fight us like men.

I have to disagree with you on this. Terrorists do not necessarily get enjoyment out of killing people but they do see it as an acceptable action to get what they want.

$ 5.00 says he will not make it to 100 posts. Any takers?
I'll take those odds seeing as I am a moderator and will not delete myself!

Actually torture doesn't work. The suspect only tells you things that you want to hear, true or not.

Torture doesn't work, hmmm? Ever? Doesn't sounds pretty absolute to me... are you a terrorist, yourself, by chance? Besides, the trick is promising - not necessarily doing, just making sure the prisoner believes that it will happen - to torture the terrorist's ass more if it turns out the information was wrong. Look at it this way - let's say I pick you up on the street and detain you. If I start ripping off toenails until you tell me your address, promising to come back and kill you slowly and painfully if you lie, are you going to fess up? I think the fuck so. Nobody can handle torture. Everybody breaks eventually. To say that torture doesn't work period makes you sound ignorant of what torture entails.

I agree that they forfeit the right to liberty and some others, and anyone they are attacking has a right to kill them, but I would be against sentencing them to death once they are caught.

See, that sounds completely stupid to me. So you are okay with shooting them on the field when you don't even know what they have done, if anything - maybe they were just dragged into it against their will - but you are against proving that they did do some fucked up shit and killing them for it?

You know asking that is preety much asking if crazy child raping phycokillers are humans...

You know asking that is preety much asking if crazy child raping phycokillers are humans...

They are but unfortunately they're humans with psychological problems

The bodies of bloodied children carried away from a scene in the Gaza Strip filled TV screens around
the world and brought about an immediate international condemnation of Israel. Some things never change.

The 'Palestinians' never seem to change their criminal tactics...using children again in their pernicious PR.

Israel's pursuit of terrorists has been met with Arafat's thugs shoving children in the streets among them
and rigging those streets with bombs to maximize their lies.

Israel entered the southern end of Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist infrastructure and demolish
weapons-smuggling tunnels running under the Israeli-Egyptian border into Gaza.

The 'Palestinians' hatred for the innocent is despicable. Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.

It's worked in the past...so why change? And with a Jew-hating, compliant audience like Europe...it's a 'winning'
design every time.

You know asking that is preety much asking if crazy child raping phycokillers are humans...

There was a thread asking that very question a couple of days ago. Plenty of people believe they are human. =/

The bodies of bloodied children carried away from a scene in the Gaza Strip filled TV screens around
the world and brought about an immediate international condemnation of Israel. Some things never change.

The 'Palestinians' never seem to change their criminal tactics...using children again in their pernicious PR.

Israel's pursuit of terrorists has been met with Arafat's thugs shoving children in the streets among them
and rigging those streets with bombs to maximize their lies.

Israel entered the southern end of Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist infrastructure and demolish
weapons-smuggling tunnels running under the Israeli-Egyptian border into Gaza.

The 'Palestinians' hatred for the innocent is despicable. Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.

It's worked in the past...so why change? And with a Jew-hating, compliant audience like Europe...it's a 'winning'
design every time.

Where are you getting your information from?

Your last statement is a totally unnacceptable generalisation i'd like to add

Of course terrorists are human beings, and should maintain all the inalienable rights we give any other human being. The moment you start de-humanizing any group of people because you disagree with their standpoint, you've just opened the door for anyone to declare you inhuman, simply because they disagree with your standpoint.

Terrorism, by definition, is violence directed against civilian populations for political purposes, so comparisons to famous serial killers and their ilk are not exactly accurate. I love how absolutely everything is terrorism these days. Eeesh. :rolleyes:

Personally, I believe that one of the best measures of a people is how they treat their worst enemies. So obviously, in my opinion, torture is right out.

They are but unfortunately they're humans with psychological problems

I dont consider them human.. crazy bastards should be tortured till death, I have no sympathy for those that get happy when their having forced sex

Torture doesn't work, hmmm? Ever? Doesn't sounds pretty absolute to me... are you a terrorist, yourself, by chance? Besides, the trick is promising - not necessarily doing, just making sure the prisoner believes that it will happen - to torture the terrorist's ass more if it turns out the information was wrong. Look at it this way - let's say I pick you up on the street and detain you. If I start ripping off toenails until you tell me your address, promising to come back and kill you slowly and painfully if you lie, are you going to fess up? I think the fuck so. Nobody can handle torture. Everybody breaks eventually. To say that torture doesn't work period makes you sound ignorant of what torture entails.





See, that sounds completely stupid to me. So you are okay with shooting them on the field when you don't even know what they have done, if anything - maybe they were just dragged into it against their will - but you are against proving that they did do some fucked up shit and killing them for it?

So what you are saying is that you would accept the use of torture as a means of proving someone is a terrorist but you are against shooting them in the field. It seems slightly hypocritical to me

Where are you getting your information from?

Your last statement is a totally unnacceptable generalisation i'd like to add

You split hairs way too much I'm not a jew but I in some cases I feel for them, I'm not a muslim but equally in some cases I feel for them. I agreed with going into Bosnia.

You split hairs way too much I'm not a jew but I in some cases I feel for them, I'm not a muslim but equally in some cases I feel for them.

You just said that Europe is anti semitic. Where is your proof of this?

So what you are saying is that you would accept the use of torture as a means of proving someone is a terrorist but you are against shooting them in the field. It seems slightly hypocritical to me

Are you an idiot, or just really bad at coming in half-way through conversations, or both? I was explaining the stupidity of what the guy I quoted said, about how the killing without proof scenario is much more fair than the killing with proof scenario. I say kill in both scenarios - the former because it's war, the latter because they're lucky they aren't dead, anyway, and they killed us first. That is to say, if you are actually going to spend money trying them.

