NationStates Jolt Archive

Growing up, there was a fair amount of sympathy for the cause of the IRA where I grew up. Lots of Irish families. Before then, you had the hippies cheering on Che...then on into the 70s and 80s with the central american revolutionaries. Of course, it was about freedom, not terrorism. Teachers who were sympathetic to the PLO, etc.

The thing was, it wasn't so cut and dry. Some people were for, some people were against. These days...hardly anyone bandies around the word 'freedom fighter' anymore...not seriously. Only terrorist. And the 'terrorists' are not a diverse group anymore. Religious. Fanatic (as though political ideology isn't as powerful, as though it were the root, not the expression...). Alien. Other. Unsympathetic.

So I watch movies from the good old days, when the IRA was still hugely active...when we wondered if things in Ireland would ever settle down. When such a thing seemed impossible...and I sort of miss cheering for the freedom fighters. White people fighting white people...maybe it was something that appealed to a wider range of alignments?

It was more complicated back then. I sort of miss that.

Because when the terrorist attacked American Citizens on 9/11/01, we stopped being symphathetic. Yea, it's pretty normal actually, it's a combination of "Well it doesn't really concern us since it's not on our backyard." and "Hey, as long as they don't mess with us, go freedom fighter, go."

So then it's understandable if there are many people out there who are not US citizens who are still cheering on the freedom fighters, hmmm?

So then it's understandable if there are many people out there who are not US citizens who are still cheering on the freedom fighters, hmmm?

Well, let me ask you something and really this is more for my own clarification. The "freedom fighters" that people supported, did they target innocent civilian?

If we've come to revile attacks on non-combatants as inherently "cut and dry" unjustifiable, I'd categorize that as a laudable development of moral consciousness.

The main difference I can see between a Che and an Osama, or an IRA and a Al Qaeda is that most Islamic terrorists can hardly be said to be fighting for their own freedom. Iraqi insurgents and Palestinians can make the same sort of claims, but international groups blowing shit up in Spain or the US can't make the same claims.

Well, let me ask you something and really this is more for my own clarification. The "freedom fighters" that people supported, did they target innocent civilian?

Some faction of every large movement has targeted civilians. Always.

If we've come to revile attacks on non-combatants as inherently "cut and dry" unjustifiable, I'd categorize that as a laudable development of moral consciousness.

So would I. But I don't think that's what's happened.

Some faction of every large movement has targeted civilians. Always.

What large movement are you referring to in the present sense - and what other targets do they have OTHER than citizens?

The main difference I can see between a Che and an Osama, or an IRA and a Al Qaeda is that most Islamic terrorists can hardly be said to be fighting for their own freedom. Iraqi insurgents and Palestinians can make the same sort of claims, but international groups blowing shit up in Spain or the US can't make the same claims.

What about the Tamil Tigers? The Basque? The Chechnyans? There are any number of groups out there using violence to advance their regional political goals. How is that different than a Che or an IRA? Those conflicts have been raging on for years, looong before Al Qaeda became the media darling.

Once a group becomes...international? Is that the threshold level? What about all the people who were for years sending money and other forms of help to various insurgent...sorry...'terrorist' groups? I'd say that lent an very comparable international flavour to the goings on back then.

So would I. But I don't think that's what's happened.

I didn't think so, but I'm still unclear as to exactly what you do mean.

If you get past the basic issue of terrorist tactics (targeting innocent people), there's still pretty intense political diversity--lots of people support, say, the Palestinian national struggle, and however quiet Northern Ireland is these days, I know Irish-Americans who are as adamant as ever on the subject.

There's not much solidarity with armed Latin American revolutionaries anymore, true--but who wants to support the FARC or Sendero Luminoso? The FSLN and FMLN are political parties now, after all....

What large movement are you referring to in the present sense - and what other targets do they have OTHER than citizens?

Actually, I think she was writing in the imperfect or past continuous tense, which in this context denotes something that happened regularly in the past and continues to happen.

[/pedantry]

What about the Tamil Tigers? The Basque?

Ignorance plays a large part in these cases, I think. Such conflicts don't garner much attention.

The Chechnyans?

