NationStates Jolt Archive

People everywhere are saying that American, British, Israelie etc government armed forces are moral equivlents to terrorists, and indeed themselves are terroists because they kill civilians. But if people cannot see the distinction, frankly they are blind.

Terrorists - Kill civilians indiscriminately/Intend to kill as many civilians as possible

Govenment armed forces - Kill civilians as a result of trying to kill terrorists/Intend to kill as few civilians as possible

Now obviously no one is saying here that killing civilians is a good thing. Of course not. But you have to look at this from another perspective. The terrorists hide amoung civillians, they are not members of a millitary, they live in densely populated areas. Sometimes civilians are killed and obviously that is tragic. But to say that the UK, the USA and Israel are evil nations just because they kill civilians is to totally miss the point, and to belittle the kind of evil that is present in the minds of those who kill civillians indiscriminately, and will often (in Iraq and other poverty striken places) offer the chance of work to attract people to the bombs location to kill the most people possible. There is a massive diffrence between intending to kill and collataral damage. Both are terrible and tragic, but only one is evil.

Terrorists aren't the same thing as government armed forces, but they are the same as "freedom fighters."

armed forces dont fly planes into buildings, but they do "mistakenly" bomb many places.

armed forces dont fly planes into buildings
Yes, they just bomb them. Dresden anyone?

Assuming you're talking about the recent wars in the Middle East, you are correct. However, this is not always true. Government armed forces have been responsible for the genocide of civilians in the past, the Holocaust being obviously the most remarkable example, but most certainly not the only one.

Terrorists aren't the same thing as government armed forces, but they are the same as "freedom fighters."

Freedom fighters target their millitary opressors, not civilians

Terrorists aren't the same thing as government armed forces, but they are the same as "freedom fighters."
Only in the sense that they fight freedom.

People everywhere are saying that American, British, Israelie etc government armed forces are moral equivlents to terrorists, and indeed themselves are terroists because they kill civilians. But if people cannot see the distinction, frankly they are blind.

Terrorists - Kill civilians indiscriminately/Intend to kill as many civilians as possible

Govenment armed forces - Kill civilians as a result of trying to kill terrorists/Intend to kill as few civilians as possible

Now obviously no one is saying here that killing civilians is a good thing. Of course not. But you have to look at this from another perspective. The terrorists hide amoung civillians, they are not members of a millitary, they live in densely populated areas. Sometimes civilians are killed and obviously that is tragic. But to say that the UK, the USA and Israel are evil nations just because they kill civilians is to totally miss the point, and to belittle the kind of evil that is present in the minds of those who kill civillians indiscriminately, and will often (in Iraq and other poverty striken places) offer the chance of work to attract people to the bombs location to kill the most people possible. There is a massive diffrence between intending to kill and collataral damage. Both are terrible and tragic, but only one is evil.

Ok, what about non-governmental forces that intend to kill military members and also inadvertently kill civilians in the process?

"Evil," is a naive concept, but, since YOU want to use that term, I would say invading a country for no apparent reason constitutes evil...

The military is on your side. The terrorists are not very fond of your country and for some reason (I can't imagine why) defend their homes when they are attacked.

Ok, what about non-governmental forces that intend to kill military members and also inadvertently kill civilians in the process?

Not the same kind of evil no

Perhaps it was an oversimplified comparison, but "freedom fighters" will attack anyone who they perceive to be contributing to their oppression.

Oh I forgot to mention this:

A nice generalisation by the way by just saying 'Terrorists'

You should have broken that down into at least 'Religious Terrorists'
and 'Political Terrorists'.

Now, go back to your original question and answer it.

The military is on your side. The terrorists are not very fond of your country and for some reason (I can't imagine why) defend their homes when they are attacked.

If your talking about Iraq since the majority of Iraqies now much prefer the situation to how it was previously, I dont think you can make the case that they are "defending their homes". The extremeists want their blood drenched utopia where every non musilim in the land is killed or forceably converted

Anybody who uses force, except when the actions of another against you make it absolutely necessary to use force, is a terrorist.

People everywhere are saying that American, British, Israelie etc government armed forces are moral equivlents to terrorists, and indeed themselves are terroists because they kill civilians. But if people cannot see the distinction, frankly they are blind.