Also, seeing as you apparently can't read, I didn't say that torture was an option for proving someone is a terrorist. I said it's an option for gathering information and saving the lives of our troops, whose lives are much more important.

Are you an idiot, or just really bad at coming in half-way through conversations, or both? I was explaining the stupidity of what the guy I quoted said, about how the killing without proof scenario is much more fair than the killing with proof scenario. I say kill in both scenarios - the former because it's war, the latter because they're lucky they aren't dead, anyway, and they killed us first. That is to say, if you are actually going to spend money trying them.

Also, seeing as you apparently can't read, I didn't say that torture was an option for proving someone is a terrorist. I said it's an option for gathering information and saving the lives of our troops, whose lives are much more important.

I'd prefer it if you would keep the obvious personal insults out of your argument. If i have misunderstood your point i'll apologise but all I ask is for more clarity

You just said that Europe is anti semitic. Where is your proof of this?

march 2003
pro- and anti-Israeli factions got into a fistfight at the airport.

French police are having an even harder time combating a more serious series of anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish synagogues, schools, cemeteries and butcher shops.

A synagogue in Marseilles was burned to the ground, and Jewish leaders count nearly two dozen lesser attacks against other synagogues.

Jewish community leaders have been warning about the upsurge in violence for months.


Want any more proof think about germany 1940's

Are you an idiot, or just really bad at coming in half-way through conversations, or both? I was explaining the stupidity of what the guy I quoted said, about how the killing without proof scenario is much more fair than the killing with proof scenario. I say kill in both scenarios - the former because it's war, the latter because they're lucky they aren't dead, anyway, and they killed us first. That is to say, if you are actually going to spend money trying them.

Also, seeing as you apparently can't read, I didn't say that torture was an option for proving someone is a terrorist. I said it's an option for gathering information and saving the lives of our troops, whose lives are much more important.
Much more important than what? The Iraqi people they've supposedly come to liberate? What kind of freedom is that?

Getting slightly more back to the topic at hand... ;-)

I pose this question: Is/was Jeff Dahmer human?

People have rights up until the point they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have become a terrorist. Beyond that, they have chosen to relinquish said rights (much like every criminal/conspirator).

march 2003
pro- and anti-Israeli factions got into a fistfight at the airport.

French police are having an even harder time combating a more serious series of anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish synagogues, schools, cemeteries and butcher shops.

A synagogue in Marseilles was burned to the ground, and Jewish leaders count nearly two dozen lesser attacks against other synagogues.

Jewish community leaders have been warning about the upsurge in violence for months.


Want any more proof think about germany 1940's

Ok I have just a few points here:

1. There were both pro and anti israeli groups present and they may have been protesting against the israeli government policies as opposed to judaism.
2. If you want to bring in a war reference dont forget to include the multiple european countries who fought against the Nazis.
3. A small minority of anti semitics does not make a whole continent the same

march 2003
pro- and anti-Israeli factions got into a fistfight at the airport.

French police are having an even harder time combating a more serious series of anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish synagogues, schools, cemeteries and butcher shops.

A synagogue in Marseilles was burned to the ground, and Jewish leaders count nearly two dozen lesser attacks against other synagogues.

Jewish community leaders have been warning about the upsurge in violence for months.


Want any more proof think about germany 1940's
Have you got anything more recent than March 2003? Any one that calls Europe anti-semitic is overgeneralizing. There's an increase in anti-semitic violence, but it isn't the mainstream of European culture to hate people of jewish descent.

Haven't read much of the thread, just 5 or 10 posts, and the poll. Just want to chime in my 2 cents. "terrorists" are people who use "terror" against innocent civilians to further a purpose or goal, be it political or otherwise. Anyone who says that terrorists have rights should watch the Brian Berg (sp?)video. Watch those animals cut his head off while he's screaming for his life. Those terrorist have no rights AT ALL in my opinion! I say we evacuate the civilians, and turn Iraq into a parking lot. Then rebuild. I'll even take a tax hike to pay for it! If that makes me a "stupid redneck cowboy American", so be it, because thats better than being a sympathiser to soulless animals like that!

Ok I have just a few points here:

1. There were both pro and anti israeli groups present and they may have been protesting against the israeli government policies as opposed to judaism.
2. If you want to bring in a war reference dont forget to include the multiple european countries who fought against the Nazis.
3. A small minority of anti semitics does not make a whole continent the same

I am from the uk and have lived in france and germany, I am not jewish myself but have noted on more than one ocasion anti semitic. Their is no reason for me to lie about it I have no great love for jews thats not to say I hate them I'm more indiferent.

Sorry about the poor grammer I'm in a rush.

Haven't read much of the thread, just 5 or 10 posts, and the poll. Just want to chime in my 2 cents. "terrorists" are people who use "terror" against innocent civilians to further a purpose or goal, be it political or otherwise. Anyone who says that terrorists have rights should watch the Brian Berg (sp?)video. Watch those animals cut his head off while he's screaming for his life. Those terrorist have no rights AT ALL in my opinion! I say we evacuate the civilians, and turn Iraq into a parking lot. Then rebuild. I'll even take a tax hike to pay for it! If that makes me a "stupid redneck cowboy American", so be it, because thats better than being a sympathiser to soulless animals like that!
Can we turn the South into a parking lot after evacuating the innocent civilians and then rebuild? This might help eradicate hate crimes against blacks...

I am from the uk and have lived in france and germany, I am not jewish myself but have noted on more than one ocasion anti semitic. Their is no reason for me to lie about it I have no great love for jews thats not to say I hate them I'm more indiferent.

Were the majority of the people you met anti-semitic or not? If they werent, as i suspect, then it is unfair for you to label europe anti semitic

Much more important than what? The Iraqi people they've supposedly come to liberate? What kind of freedom is that?