Opinions are hardly clear-cut on the Chechen question, and this one hasn't been internationally prominent recently either.

What about Tibet? Lots of pro-self determination sentiment there.

I didn't think so, Then why did you say it? I'm curious.

but I'm still unclear as to exactly what you do mean.

If you get past the basic issue of terrorist tactics (targeting innocent people), there's still pretty intense political diversity--lots of people support, say, the Palestinian national struggle, and however quiet Northern Ireland is these days, I know Irish-Americans who are as adamant as ever on the subject.

There's not much solidarity with armed Latin American revolutionaries anymore, true--but who wants to support the FARC or Sendero Luminoso? The FSLN and FMLN are political parties now, after all....

You'll definitely have people who are still committed to certain causes, or who have a fairly broad understanding of the underlying tensions that have led to armed struggle...but it seems that in terms of a mainstream treatment and understanding of 'freedom fighters' has shifted noticeably in the west towards a much less nuanced 'terrorist' analysis.

So while there used to be fairly vibrant discussions around the issues of a particular liberation movement, now there is a 'blending' of sorts...a massive confusion of Palestinians with Pakistanis with Kashmiris with Afghanis...a ridiculously simplified version of events that leads to no insight, and therefore a lack of opportunity for debate.

I don't actually believe that people have simply gotten immensely more stupid over the past 10 years or so. But something happened to make people less...interested in the details.

Ignorance plays a large part in these cases, I think. Such conflicts don't garner much attention. The Basque were pretty big for years. The ETA were bombing the shit out of people back in the 80s...I remember hearing about them quite a bit. I think many people from my parents generation, as well as my own remember this. So where are all these other people, of the same generations, coming from that are so ignorant?


Opinions are hardly clear-cut on the Chechen question, and this one hasn't been internationally prominent recently either.

What about Tibet? Lots of pro-self determination sentiment there.

Yeah, but Tibetens aren't doing anything spectacular lately.

So while there used to be fairly vibrant discussions around the issues of a particular liberation movement, now there is a 'blending' of sorts...a massive confusion of Palestinians with Pakistanis with Kashmiris with Afghanis...a ridiculously simplified version of events that leads to no insight, and therefore a lack of opportunity for debate.

I'd suggest one major factor: the cultural/racial differences in the relevant terrorist/freedom-fighting movements.

It's rather easy to see why Irish people would sympathize with the IRA, but how many white Christians are going to be inclined to sympathize (or even to understand) a militant Muslim armed liberation movement... or even a militant Hindu one?

A few decades ago, furthermore, a good number of armed liberation movements had (nominal, at least) leftist orientations... and left-wing politics is a reasonably influential political element in Western societies. The movements prominent in the media today tend to be Islamic fundamentalist in character. Their political lines don't really speak to many people in the West.

The Basque were pretty big for years. The ETA were bombing the shit out of people back in the 80s...I remember hearing about them quite a bit.

But political moods don't have that long a life expectancy; people's approach to terrorism is much more influenced by 9/11 and its aftermath particularly, and the recent prominence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the media more generally, than it is by events of decades past.

Let's not forget our good Nicaraguan freedom fighter buddies from the eighties, The Contras.

What am I going to do with "Free Newt"?

(These ads are just cracking me up)

Let's not forget our good Nicaraguan freedom fighter buddies from the eighties, The Contras.

:D

One man's freedom fighter....

And yet I've never heard them labelled thus:p

What am I going to do with "Free Newt"?

(These ads are just cracking me up)

Go to sleep. You've already spammed up the front page.

I have always had enormous sympathy for anyone who was fighting for freedom, independence, civil rights, etc.

I have NEVER had the slightest sympathy with anyone who used violence against civilians/non-governmental entities to press their cause.

I grew up in a NYC that saw huge support for the IRA and other separatist and independence groups from around the world. I saw open, mass demonstrations in sympathy for "freedom fighters" who were jailed indefinitely without charges ever being brought, and I sympathized with that because I knew full well the abuses and crimes being committed against them by the governments they were resisting. But that did not make me blind to the crimes and abuses many members of those groups also committed.