Terrorists - Kill civilians indiscriminately/Intend to kill as many civilians as possible

Govenment armed forces - Kill civilians as a result of trying to kill terrorists/Intend to kill as few civilians as possible

Now obviously no one is saying here that killing civilians is a good thing. Of course not. But you have to look at this from another perspective. The terrorists hide amoung civillians, they are not members of a millitary, they live in densely populated areas. Sometimes civilians are killed and obviously that is tragic. But to say that the UK, the USA and Israel are evil nations just because they kill civilians is to totally miss the point, and to belittle the kind of evil that is present in the minds of those who kill civillians indiscriminately, and will often (in Iraq and other poverty striken places) offer the chance of work to attract people to the bombs location to kill the most people possible. There is a massive diffrence between intending to kill and collataral damage. Both are terrible and tragic, but only one is evil.

Just the other day, a pile of Canadians were gunned down by Americans in Iraq when attempting to pass an armoured vehicle in their car. Military forces may be slightly different than terrorists, but they certainly seem to kill without considering the value of innocent lives.

Freedom fighters target their millitary opressors, not civilians

and what about civilians that are active collaborators?

armed forces dont fly planes into buildings

except when they do.

I suppose that the definition of terrorism will depend on what actions you consider justifiable. The people who blow themselves up must think that it will accomplish something, even when it really doesn't. But some people consider civilian casualties/collateral damage/whatever to be an acceptable part of armed warfare, while others don't.

Freedom fighters target their millitary opressors, not civilians

If that's true, what's the difference between freedom fighters and say, the Allies in World War II and "freedom fighters"? For that matter, what's the difference between a "legitimate" government and a government that has declared legitimancy? The US started as violent revolutionaries, they didn't commit any atrocities (to my knowledge), but that could be attributed to the fact they were fighting on home soil. What about the Confederates in the American Civil War? How about the Taliban and the Northern Alliance?

What I'm trying to get at is, the only difference between terrorists, government forces, and freedom fighters is who wins the war.

Just the other day, a pile of Canadians were gunned down by Americans in Iraq when attempting to pass an armoured vehicle in their car. Military forces may be slightly different than terrorists, but they certainly seem to kill without considering the value of innocent lives.
Well be fair I don't believe they were killed as your comparison seems to infer (the Canadians that is)

It's easier to see history of the firearm.

First, everyone stood together real close, so that you could have a lot of guns shoot, and actually hit something. Unfortunately, this meant that your bunch of guys made great targets because they were so close together. So...

Skirmishers were invented. You know, have a few guys go out spread wide so that it would be hard to hit him, while he takes potshots.

Then machineguns were invented. Ok, now everyone spread out.

And explosive artillery became common! Spread out some more.

Then aircraft came and dropped stuff. Suddenly, people had RPGs. Ok, everyone really spread out.

Then better bombs - including cluster bombs where every individual bomb inside the cluster will home in on its own target. Even a well-armed ground force can be wiped out in a single pass.

If your an insurgency, and you make the mistake of concentrating any large force today (as the VietCong were able to do in Vietnam with impunity), you're going to taste your own blood - any concentration is effectively wiped out.

So you have to attack an enemy, but you can't put more than a handful of people together without being wasted.

Well, "terrorism" is then forced upon you.

As I see it, it's just soldiers in a war that the majority of people don't realize is a war.

We're living in the war zone (WW II taught us that civilians can be wasted by armed forces).

Their soldiers are hiding in our countries. So do what you do to soldiers in a war. If you capture them, hold them without trial until the end of the war. If you can, kill them on sight.

Well be fair I don't believe they were killed as your comparison seems to infer (the Canadians that is)

In fact, the American soldiers shot the Canadian vehicle in an advanced state of paranoi without really thinking about who might be driving.

It's easier to see history of the firearm.

First, everyone stood together real close, so that you could have a lot of guns shoot, and actually hit something. Unfortunately, this meant that your bunch of guys made great targets because they were so close together. So...

Skirmishers were invented. You know, have a few guys go out spread wide so that it would be hard to hit him, while he takes potshots.