Why can nobody on this site read and infer? I mean, seriously? Are people still mocking that thread about how people always put words into your mouth? More important than the insurgents going around bombing civilians and soldiers alike and more important than the terrorists going around planning massive terrorist attacks on areas with a nearly completely civilian base. Are you foreign - to English speaking countries, that is - or something? Because that can be the only excuse.

I'd prefer it if you would keep the obvious personal insults out of your argument. If i have misunderstood your point i'll apologise but all I ask is for more clarity

Well, people piss me off when they reply to what others say by either pointing out completely irrelevant things or by acting like they said things that weren't even loosely implied, because idiots fall for it, and it's not fair to the stupid people to act like you have combated an argument legitimately when all you've truly done is pull shit out of your ass.

Were the majority of the people you met anti-semitic or not? If they werent, as i suspect, then it is unfair for you to label europe anti semitic

It suprized me just how many french were put it that way.

It suprized me just how many french were put it that way.

What about the danes, italians, greeks, spanish, etc? Were they the same? and I notice you didnt say it was a majority

Terrorists are obviously human. I don't think anyone who's taken anatomy would argue against that one.

While treating them kindly and respecting their civil rights would be the decent and humane thing to do under ideal circumstances, keeping them from killing more civilians takes immediate precedent over respecting their rights. History has shown that conciliatory gestures are often a luxury afforded only to those who do not pose a real threat to a particular civilization.




Are you an idiot, or just really bad at coming in half-way through conversations, or both?
...
Also, seeing as you apparently can't read, I didn't say that torture was an option for proving someone is a terrorist.

Word to the wise Aldranin, you will get banned from this forum for levelling personal insults at people. I kid you not.

I'm just curious - are all the others choosing that because they are not sure what kind of terrorists are being discussed?

What about the danes, italians, greeks, spanish, etc? Were they the same? and I notice you didnt say it was a majority

(You're good) I can't comment on denmark or the greeks, ect put it only takes the people at the top. germany and france are two of the menbers at the top. France came very close to voting in a very undesirable party!

Why can nobody on this site read and infer? I mean, seriously? Are people still mocking that thread about how people always put words into your mouth? More important than the insurgents going around bombing civilians and soldiers alike and more important than the terrorists going around planning massive terrorist attacks on areas with a nearly completely civilian base. Are you foreign - to English speaking countries, that is - or something? Because that can be the only excuse.
That's great, but considering that you're willing to "kill without proof", you don't seem to care about the guy that was at the wrong place at the wrong time and got hit by the American military. That's why I considered you willing to sacrifice Iraqi citizens for the sake of American soldiers. I might have guessed wrong, but it didn't sound like it to me.

To avoid getting bogged down in current thread direction, Im going to answer things from my viewpoint as thuroughly as possible in response to the original question.

The act of becoming a terrorist, by default, alienates you from Government representation. The act of murdering other human beings for an ideology is one that is completely unnacceptable, and they do not have the right to any standard freedoms that normal citizens enjoy.

However, there are some things that no one deserves, and that is a sick, twisted torture treatment or long, drawn out, extraordinarily painful execution. The definition of sick and twisted in my mind is along the lines of castration and limb removal; thats just sick. While what these people have done may be along those lines, it shouldnt be done simply because it would inevitably weigh on the concious of those performing the act. Painful execution is not deserved as those they have killed didnt suffer as painful and drawn out of one 99% of the time. Terrorists only deserve what they have done to eithers.

While this leaves some things open to debate, its not something that can be generalized; the punishments and methodologies should fit the acts and the evidence of the terrorist.

In my opinion, rights are not inalienable if you become a terrorist, but which ones they lose should be based on what they did to others.

(You're good) I can't comment on denmark or the greeks, ect put it only takes the people at the top. germany and france are two of the menbers at the top. France came very close to voting in a very undesirable party!
I don't know very many anti-semites in Germany. We have some, but not considerably more than other places.

I don't know very many anti-semites in Germany. We have some, but not considerably more than other places.

I'm always impressed by the attitudes in Germany in regards to judaism. People seem very open minded and free of hate. Although i'm not saying i expected anything different

In my opinion, rights are not inalienable if you become a terrorist, but which ones they lose should be based on what they did to others.
I don't know how far you take away rights from terrorists, but in my opinion, doing something cruel to a monster, even if lawfully sanctioned, doesn't make it any less cruel.

(You're good) I can't comment on denmark or the greeks, ect put it only takes the people at the top. germany and france are two of the menbers at the top. France came very close to voting in a very undesirable party!

I dont know enough about french politics to argue this point but all I will say is that i'll agree to disagree with you............for now anyway. It just wouldnt be as much fun any other way :p

I don't know very many anti-semites in Germany. We have some, but not considerably more than other places.

When I stayed in Gera Gera is a city in the east of Thuringia I came across a fare few.

When I stayed in Gera Gera is a city in the east of Thuringia I came across a fare few.

In Berlin I saw graffiti saying "Down with Nazis" , etc. I've never seen that anywhere else

I don't think this is true: look at Iraq. By far the most attacks are aimed at US soldiers and Iraqi security forces. The US Cole bombing is another high profile example. Historically, and practically, I think that terrorists attack targets either overtly military (i.e. troops) or 'legitimate targets' by most standards (recruiting stations, for example). Most attacks on the west seem to target civilians, but in the World as a whole, it is still generally true that 'terrorists' target military and particularly government figures or installations.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf

There is a distinction between military attacks executed by terrorist organizations and terrorist attacks in general. There is also another report similir to this one (which I can't find) which breaks down the attacks by group. (Religious fanatics, race fanatics, political fanatics, etc.) I would imagine that could be hard to break down considering that few arabs have seperation between church/state.