I was vehemently in favor of Irish independence, for instance, but I had no illusions about the IRA. As evil as I felt the British government were being back then, I felt they were being matched, bastard-move for bastard-move, by the IRA. Filthy murderers, all, on both sides. The people I felt for were the Irish citizens caught between them.

So, no, I guess I don't remember a time when terrorism wasn't so bad. Nope, I sure don't.

What I do remember is a time when people were less likely to abandon their principles out of fear of terrorism, though.

:D

One man's freedom fighter....

And yet I've never heard them labelled thus:p

They targeted civilians, raped, tortured, kidnapped and executed. They cut off men's testicles, Neesika. Testicles! You know how much I like my testicles. :(

A few decades ago, furthermore, a good number of armed liberation movements had (nominal, at least) leftist orientations... and left-wing politics is a reasonably influential political element in Western societies. The movements prominent in the media today tend to be Islamic fundamentalist in character. Their political lines don't really speak to many people in the West.

Don't forget that the lefty and "national liberation" movements also drew a significant degree of moral, an often material, support from Soviet-bloc states, particularly the hard line Stalinist stooges, like Bulgaria. Nowadays, even those states, or their successors, are cracking down on their internal national liberation movements, the PRC and the Uighurs, for instance.

Elsewhere, increasing consolidation of democratic institutions, like in Spain, Sri Lanka and Colombia, have offered central governments increasing degrees of legitimacy, and permitting them to begin to crack down on groups like the Tigers, ETA and FARC. Especially visible recently is the success both Sri Lanka and Colombia have had.

Of course, the visiblity of "whacko" attacks is also important. From OK City and the militia movement, to Al Qaeda and their myriad attempts at mega attacks, we see folks with whom most westerners cannot even begin to identify.

Just a few thoughts.

So then it's understandable if there are many people out there who are not US citizens who are still cheering on the freedom fighters, hmmm?

Yes.

You have to remember just how isolated Americans are from the rest of the world. We're basically a gigantic country the size of all of Europe that is extremely powerful and has been capable of preventing anyone from ever doing any serious harm to it for a couple of centuries, practically. Add to that the fact that so many regional oddities crop up, our lack of unifying culture(by culture I speak more of the culture that springs up around ethnicities) and intense belief in our own brand of freedom and democracy, and it's no wonder we're the way we are.

We're basically a spoiled child that has never had to grow up.

Let's not forget our good Nicaraguan freedom fighter buddies from the eighties, The Contras.

If Reagan had given them the Fireball and Spread Guns like he promised, then the damn aliens would have been out of Nicaragua ages ago.

Yes.

You have to remember just how isolated Americans are from the rest of the world. We're basically a gigantic country the size of all of Europe that is extremely powerful and has been capable of preventing anyone from ever doing any serious harm to it for a couple of centuries, practically. Add to that the fact that so many regional oddities crop up, our lack of unifying culture(by culture I speak more of the culture that springs up around ethnicities) and intense belief in our own brand of freedom and democracy, and it's no wonder we're the way we are.

We're basically a spoiled child that has never had to grow up.

And when something still manages to hit the spoiled child, it overreacts and goes into a vengeful fit that usually culminates in a massive military expedition against the country of the perpetrator(s). Look at Pearl Harbor. Look at 9-11.

It stopped when it became brown people killing Americans.

And when something still manages to hit the spoiled child, it overreacts and goes into a vengeful fit that usually culminates in a massive military expedition against the country of the perpetrator(s). Look at Pearl Harbor. Look at 9-11.

To be fair, Pearl Harbor was a declaration of war by a state, whereas 9/11 was not. Our response wasn't disproportionate against Japan so much as it was fighting the war with the level of strength we could.

(The disproportionate act was placing ethnically Japanese citizens into internment camps.)

And when something still manages to hit the spoiled child, it overreacts and goes into a vengeful fit that usually culminates in a massive military expedition against the country of the perpetrator(s). Look at Pearl Harbor. Look at 9-11.

If a foreign groups/nations you aren't even at war with attacked your country with the intent to either cripple your country's defences or ruin your economy and killed thousands in the process, wouldn't you want said groups/nations dealt with?