Then machineguns were invented. Ok, now everyone spread out.

And explosive artillery became common! Spread out some more.

Then aircraft came and dropped stuff. Suddenly, people had RPGs. Ok, everyone really spread out.

Then better bombs - including cluster bombs where every individual bomb inside the cluster will home in on its own target. Even a well-armed ground force can be wiped out in a single pass.

If your an insurgency, and you make the mistake of concentrating any large force today (as the VietCong were able to do in Vietnam with impunity), you're going to taste your own blood - any concentration is effectively wiped out.

So you have to attack an enemy, but you can't put more than a handful of people together without being wasted.

Well, "terrorism" is then forced upon you.

As I see it, it's just soldiers in a war that the majority of people don't realize is a war.

We're living in the war zone (WW II taught us that civilians can be wasted by armed forces).

Their soldiers are hiding in our countries. So do what you do to soldiers in a war. If you capture them, hold them without trial until the end of the war. If you can, kill them on sight.
Thats a very interesting way of thinking.

In fact, the American soldiers shot the Canadian vehicle in an advanced state of paranoi without really thinking about who might be driving.
If they were following the rules of engagement, which is extremely likely, then it's not paranoia. It's doing what you're told to do to idiots who don't slow down or stop when signalled.

If they were following the rules of engagement, which is extremely likely, then it's not paranoia. It's doing what you're told to do to idiots who don't slow down or stop when signalled.

You don't shoot those people! You pull them over and hand out a ticket!

You don't shoot those people! You pull them over and hand out a ticket!
Maybe if you're a traffic poiliceman in a suburban area, you do. Not when you're a member of the military occupying a hostile area.

If they were following the rules of engagement, which is extremely likely, then it's not paranoia. It's doing what you're told to do to idiots who don't slow down or stop when signalled.

Right. I'm gonna go stand in the middle of the road and signal someone to stop and then shoot them, just as soon as someone on the forum 'tells me to'. :rolleyes:

Oversymplify much?

Those that win are called generals, those that loose are called terrorists.

Maybe if you're a traffic poiliceman in a suburban area, you do. Not when you're a member of the military occupying a hostile area.

Yeah, those hostile Canadian diplomats. One of them took the last donut at breakfast.

Yeah, those hostile Canadian diplomats. One of them took the last donut at breakfast.
How do you know? Maybe they were hijacked?

How do you know? Maybe they were hijacked?

Yeah, and maybe they weren't!
Using your logic, I could go about and burn every house I came across, because, in one of them, a serial killer might be plotting his next move. I'll have saved the world from the next Robert Picton, and I can spend several days writing apology notes to 35,000 grieving families.

Yeah, and maybe they weren't!
Using your logic, I could go about and burn every house I came across, because, in one of them, a serial killer might be plotting his next move. I'll have saved the world from the next Robert Picton, and I can spend several days writing apology notes to 35,000 grieving families.
The soldiers were in potential personal danger. They had every right to do what they did. While maybe they were a bit overzealous in their tactics, the Canadian officials should not have been so careless either.

Yeah, and maybe they weren't!
Using your logic, I could go about and burn every house I came across, because, in one of them, a serial killer might be plotting his next move. I'll have saved the world from the next Robert Picton, and I can spend several days writing apology notes to 35,000 grieving families.
Bah horrible analogy

Your analogy relies on every house being equally likely to contain a serial killers and there was no hints to narrow the field.

Running a check point defiantly does “narrow” the possibilities.

Don't get me wrong I would like to find ways ways to reduce these sort of things. Hopefully we can talk to the driver and try to understand what could be done better by troops to make sure that this sort of incident is less likely

The soldiers were in potential personal danger. They had every right to do what they did. While maybe they were a bit overzealous in their tactics, the Canadian officials should not have been so careless either.

Sorry, but I guess lining a vehicle with Canadian flags to signal the identity of the passengers is no longer sufficient. I had completely forgotten that the US has severe trust issues. In fact, the message of my first post was completely unrelated to the issues of trust and parnoia.

Sorry, but I guess lining a vehicle with Canadian flags to signal the identity of the passengers is no longer sufficient. I had completely forgotten that the US has severe trust issues. In fact, the message of my first post was completely unrelated to the issues of trust and parnoia.
Just because something looks one way does not mean it is.