I don't know how far you take away rights from terrorists, but in my opinion, doing something cruel to a monster, even if lawfully sanctioned, doesn't make it any less cruel.

I suppose there is an ultimate line that you have to draw at a certain point of what they have done; if they have done something absolutely abhorrable, that upon proof, they should simply be executed the quickest way possible. Since conventional methods of execution leave too much to be considered, perhaps the easiest method would be detonating explosives and just blowing them away in a fraction of a second.

Fundamental terrorists have some inalienable rights, but they are very few.

In a combat situation they have a limited right to capitulate and be taken prisoner. But there's is every reason to be alert to traps.

If they are mentally ill they shall get a necessary treatment. If not, they shall be tried fairly and judged under harsh laws.

When I stayed in Gera Gera is a city in the east of Thuringia I came across a fare few.
I've met a couple of unteachables myself. Doesn't mean that they represent the majority, or even a significant part of the German public.

In Berlin I saw graffiti saying "Down with Nazis" , etc. I've never seen that anywhere else
Thats because the germans blame the nazi party for what happened as much as we did, but I think the opinion is slightly different in the east in some arieas.

Thats because the germans blame the nazi party for what happened as much as we did, but I think the opinion is slightly different in the east in some arieas.

I remember reading somewhere that there was a higher instance of anti-semitism in the former DDR. Cant remember my source though

I've met a couple of unteachables myself. Doesn't mean that they represent the majority, or even a significant part of the German public.

Not everyone in germany "NO" for sure, but as we have seen in the past it only takes a few to cause a lot of problems.

I suppose there is an ultimate line that you have to draw at a certain point of what they have done; if they have done something absolutely abhorrable, that upon proof, they should simply be executed the quickest way possible. Since conventional methods of execution leave too much to be considered, perhaps the easiest method would be detonating explosives and just blowing them away in a fraction of a second.
And who's going to take it upon themselves to execute this person in such a manner? That's no different to me than what some terrorists do.

The terrorists won't give up either until they get what they want (Muslim controlled world) or until we ignore them enought that they realize that it's just not working. Maybe then they'll finally come out and fight us like men.

You are so absolutely correct. Unfortunately, there are people who do not understand this and do not understand you cannot negotiate with these radicals.

I remember reading somewhere that there was a higher instance of anti-semitism in the former DDR. Cant remember my source though

DDR? Dance Dance Revolution?

DDR? Dance Dance Revolution?

I love that game way too much. I put my foot through a friends floor jumping around to it.

DDR = Deutsche Demokratische Republik (sp?)

GDR for the english speakers

And who's going to take it upon themselves to execute this person in such a manner? That's no different to me than what some terrorists do.

Ulimately that is your personal viewpoint, and Im probably not going to ever end up changing that. There are plenty of people in this world who would willingly take it upon themselves to deal that kind of punishment to those sentenced to it.

Thats because the germans blame the nazi party for what happened as much as we did, but I think the opinion is slightly different in the east in some arieas.
More likely that is was someone from Antifa. They don't blame the Nazis for what happened, they beat up Neo-nazis.

Prime Minister Sharon has stated that anti-Semitism is on the rise and that the only hope for the safety of Jews is to move to Israel under the protection of the Zionist state. "The best solution to anti-Semitism is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews," he said.

Not everyone in germany "NO" for sure, but as we have seen in the past it only takes a few to cause a lot of problems.
Only if the rest doesn't stop them. There is very little room for Nazis in German politics (sadly, they seem to do well in local politics occasionally, but other than that, they're pretty isolated).

I suppose there is an ultimate line that you have to draw at a certain point of what they have done; if they have done something absolutely abhorrable, that upon proof, they should simply be executed the quickest way possible. Since conventional methods of execution leave too much to be considered, perhaps the easiest method would be detonating explosives and just blowing them away in a fraction of a second.

Ah but that would give them what they want, martyrdom. Why not lock them in a cell with a pig for as long as they live? Oh, sorry. Some would consider that torture or cruel and inhumane punishment. :(

Only if the rest doesn't stop them. There is very little room for Nazis in German politics (sadly, they seem to do well in local politics occasionally, but other than that, they're pretty isolated).

At last someone agrees it is not a bad thing to admit to it, and if they wish to vote for the nazi is that really a bad thing? they can use their vote in any way they chose, don't get me wrong I don't agree with it at all but they have that right and I would never take it away from them. When you do that makes you become the same as Hitler.

Ah but that would give them what they want, martyrdom. Why not lock them in a cell with a pig for as long as they live? Oh, sorry. Some would consider that torture or cruel and inhumane punishment. :(

I do. No pig deserves that. :(

You people have no idea what effect you are doing when you give these people a human face. It is almost like you are accepting it as a valid way to present your greviences. By accepting these things as human you have validated any moron with a problem with anything to go blow up a school or a bus just because he doesnt like what is going on and "he feels it is the right thing to do"

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people. I thought i escaped the insanity when i left Syria, only to find out you people are just as accepting of these subhumans and what makes it worse...you (westerners) are the sheep being attacked....and yet you validate the attacks on you. I have seriously never seen a more suicidal culture.

I am distressed by your thoughts....maybe i should go blow up a kinderguarden now since you all agree im just doing what i think is right...

I do. No pig deserves that. :(

The reason their was very little terrorism during saddam hussein's reign was because not only would he kill the terrorist but the family would be put on the meat hooks also!

At last someone agrees it is not a bad thing to admit to it, and if they wish to vote for the nazi is that really a bad thing? they can use their vote in any way they chose, don't get me wrong I don't agree with it at all but they have that right and I would never take it away from them. When you do that makes you become the same as Hitler.True, I find it shameful that people voted that way, not that they were allowed to.