I really don't sympathise with groups who try to bring change by slaughtering innocents. If you are going to die in the attack anyway (they're called suicide attacks for a reason), you should grow a spine and some balls and actually attack the military/government you want to attack instead of killing people who don't really have that much a say in what their government/military does and can't really defend themselves.

I know that the groups can't really "defeat" the governments and militaries themselves, but the martyrs should martyr themselves attacking their enemies instead of people who aren't really responsible for it and can't do all that much about it.

Growing up, there was a fair amount of sympathy for the cause of the IRA where I grew up. Lots of Irish families. Before then, you had the hippies cheering on Che...then on into the 70s and 80s with the central american revolutionaries. Of course, it was about freedom, not terrorism. Teachers who were sympathetic to the PLO, etc.

The thing was, it wasn't so cut and dry. Some people were for, some people were against. These days...hardly anyone bandies around the word 'freedom fighter' anymore...not seriously. Only terrorist. And the 'terrorists' are not a diverse group anymore. Religious. Fanatic (as though political ideology isn't as powerful, as though it were the root, not the expression...). Alien. Other. Unsympathetic.

So I watch movies from the good old days, when the IRA was still hugely active...when we wondered if things in Ireland would ever settle down. When such a thing seemed impossible...and I sort of miss cheering for the freedom fighters. White people fighting white people...maybe it was something that appealed to a wider range of alignments?

It was more complicated back then. I sort of miss that.

Please don't call the IRA freedom fighters.

If a foreign groups/nations you aren't even at war with attacked your country with the intent to either cripple your country's defences or ruin your economy and killed thousands in the process, wouldn't you want said groups/nations dealt with?

I really don't sympathise with groups who try to bring change by slaughtering innocents. If you are going to die in the attack anyway (they're called suicide attacks for a reason), you should grow a spine and some balls and actually attack the military/government you want to attack instead of killing people who don't really have that much a say in what their government/military does and can't really defend themselves.

I know that the groups can't really "defeat" the governments and militaries themselves, but the martyrs should martyr themselves attacking their enemies instead of people who aren't really responsible for it and can't do all that much about it.
No one said that we couldn't defend ourselves against terrorism and that we couldn't bring those who committed the crime to justice.

What we said was that we overreacted, and we did, and we invaded a country that had nothing to do with it to boot, getting hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed, creating thousands more terrorists who see us proving every word the extremists spout, etc etc.

We fucked up.

It does bother me that 'terrorism' is such a big deal these days (in theory, that would only mean it's working, anyway), considering that -I'm pretty sure- I'm less likely to be caught up in a deadly terrorist action today than I would have been a few decades ago. Been a while since Manchester blew up, anyway, and I can't remember the last time I wondered whether there might be a nail bomb in the litter bin I just used.

Obviously in cases such as ETA -and the other Spanish (if they'll even allow me to call them such!) separatist groups- it has become less easy to sympathise with them since Franco kicked the bucket. Now, if they continue to fight, people in other western capitalist representative democracies feel threatened by their actions, and others in their own lands find it harder to appreciate why they feel the need to struggle. Presumably.

'We' have probably run out of uses for terrorists as weapons against foreign enemies, too. I mean, they're still wonderfully useful in domestic politics, I'm sure, but what does the west need the KLA for now that Yugoslav socialism has choked on its own blood, anyway?

Nah, that's wishful thinking. 'We' are still using terrorists against Latin American socialism and democracy, same as ever.

Growing up, there was a fair amount of sympathy for the cause of the IRA where I grew up. Lots of Irish families. Before then, you had the hippies cheering on Che...then on into the 70s and 80s with the central american revolutionaries. Of course, it was about freedom, not terrorism. Teachers who were sympathetic to the PLO, etc.

The thing was, it wasn't so cut and dry. Some people were for, some people were against. These days...hardly anyone bandies around the word 'freedom fighter' anymore...not seriously. Only terrorist. And the 'terrorists' are not a diverse group anymore. Religious. Fanatic (as though political ideology isn't as powerful, as though it were the root, not the expression...). Alien. Other. Unsympathetic.