Bah horrible analogy

Your analogy relies on every house being equally likely to contain a serial killers and there was no hints to narrow the field.

Running a check point defiantly does “narrow” the possibilities.

Don't get me wrong I would like to find ways ways to reduce these sort of things. Hopefully we can talk to the driver and try to understand what could be done better by troops to make sure that this sort of incident is less likely

I still don't understand how my analogy was different from what occured, but that's just you being finicky, I suppose. Poor wording on my behalf doesn't negate the ultimate message, which is that it's not excusable to shoot at a Canadian vehicle simply because there is a chance that the people inside might actually be terrorists who kidnapped it.

Just because something looks one way does not mean it is.

Yeah, but, generally, people tend investigate before jumping to unlikely conclusions. But if you want to go around stabbing random people because they might secretly be out to get you, that's your call.

I could be wrong, but doesn't terrorism technically just mean killing lots of people, civilian or not, in an attempt to further a political cause? In which case, "freedom fighters" could, in a way, be considered terrorists?

I could be wrong, but doesn't terrorism technically just mean killing lots of people, civilian or not, in an attempt to further a political cause? In which case, "freedom fighters" could, in a way, be considered terrorists?

Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Yeah, but, generally, people tend investigate before jumping to unlikely conclusions. But if you want to go around stabbing random people because they might secretly be out to get you, that's your call.
Its nice when you have hours to make a decision, but sometimes you just have to act the way you think will be in your best interests.

Those that win are called generals, those that loose are called terrorists.
Bullshit.
Last time I checked, we still refer to Rommel as Feild Marshal.

Its nice when you have hours to make a decision, but sometimes you just have to act the way you think will be in your best interests.

Without, of course, considering the interests of those around you.

Without, of course, considering the interests of those around you.
Sometimes its you or them.

Sometimes its you or them.

And the better person would trust "them", whether or not it meant a loss to "you."
Seriously, it's not as though the Canadians were holding up machine guns and threatening violence. They were driving! In a clearly Canadian vehicle!

And the better person would trust "them", whether or not it meant a loss to "you."
Seriously, it's not as though the Canadians were holding up machine guns and threatening violence. They were driving! In a clearly Canadian vehicle!
With the potential intent to harm others and the potential to not be Canadian

With the potential intent to harm others and the potential to not be Canadian

Yeah, and every f.ing person in the world has a pontential to hurt others. Does this mean we should iradicate the human race?

Yeah, and every f.ing person in the world has a pontential to hurt others. Does this mean we should iradicate the human race?
Yes, but the odds that the mailman is going to shoot you is significantly less then the chance that the supposedly Canadian people in the car that failed to comply with security procedures in a war zone are going to cause you harm.

Yes, but the odds that the mailman is going to shoot you is significantly less then the chance that the supposedly Canadian people in the car that failed to comply with security procedures in a war zone are going to cause you harm.

It's actually only the Americans that claim the diplomats were breaking procedures. The Canadians themselves have explained that they were operating within normal protocal, as far as their knowledge.

It's actually only the Americans that claim the diplomats were breaking procedures. The Canadians themselves have explained that they were operating within normal protocal, as far as their knowledge.
Well, if you have an article to back this up, I will reconsider my previous statements.

Well, if you have an article to back this up, I will reconsider my previous statements.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=8188a07d-4938-4713-ac95-ebc8731330c4&k=41054

The canadians mentioned that they don't "remember" any hand or arm signals warning them to stay back from the convoy? Sounds like they weren't paying very close attention. Something I would be doing in an occupied country when approaching an armed convoy of vehicles. Paying attention that is.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=8188a07d-4938-4713-ac95-ebc8731330c4&k=41054

But a military spokesman in Iraq said Wednesday the U.S. convoy "felt threatened" by a potential suicide-bomb attack after the Canadian vehicle came too close and ignored hand and arm signals to stay back.

"They felt they had to use warning shots," said U.S. Lt.-Col. Barry Johnson, spokesman for the multinational force in Baghdad.

"Clearly, these warning shots weren't aimed at the occupants."

A U.S. military statement said the shots were aimed "at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."