You people have no idea what effect you are doing when you give these people a human face. It is almost like you are accepting it as a valid way to present your greviences. By accepting these things as human you have validated any moron with a problem with anything to go blow up a school or a bus just because he doesnt like what is going on and "he feels it is the right thing to do"

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people. I thought i escaped the insanity when i left Syria, only to find out you people are just as accepting of these subhumans and what makes it worse...you (westerners) are the sheep being attacked....and yet you validate the attacks on you. I have seriously never seen a more suicidal culture.

I am distressed by your thoughts....maybe i should go blow up a kinderguarden now since you all agree im just doing what i think is right...

I agree with this person, the only way to be when dealing with a terrorist is more ruthless than they are have no pity give them no rights!

Beslan school slaughter after seeing some of the images the have come out of this horrific incident, I can't help thinking that the world media has contributed to this type of terrorist action. I believe that the terrorists perform these acts knowing that the shocking images will be plastered all over the net, television broadcasts and newspapers of the world. This gives impact to the actions. It was the same with the Nicholas Berg murder. They seem to see it as an "advertisment" for their cause, and how ruthless they can be. If the media organisations all refused to publish these images, it would reduce the impact of the acts, and possibly discourage the terrorists from picking on school kids (a decision I'm sure that was made to increase shock levels).
It's similar to stolen goods.....if we stop buying stolen goods, the thieves will stop stealing them, since they have no-one to sell them to. If we stop reproducing the images, then the need to find ever increasingly shocking acts to put on the world media stage would be reduced.

True, I find it shameful that people voted that way, not that they were allowed to.

And you have the 5% clause now so the odds of anything like that happening again are slim

I do. No pig deserves that. :(

:D

Gulf, could you clarify how you see it that we validate terrorists by considering them human.

And you have the 5% clause now so the odds of anything like that happening again are slim

History has a bad habit of repeating itself.

History has a bad habit of repeating itself.

But in germany the odds are a lot smaller now even if in other places it may happen

The reason their was very little terrorism during saddam hussein's reign was because not only would he kill the terrorist but the family would be put on the meat hooks also!
And what is the new reason why we went after Saddam? As far as I can remeber, now that we know he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, its the fact that he wasn't a nice guy. If we lower ourselves to his level, we're the terrorists.

Gulf, could you clarify how you see it that we validate terrorists by considering them human.

And what is the new reason why we went after Saddam? As far as I can remeber, now that we know he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, its the fact that he wasn't a nice guy. If we lower ourselves to his level, we're the terrorists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you sanction someone and they ignore it do you sanction them again in the hope they will comply?????????????


People that kill children are by definition inhuman they commit inhuman acts which makes the inhuman.

And the odds are a lot smaller yes, but that might have been said after WW1.

History has a bad habit of repeating itself.And in places you'd least expect it...

People that kill children are by definition inhuman they commit inhuman acts which makes the inhuman.

And the odds are a lot smaller yes, but that might have been said after WW1.

Germany wasnt Nazi in WW1 and could you tell me which dictionary you're reading that gives you that definition

Germany wasnt Nazi in WW1 and could you tell me which dictionary you're reading that gives you that definition

So what do you think, is it is a good thing to kill children?? Help me out here? you think that killing children is a very human thing to do? Go to the shops buy a news paper and....OH I'll stop off at a school and kill and rape 350 children that will round the day off nicely.

So what do you think it is a good thing to kill children?? Help me out here? you think that killing children is a very human thing to do? Go to the shops buy a news paper and....OH I'll stop off at a school and kill and rape 350 children the will round the day off nicely.

When did I ever say that? I am just refering to the fact that you claimed that by definition terrorists are inhuman when they are never defined as such. I should have clarified myself though and said that the acts themselves are inhuman, yes, but the people commiting these acts are themselves human. It is this fact that makes terrorists even more horrifying. They understand what they are doing and yet still continue

When you sanction someone and they ignore it do you sanction them again in the hope they will comply?????????????
This has nothing to do with sanctions. If we deal with terrorists the way Saddam dealt with terrorists, how are we going to be better than Saddam, whom we ousted because he was so evil?


People that kill children are by definition inhuman they commit inhuman acts which makes the inhuman.

And the odds are a lot smaller yes, but that might have been said after WW1.
You know, the only reason its called inhuman is because we humans have the romantic notion of not being evil by nature, which would make us good. The fact is neither is true. Humane has little to do with the fact that you are, actually, human. It's how you should treat people. So far, inhuman behavior is almost completely unique to the human race, so inhuman is rather misleading.

And the odds are one heck of a lot smaller. We don't have to deal with crap like the treaty of versailles nowadays, which was something you couldn't say after WW1.

You know, the only reason its called inhuman is because we humans have the romantic notion of not being evil by nature, which would make us good. The fact is neither is true. Humane has little to do with the fact that you are, actually, human. It's how you should treat people. So far, inhuman behavior is almost completely unique to the human race, so inhuman is rather misleading.

And the odds are one heck of a lot smaller. We don't have to deal with crap like the treaty of versailles nowadays, which was something you couldn't say after WW1.

Nicely put. I should have worded my own argument this way

This has nothing to do with sanctions. If we deal with terrorists the way Saddam dealt with terrorists, how are we going to be better than Saddam, whom we ousted because he was so evil?


You know, the only reason its called inhuman is because we humans have the romantic notion of not being evil by nature, which would make us good. The fact is neither is true. Humane has little to do with the fact that you are, actually, human. It's how you should treat people. So far, inhuman behavior is almost completely unique to the human race, so inhuman is rather misleading.

And the odds are one heck of a lot smaller. We don't have to deal with crap like the treaty of versailles nowadays, which was something you couldn't say after WW1.