So I watch movies from the good old days, when the IRA was still hugely active...when we wondered if things in Ireland would ever settle down. When such a thing seemed impossible...and I sort of miss cheering for the freedom fighters. White people fighting white people...maybe it was something that appealed to a wider range of alignments?

It was more complicated back then. I sort of miss that.


Its due to the collapse of the international left. Sad. I mourn the days we live in, where the religon or colour of a people is a factor in determining whether they are politically acceptable or not. I supported the Sandinistas, the PLO and PFLP, the IRA and other causes and still do. I can only hope the world will soon get sense once more.

Please don't call the IRA freedom fighters.

Just try and stop me.

No one has a monopoly on the term.

Growing up, there was a fair amount of sympathy for the cause of the IRA where I grew up. Lots of Irish families.

Not too surprising, my opinions were different when I grew up. From what I learned from the newspapers, both the IRA and the UDA were terrorist organizations. Both groups had no qualms about attacking civilians.

I really don't sympathise with groups who try to bring change by slaughtering innocents.
You can't pick and choose my friend. Governments do the same.
Vietnam, especially the napalming and defoliation killed many an innocent. The support for the Contras. The support for Osama when he was fighting the Russians, etc.

If you are willing to criticise your country for it's actions, then I will take your criticism of terrorists more seriously.

Not too surprising, my opinions were different when I grew up. From what I learned from the newspapers, both the IRA and the UDA were terrorist organizations. Both groups had no qualms about attacking civilians.

The first dissenting opinion I encountered was from our English Drama teacher...on St. Paddy's Day she absolutely refused to wear green, and most years, refused to show up at all. So we asked why, and she told us.

Just try and stop me.


They're not fighting for freedom, they're fighting for unification with Eire. So not freedom fighters.

They're not fighting for freedom, they're fighting for unification with Eire. So not freedom fighters.

Freedom from external control.

So freedom fighters:p

If you want to go make up a situationaly specific term for each group out there, feel free. I'm not going to follow your lead. The term is intended to paint broad strokes.

They're not fighting for freedom, they're fighting for unification with Eire. So not freedom fighters.


Well actually they (PIRA) were fighting for unfication because the catholic population were treated as second class citizens under a sectarian statelet within the UK for 50 odd years, and were batoned off the streets when they tried the peaceful route...

Well actually they (PIRA) were fighting for unfication because the catholic population were treated as second class citizens under a sectarian statelet within the UK for 50 odd years, and were batoned off the streets when they tried the peaceful route...

Not denying that, but it's not freedom from external control, like Neesika thinks. They would be controlled by a different country.

The first dissenting opinion I encountered was from our English Drama teacher...on St. Paddy's Day she absolutely refused to wear green, and most years, refused to show up at all. So we asked why, and she told us.

I had a history professor that would wear orange on St. Paddy's Day.

Well actually they (PIRA) were fighting for unfication because the catholic population were treated as second class citizens under a sectarian statelet within the UK for 50 odd years, and were batoned off the streets when they tried the peaceful route...


Perhaps you ought to ask what the IRA were called in 1968/1969..... the " I ran aways"
The british army got deployed in Northern Ireland in 1969 because the police force of northern ireland had lost control of protestant mobs who were attacking catholics.
The great f*** up came in handing control of the army to northern ireland politicians... many of whom were linked to stirring up the trouble against catholics.

It had nothing to do with 'liberating Ireland from the evil british.... nothing to do with clamouring for 'joining with the south' or the other bollocks told in US irish bars
The worst thing was the Sinn fien at the time who were active in the Irish republic as well as the North had a seriously marxist manifesto they wanted to put in place....... the great irony was always how the US gave money to people fighting marxists/communists.. then went to an irish bar and gave money to support a marxist organisation. :confused:

And besides , when the IRA moved from shooting/bombing the government and army to shooting and bombing anyone, thats when they lost any legitimate claim to be 'freedom fighters' and turned into just another bunch of thugs out to impose their will on the people rather like the protestant UDA and other such bollocks organisations. :upyours:

Not denying that, but it's not freedom from external control, like Neesika thinks. They would be controlled by a different country.

Freedom from specific external control.