There are two sides to this debate. Even if a single shot did indeed enter the passenger area, it could easily have been a personal mistake by one of the soldiers, and not intentional.

Also, just because that diplomat claims they did not notice any warnings, does not mean there weren't any. The diplomats were probably focused on their work, and not the procedures of the road, which would be the driver's job.

Since nobody was injured, I really don't believe this is even an issue worthy of debate. It was an unfortunate event caused by negligence on the part of the driver, and a personal mistake on the behalf of one of the US soldiers. Overall, the US soldiers found a potential threat and acted correctly in the given situation.

You're aware that 9/11 was not about getting maximum casualties, right? They could have attacked at another time of day, or another set of targets.

The idea was to attack the symbols of American power. Civilian casualties were a necessary side effect. One could almost call it "collateral damage"...

As for train bombings and so on, that's a different matter entirely.

Right. I'm gonna go stand in the middle of the road and signal someone to stop and then shoot them, just as soon as someone on the forum 'tells me to'. :rolleyes:

Oversymplify much?
It's called being in the military. A place you've obviously never been.

One group is mandated by international law to use violence.

The other group is not.

Therefore, any attempt by the latter to use violence is quite unacceptable, and this group, and their supporters, have no right to bitch, argue, whine or complain when they are hunted down, executed, tortured, spat upon or otherwise 'persecuted'.

Don't like the Law? Don't whine when the Law don't like you...

You're aware that 9/11 was not about getting maximum casualties, right? They could have attacked at another time of day, or another set of targets.

The idea was to attack the symbols of American power. Civilian casualties were a necessary side effect. One could almost call it "collateral damage"...

As for train bombings and so on, that's a different matter entirely.

If September 11th was about symbolic value, they could have flown their planes into the statue of liberty or the washington monument. September 11th was both about maximum casulties and symbolic value.

If September 11th was about symbolic value, they could have flown their planes into the statue of liberty or the washington monument. September 11th was both about maximum casulties and symbolic value.
Well, you know how difficult it would be to hit the statue, or the giant phallus. And besides, the towers represented more still than those two.

There were at times tens of thousands of people working in those towers. They attacked in the early morning, with many people not even there yet - fresh perhaps for those on their way to work to listen to it on the radio, to shut down the country for the day, causing billions and billions of dollars in extra damage.

And they could've tried to hit the Yankees' Stadium on the night of a big game. They could've done a lot worse if it had really been about the casualties.

They could've done a lot worse if it had really been about the casualties.

I guess that's why we keep finding repeated references to attempts to acquire smallpox on various al-Qaeda CDs and captured laptops.

Now that would be about the casualties, wouldn't it?

I guess that's why we keep finding repeated references to attempts to acquire smallpox on various al-Qaeda CDs and captured laptops.

Now that would be about the casualties, wouldn't it?


I doubt it. Smallpx ain't that effective. But it sho'nuff is an outside attempt to influence us in ways we don't like.
And that's all the reason we need to perform the freaknasty on those outsiders.

Now that would be about the casualties, wouldn't it?
Yes, that would be.
I'm not saying that AQ aren't terrorists, but I just want to alert people to the double standards when they approve of collateral damage to achieve some sort of political or military goal, but think completely different when it comes to 9/11. Dead people are dead people.

I doubt it. Smallpx ain't that effective

While it does only have a 33% mortallity rate, it is possibly one of the most contageious viruses in the world

While it does only have a 33% mortallity rate, it is possibly one of the most contageious viruses in the world

*shrugs* it was exactly the mix of incubation, contagiousness and mortality, that make smallpock such a burn-outer.

It may seem couner-intuitive, but the lower the mortality, the better 'weapon' it makes. Anything over 20% is not efficient, as I recall it.

Yes, that would be.
I'm not saying that AQ aren't terrorists, but I just want to alert people to the double standards when they approve of collateral damage to achieve some sort of political or military goal, but think completely different when it comes to 9/11. Dead people are dead people.

If AQ had really wanted to make a symbolic attack and actually wanted to avoid civilian casulties, there are many many ways else they could have done it. September 11th was just a very good way of combining symbolic value with maximum civilian casualties.