I must agree with you on you're first point, human and inhuman are abit insulting to animals we kill more of our own kind and when I say "we" I include the whole human race than any other animal. Most animals hunt for food yet we have plenty whats are excuse?

Nicely put. I should have worded my own argument this wayThanks :D

I must agree with you on you're first point, human and inhuman are abit insulting to animals we kill more of our own kind and when I say we I include the whole human race than any other animal. Most animals hunt for food yet we have plenty whats are excuse?My point was that you can't consider someone no longer human if he behaves in a way that is referred to as "inhuman", since the only thing "not human" would be to kill when necessary (although some animals go against this too).

This has nothing to do with sanctions. If we deal with terrorists the way Saddam dealt with terrorists, how are we going to be better than Saddam, whom we ousted because he was so evil?

You mean give the families of suicide bombers loads of money, or send our advisors to meet with them and discuss business?

You know, the only reason its called inhuman is because we humans have the romantic notion of not being evil by nature, which would make us good. The fact is neither is true. Humane has little to do with the fact that you are, actually, human. It's how you should treat people. So far, inhuman behavior is almost completely unique to the human race, so inhuman is rather misleading.

It's a matter of degree of inhumanity, not existence of inhumanity.

Besides, obviously inhumanity is only going to exist in humans, because so does humanity only exist in humans. A fucking dog doesn't think about whether what it's doing is human, because it's a concept that the dog doesn't comprehend.

You mean give the families of suicide bombers loads of money, or send our advisors to meet with them and discuss business?



It's a matter of degree of inhumanity, not existence of inhumanity.

Who cares about how low one sinks to compleat a task, some times you must sink low to win a dirty war, but cry about it afterwards when the terrorists are dead and the killing has stopped.

You mean give the families of suicide bombers loads of money, or send our advisors to meet with them and discuss business?
I was referring to the fact that he sounded like he was applauding Saddam's hanging-the-whole-family-on-the-meat-hook approach when dealing with terrorists and that I found we shouldn't do that. Please read what we were discussing before accusing me of saying something completely different.


It's a matter of degree of inhumanity, not existence of inhumanity.
You're going to have to explain that. I don't quite get what you mean with that.

Who cares about how low one sinks to compleat a task, some times you must sink low to win a dirty war, but cry about it afterwards when the terrorists are dead and the killing has stopped.

Exactly... well, not exactly, but I think I agree. There is a point at which you go too low, but I don't think there is even a remote possibility of that happening in this war... the terrorists have pretty much opened the door for the lowest forms of strategy to be legitimate.

Who cares about how low one sinks to compleat a task, some times you must sink low to win a dirty war, but cry about it afterwards when the terrorists are dead and the killing has stopped.
This isn't some conventional war. If we have to sink that low, we've lost.

I was referring to the fact that he sounded like he was applauding Saddam's hanging-the-whole-family-on-the-meat-hook approach when dealing with terrorists and that I found we shouldn't do that.



I was not applauding that aproach mearly stating that it seemed to work well. To lose ones own life isn't a big deal when ones a suicidal bomber but to have ones wife and kids killed that's a whole different ball game.

I was referring to the fact that he sounded like he was applauding Saddam's hanging-the-whole-family-on-the-meat-hook approach when dealing with terrorists and that I found we shouldn't do that. Please read what we were discussing before accusing me of saying something completely different.

I was aware of what you were discussing. The point is, what you were implying Saddam did to terrorists is not what Saddam did to terrorists. Saddam had them over for dinner. Saddam rewarded people that blew up innocent civilians.

You're going to have to explain that. I don't quite get what you mean with that.

Okay, all humans are inherently evil. They all act inhumane at some point in their life. But there are different levels - varying intensities - of inhumanity. For instance, removing a guy's fingernails one by one until he tells you about the latest plan to attack your army is pretty inhumane, but it is done to save the lives of your own troops. In contrast, sawing a civilian's head off in an act of revenge or to make some petty statement is much more inhumane, due to its gratuity, its victim, its purpose, etc.

I was not applauding that aproach mearly stating that it seemed to work well. To lose ones own life isn't a big deal when ones a suicidal bomber but to have ones wife and kids killed that's a whole different ball game.
That's why I said "sounds like".

This isn't some conventional war. If we have to sink that low, we've lost.

He's saying that we must sink low because this isn't a conventional war. It's the old 'drastic times call for drastic measures' concept.

He's saying that we must sink low because this isn't a conventional war. It's the old 'drastic times call for drastic measures' concept.
And I'm saying we shouldn't, because that's not how to win this war.

He's saying that we must sink low because this isn't a conventional war. It's the old 'drastic times call for drastic measures' concept.

As I have said before why not sink low, we have only lost when people over in the states and here give up. Be worse than the terrorists if need be go further than they have, one group are sure to break before the other, then we can cry about the moral implications of what we have done when we are the victors.

And I'm saying we shouldn't, because that's not how to win this war.

*slaps forehead*

Please say English is a second language to you. Please, because if it isn't, you need to go back to school and learn how to read and write properly.

You said: "This isn't some conventional war. If we have to sink that low, we've lost."

By adding in the "This isn't some conventional war" clause, you imply that in a quote-on-quote 'conventional war,' the story would be different. Thus, you are implying, intentionally or unintentionally, that stooping low is okay in a conventional war, but not in an unconventional war. That makes no sense. Am I getting through to you at all?

I was aware of what you were discussing. The point is, what you were implying Saddam did to terrorists is not what Saddam did to terrorists. Saddam had them over for dinner. Saddam rewarded people that blew up innocent civilians.
That's wrong. While I don't deny that Saddam did things like this, you seem to deny the fact that he repressed any fundamentalist islamists in his own country that wanted to oust him. That's the people he dealt with in the manners I was "implying" (if you mean quoting someone else with this, I grew up with a different definition for the word).