Still fits.

wonka wonka wonka

At least you're approaching it from a more nuanced standpoint though. I prefer that to the moronic mouth breathings of people whose entire vocabulary on the subject can be summed up by 'terrorist'.

You can't pick and choose my friend. Governments do the same.
Vietnam, especially the napalming and defoliation killed many an innocent. The support for the Contras. The support for Osama when he was fighting the Russians, etc.

If you are willing to criticise your country for it's actions, then I will take your criticism of terrorists more seriously.
I'll take that challenge for my own sake. I denounce BOTH terrorist organizations who attack civilians and claim they are doing it for a cause, and my own country (USA) for supporting terrorism in other countries, meddling illegally in the internal affairs of other countries, launching wars of aggression, directly committing acts of terror and gross human rights violations.

Happy? Am I now allowed to say I don't remember a time when terrorism wasn't so bad (which I already did, btw)?

Actually, I don't remember when terrorism wasn't so bad - simply because terrorism has always been bad!

I remember growing up and watching the evening news when the Red Army Fraction (RAF) has made another attack. (Although those were later generation RAF terrorists - I ain't that old!)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/RAF-Logo.svg/140px-RAF-Logo.svg.png

I remember the wanted posters that were on display in every public building, including schools. Couldn't go into the office without having to look at those terrorists.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Fahndungsplakat.jpg

I also remember that (to this day) I don't understand how they could think that their acts would somehow change society to the better - because, quite frankly, the opposite happened and the so-called "Überwachungsstaat" showed its teeth and true power.

Last but not least, domestic terrorism and its brother international terrorism have been around for a long, long time. People seem to forget that long before 9/11, the West has been fighting a "global war on terror".

One of our TV stations shows old news-shows from 20 years ago some time after midnight. And guess what? If you disregarded the year and the politicians' names, the topics are the same, some of which exactly the same as those shown yesterday.

For example, our old Chancellor Kohl increasing funding to battle global terrorism in conjuction with his U.S. counterpart President Bush. And it's the 1980ies we're talking about, not the 21st century...

So, no, I don't remember when terrorism wasn't so bad after all - because it's always been pretty bad. And apart from disease and disasters the only thing that can truly uproot a modern society.


On a a related note, I'm really looking forward to the German movie production "Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765432/)", an attempt to shed light on the phenomenon of German terrorism for those generations who've grown up without it, and for whom 9/11 was the first "true" experience with terrorism.

Trailer (http://www.bmk.film.de/) (click on the top middle picture. And yes, it's in German and apparently our entry for this year's Oscars)

And besides , when the IRA moved from shooting/bombing the government and army to shooting and bombing anyone, thats when they lost any legitimate claim to be 'freedom fighters' and turned into just another bunch of thugs out to impose their will on the people rather like the protestant UDA and other such bollocks organisations. :upyours:

Is that where you draw the line? When civilians are targeted, or become casualties?

I've always had a big problem with the way that civilians are often squeezed between opposing forces...persecuted for suspicion of collaboration (with either side). Government forces or not, anyone who is trying to impose their ideological agenda via rapings, beatings and killings loses serious ideological footing.

I can understand on a certain level how people could be moved to commit violence, and I can not absolutely condemn them for it...it is certainly more difficult (if not outright impossible) to fight non-violently against violent forces, or to fight only a war of defence (which no, does not include executing civilians, sorry). But I can also see how it would be very easy to blur the lines between 'what needs to be done to achieve our goals and then discarded' and 'what we do, period'.

Freedom from specific external control.

You win.

I don't know what all you folks are on about with your 'terrorism was always bad' bit. It's like you don't understand that the threat of violence, even on your own soil, was only a possibility once the year 2000 rolled around. The conflicts of today are only symbolically rooted in past events. Sheesh.

You win.

Do I get a prize?

Terrorism stopped being ok after 9/11, when America realised it's not nice to have bombs killing civilians in your own country.

Do I get a prize?

Yes, but first you have to be wearing orange head to foot and chanting how you hat catholics while you march through the bogside in Derry.

Is that where you draw the line? When civilians are targeted, or become casualties?

I've always had a big problem with the way that civilians are often squeezed between opposing forces...persecuted for suspicion of collaboration (with either side). Government forces or not, anyone who is trying to impose their ideological agenda via rapings, beatings and killings loses serious ideological footing.

I can understand on a certain level how people could be moved to commit violence, and I can not absolutely condemn them for it...it is certainly more difficult (if not outright impossible) to fight non-violently against violent forces, or to fight only a war of defence (which no, does not include executing civilians, sorry). But I can also see how it would be very easy to blur the lines between 'what needs to be done to achieve our goals and then discarded' and 'what we do, period'.
Attacking civilian populations is where I draw the line, and personally I DON'T find it easy to blur the line between "what needs to be done" and "what we do." Nope, no matter how much dirt I kick up, the bright clear line between "legitimate target" and "not legitimate target" always shines through, bright and clear.

Yes, I can easily understand the need to resort to violence to break the stranglehold of an oppressive power -- or even just to bring public attention to an oppressive condition. Remember, I come from a country that was created by violent revolution, and I do believe a time may come eventually when one just has to act.

BUT I see ZERO justification for any unprovoked attack against people who are not and have never harmed you, nor are members of the government that is harming you, nor have contributed in any way to the situation that is harming you. No. Justification. Ever. For that.

If Palestinians want to fire mortars at Jewish settlements in disputed territories that were put up in direct violation of or reneging on an Israeli promise not to put up more settlements there, then you know what, let those settlers learn to duck and cover. They ARE contributing to the problem and participating in escalation of hostilities. They place themselves in the position of provacateurs and they cease to be innocent bystanders.

But the average Israelis going to shopping malls or waiting at bus stops in Tel Aviv? No, I'm sorry, those people are NOT part of the problem. They are NOT legitimate targets, and the terrorists who blow themselves up in those places in order to kill them are nothing but murderers, as are their leaders.

And as for the IRA, they bombed the very people whose freedom they claimed to be fighting for. Fuck the IRA -- both killers and hypocrites.

And as for the IRA, they bombed the very people whose freedom they claimed to be fighting for. Fuck the IRA -- both killers and hypocrites.

No, they didn't bomb the people they were claiming freedom for, they bombed English civilians and soldiers. The Omagh bombing killed Northern Irish people, but that was RIRA, not PIRA.

Yes, but first you have to be wearing orange head to foot and chanting how you hat catholics while you march through the bogside in Derry.

:eek:

Ok, but only after you dress up like a cowboy and drive through a Reservation tossing out bottles of Listerine and trying to buy sex from every aboriginal woman you see.

No, they didn't bomb the people they were claiming freedom for, they bombed English civilians and soldiers. The Omagh bombing killed Northern Irish people, but that was RIRA, not PIRA.
Really. So bombs left in public places are targeted "smart" weapons that only affect the people you want them to? Yeah, right. I'm sorry, but that's horseshit.

Also, what part of "they bombed English civilians" did you think was going to make me say, "Oh, that's all right then"?

Attacking civilian populations is where I draw the line, and personally I DON'T find it easy to blur the line between "what needs to be done" and "what we do." Nope, no matter how much dirt I kick up, the bright clear line between "legitimate target" and "not legitimate target" always shines through, bright and clear.
And if a movement used violence at the beginning...eschewing established (if corrupt) judicial systems...will that movement forever be tainted by that use of violence even in absence of further actions?

That's what I'm talking about. There are things that groups have ended up doing out of desperation that don't necessarily jive with their ideological orientation. I can see how that can happen, and I can see how that can seriously impair a movement in the long run, turning well meaning revolutionaries into thugs.

Not to mention the question of 'when does someone stop being a civilian and start being a combatant'.

Yes, I can easily understand the need to resort to violence to break the stranglehold of an oppressive power -- or even just to bring public attention to an oppressive condition. Remember, I come from a country that was created by violent revolution, and I do believe a time may come eventually when one just has to act.

BUT I see ZERO justification for any unprovoked attack against people who are not and have never harmed you, nor are members of the government that is harming you, nor have contributed in any way to the situation that is harming you. No. Justification. Ever. For that. Fair enough, if you can always, with crystal clarity, be sure of who is 'clean' and who is not.