Okay, all humans are inherently evil. They all act inhumane at some point in their life. But there are different levels - varying intensities - of inhumanity. For instance, removing a guy's fingernails one by one until he tells you about the latest plan to attack your army is pretty inhumane, but it is done to save the lives of your own troops. In contrast, sawing a civilian's head off in an act of revenge or to make some petty statement is much more inhumane, due to its gratuity, its victim, its purpose, etc.
I don't consider torturing someone so that you can find out when your soldiers get attacked any better than blowing up civilians. I don't support terrorism against against soldiers, but an insurgent group that only targeted uniformed personnel wouldn't be terrorists in my eyes.
Besides, the point I was attempting to make is that you cannot deprive a human being of being human on the grounds of him acting "inhumane", since inhumane has little to do with not being human.

*slaps forehead*

Please say English is a second language to you. Please, because if it isn't, you need to go back to school and learn how to read and write properly.

You said: "This isn't some conventional war. If we have to sink that low, we've lost."

By adding in the "This isn't some conventional war" clause, you imply that in a quote-on-quote 'conventional war,' the story would be different. Thus, you are implying, intentionally or unintentionally, that stooping low is okay in a conventional war, but not in an unconventional war. That makes no sense. Am I getting through to you at all?
Sorry, English is one of my two first languages.

By saying "This isn't some conventional war" I might also be "implying" that you can win a conventional war by stooping low (as the allies did in WW2) but not this unconventional war where any cruelty by the US, percieved or real, will fuel the terrorist cause with ammunition.

No, you're not getting through to me.

I'd like to spar some more, but unfortunately my battery is nearly dead, so I will be going home...

I don't find the idea of belittleing someone for their ability or inability to put sentences into words very fair, and it is'nt in my book going to win any arguments. The reason I say this is becouse I'm not the best at spelling and to attack a point of view purly because someone has'nt dotted the (i) is not fair.

Sure terrorists are humans. Who cares? There's nothing in simply being a human that makes your presence in this world worthwile.

Terrorists are crappy humans, and everyone would be a lot better off if they were culled from the species.

Torture doesn't work, hmmm? Ever? Doesn't sounds pretty absolute to me... are you a terrorist, yourself, by chance?
I can't say anything absolutely and neither can you. But I supported the Iraq war, largely because Saddam used torture. I think that's wrong, so I was in favour of shutting down his torture operations by force. It would be the highest hypocrisy for me to support the west usng torture because it suits us.

I really can't believe that you're suitting there justifying torture. Torture has for a very long time been a big no-no to civilised people.

See, that sounds completely stupid to me. So you are okay with shooting them on the field when you don't even know what they have done, if anything - maybe they were just dragged into it against their will - but you are against proving that they did do some fucked up shit and killing them for it?
Yes. If you're on the battlefield and it's either you or him going to get killed, shoot away! But I think the death penalty is wrong. It's pointless to kill him once you capture him.

Anyone who says that terrorists have rights should watch the Brian Berg (sp?)video. Watch those animals cut his head off while he's screaming for his life.
That's an emotional argument, not a rational argument.

Those terrorist have no rights AT ALL in my opinion!
In our western judicial systems even the worst criminals have some rights. They have no right to liberty. But they have the right to life, and the right to a fair trial.

I say we evacuate the civilians, and turn Iraq into a parking lot. Then rebuild.
This is a really bad idea. If it were even possible to just ship 23 million people out of a country, the terrorists would get out along with the rest. Then you would get a larger terrorist problem of formerly peaceful civilians who are not happy that their country has been turned into a parking lot.

Your idea is laughably unrealistic. It would also be expensive beyond belief - unaffordable even if everyone was taxed at 100%.

...
In our western judicial systems even the worst criminals have some rights. They have no right to liberty. But they have the right to life, and the right to a fair trial.

...
I agree. In 1881, when the Emperor of Russia was killed by terrorists, the regicides were given a fair trial before the Special Committee of the Ruling Senate (in the Russian Empire the Senate was a kind of supreme court), with the best Russian lawyers defending them.

The Government of autocratic, Tsarist Russia decided that not giving a fair trial to the murderers of the Sovereign was beneath their dignity.

I don't find the idea of belittleing someone for their ability or inability to put sentences into words very fair, and it is'nt in my book going to win any arguments. The reason I say this is becouse I'm not the best at spelling and to attack a point of view purly because someone has'nt dotted the (i) is not fair.

Agreed. Theres no need for this kind of behaviour. It only helps the person insulting gain a small victory where they were otherwise unable to form a proper argument

Ah but that would give them what they want, martyrdom. Why not lock them in a cell with a pig for as long as they live? Oh, sorry. Some would consider that torture or cruel and inhumane punishment. :(
I have a better idea. Lock them up with a dead pig. That would not only be disgusting, but religiously outrageous to them. :)

Religion :sniper:

you (westerners) are the sheep being attacked....and yet you validate the attacks on you. I have seriously never seen a more suicidal culture.

I am distressed by your thoughts....maybe i should go blow up a kinderguarden now since you all agree im just doing what i think is right...
No, it's not like that at all. Just because we try to understand motives for these attacks doesn't mean we justify them.

That's like saying all police and detectives are pro-criminal, because they try to understand their motives.

Look, it's not like I'm supporting torture to make statements or avenge people. I'm talking about using it to save the lives of our soldiers. In my opinion, one prisoner's pain is not worth the lives of ten of our boys, or however many might be saved if they were equipped with better intelligence on the area when going into battle.

Look, it's not like I'm supporting torture to make statements or avenge people. I'm talking about using it to save the lives of our soldiers. In my opinion, one prisoner's pain is not worth the lives of ten of our boys, or however many might be saved if they were equipped with better intelligence on the area when going into battle.

But how can you really trust the information given to you by a tortured prisoner. What if they really didnt know troop numbers, etc but in order to avoid further pain they made up a number. That number could be way below the reality and with this kind of faulty intel you could get a lot of people killed

I have a better idea. Lock them up with a dead pig. That would not only be disgusting, but religiously outrageous to them. :)

Religion :sniper:


No, it's not like that at all. Just because we try to understand motives for these attacks doesn't mean we justify them.

That's like saying all police and detectives are pro-criminal, because they try to understand their motives.

Poor, innocent piggies. :( It seems like we're all out for a reason to harm pigs, and the War on Terror is just another useful reason to do so. :p

Seriously though. Listening to terrorists is useless. Understanding them is important, so that we can try and alleviate the situations which created them, not because we give a shit about them, but to prevent more terrorists emerging. This does not in any way mean that military action is no good. It doesn't mean terrorists are laudable with anything other than the right to die in incredible pain under the belief that their families are being killed. It does mean we can stem the tide.

But how can you really trust the information given to you by a tortured prisoner. What if they really didnt know troop numbers, etc but in order to avoid further pain they made up a number. That number could be way below the reality and with this kind of faulty intel you could get a lot of people killed

As was said earlier, make it very plain that faulty intel leads to a great deal more pain, whilst accurate intel leads to mercy and an absence of pain.

But how can you really trust the information given to you by a tortured prisoner. What if they really didnt know troop numbers, etc but in order to avoid further pain they made up a number. That number could be way below the reality and with this kind of faulty intel you could get a lot of people killed

First of all, these people don't have the balls to lie in the face of torture - these are pussies that bomb places filled with nothing but civilians because they are candy-ass little shits and they are too stupid to figure out how to do the same to a group of soldiers, instead.

Second of all, good interrogators can tell when a prisoner is lying or not. They aren't stupid, and the person being interrogated probably is. They know how to check for dilated pupils. They have access to lie detectors. It's not just a random guess, interrogators are trained to know the difference between bullshit and oh shit.

As was said earlier, make it very plain that faulty intel leads to a great deal more pain, whilst accurate intel leads to mercy and an absence of pain.

And how exactly would you know yourself? If you torture them and say give me accurate info or i keep torturing, and yet they dont know any info, how do you know they arent holding out and just need more pain. Either way they will be in severe pain so they will most likely take the quickest way out

As was said earlier, make it very plain that faulty intel leads to a great deal more pain, whilst accurate intel leads to mercy and an absence of pain.

As before, they'll probably just ignore this, so I'll quote it in the hopes that they have better odds of noticing.

And how exactly would you know yourself? If you torture them and say give me accurate info or i keep torturing, and yet they dont know any info, how do you know they arent holding out and just need more pain. Either way they will be in severe pain so they will most likely take the quickest way out

Very easily. Interrogative tactics. You scare the piss out of them. You tell them to tell you what they know, they do. You act like you know they lied, start yelling at them, and start torturing them. They're either going to fess up the real story, or say "I swear by Allah I speak the truth! Ayayayayaya!" Or if that doesn't work, show them fake pictures of their family being imprisoned and warn that you'll kill them soon. A lot of shit works. Everyone cracks under that kind of torture.

And how exactly would you know yourself? If you torture them and say give me accurate info or i keep torturing, and yet they dont know any info, how do you know they arent holding out and just need more pain. Either way they will be in severe pain so they will most likely take the quickest way out

If it turns out to be wrong, then come back and hurt them. If it's right, don't. Fairly simple, no?

Very easily. Interrogative tactics. You scare the piss out of them. You tell them to tell you what they know, they do. You act like you know they lied, start yelling at them, and start torturing them. They're either going to fess up the real story, or say "I swear by Allah I speak the truth! Ayayayayaya!" Or if that doesn't work, show them fake pictures of their family being imprisoned and warn that you'll kill them soon. A lot of shit works. Everyone cracks under that kind of torture.

I could see why it would possibly work yet i dont see why it is worthwhile even taking into account your previous reason. I'll agree to disagree

If it turns out to be wrong, then come back and hurt them. If it's right, don't. Fairly simple, no?

And in proving them wrong you have probably given faulty intel that got many soldiers killed. So worthwhile

I could see why it would possibly work yet i dont see why it is worthwhile even taking into account your previous reason. I'll agree to disagree

It all depends on how fair you like to be in a war, and what you consider fair. I consider fair anything that saves the lives of our troops short of nukes. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: if you're fighting a war fairly, you're doing something wrong.

It all depends on how fair you like to be in a war, and what you consider fair. I consider fair anything that saves the lives of our troops short of nukes. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: if you're fighting a war fairly, you're doing something wrong.

But when you are supposedly fighting a "war against terror" doesnt it make sense to try and live up to the ideals you wish your enemies to live by

And in proving them wrong you have probably given faulty intel that got many soldiers killed. So worthwhile

Maybe the first couple of times, yes. Then let the rumors spread. Show the other prisoners that the person who told the truth got away with nothing worse than some bright lights and loud yelling, and the ones who lied got much, much worse. Pretty soon the fear will drive them towards the truth.

But when you are supposedly fighting a "war against terror" doesnt it make sense to try and live up to the ideals you wish your enemies to live by

A reasonable point, and if you're talking about the average Joe in the street it's true, but the enemy themselves hardly deserve that consideration. If they want our rights and our protections, they're quite welcome to enter the legal methods for changing a country, building their own nations up, and basically doing it without the indiscriminate slaughter.

Terrorist is simply another word for Bush.. Whoops I meant Vermin. As soon as they kill someone they forfiet their rights, lives and morals. When they are found they should be executed in the manner in which they killed their victims. Simple as.