If Palestinians want to fire mortars at Jewish settlements in disputed territories that were put up in direct violation of or reneging on an Israeli promise not to put up more settlements there, then you know what, let those settlers learn to duck and cover. They ARE contributing to the problem and participating in escalation of hostilities. They place themselves in the position of provacateurs and they cease to be innocent bystanders. Ah, a more nuanced approach. Not that I really expected less from you, but I'm glad for it anyway, because you don't get it much around here.

What I've always objected to is the arbitrary notion that 'civilian' and 'non-combatant' are necessarily always the same thing. Many would argue that settling is not an act of agression, and therefore does not make these people a legitimate target.

I still have a problem with a movement that relies on violence as its main expression, or only expression of self-determination.

But the average Israelis going to shopping malls or waiting at bus stops in Tel Aviv? No, I'm sorry, those people are NOT part of the problem. They are NOT legitimate targets, and the terrorists who blow themselves up in those places in order to kill them are nothing but murderers, as are their leaders. Agreed. Although my disgust with such violence does not necessarily extend to a repudiation of actions targeting property.

And as for the IRA, they bombed the very people whose freedom they claimed to be fighting for. Fuck the IRA -- both killers and hypocrites. That's one thing I could never understand...and it's what so many 'revolutionary' groups ended up doing...trying to squeeze the public harder, make them more afraid of them than they were of the government. I think this ultimately dooms them all.

Really. So bombs left in public places are targeted "smart" weapons that only affect the people you want them to? Yeah, right. I'm sorry, but that's horseshit.

Also, what part of "they bombed English civilians" did you think was going to make me say, "Oh, that's all right then"?

It's not alright, I hate the IRA, but I was just filling you in. The bombs they used were on English civilians or Northern Irish protestants as well as soldiers, but not Northern Irish Catholics.

:eek:

Ok, but only after you dress up like a cowboy and drive through a Reservation tossing out bottles of Listerine and trying to buy sex from every aboriginal woman you see.

Already did that, they didn't take to kindly to it for some reason.

Already did that, they didn't take to kindly to it for some reason.

No you didn't. We have automatic weapons...there's no way you'd have surived:p

No you didn't. We have automatic weapons...there's no way you'd have surived:p

That's what the doctors said. I showed them.

I think there is a key ingredient missing from today's terrorist compared to the ones you mentioned. They all had a cause they wanted to promote, today's terrorist just want to destroy something they do not like. It is hard to sympathize with a group of people that just hate Western Ethics, but one that is promoting social equity is much easier to accept. I am not saying I promote terrorism in any form, but today's terrorism is sort of like American politics, let's tear the other guy down because there is nothing good to say about ourselves either. What is there to sympathize with? It symbolizes nothing but hate. Che did some terrible things in the name of communism, but at least he can claim it symbolized social equality.

it was because back then they didn't target Americans on American soil. an American citizen is worth 3 British, 5 Israelis, 7 Latin Americans and 10 Palestinians. Now they did we have to hit them all.

it was because back then they didn't target Americans on American soil. an American citizen is worth 3 British, 5 Israelis, 7 Latin Americans and 10 Palestinians. Now they did we have to hit them all.

Yay, we're worth more than the Israelis!

:eek:

Ok, but only after you dress up like a cowboy and drive through a Reservation tossing out bottles of Listerine and trying to buy sex from every aboriginal woman you see.

I has a question...how come listerine is an ethnic epithet? Are Native Americans are opposed to fresh breath, or something?

it was because back then they didn't target Americans on American soil. an American citizen is worth 3 British, 5 Israelis, 7 Latin Americans and 10 Palestinians. Now they did we have to hit them all.

Actually, September 11th was potent because of the impact it had on people's mortality salience, and the response that it garnered was because it was so visible, and potent. Not for any of your retarded, failed sarcasm.

I do remember when terrorism was something that just happened elsewhere. And nobody really made a big deal out of it, in the way that nobody really makes a big deal out of any war or possible genocides that happens in Africa now.

Actually, I think Africa is a perfect example, because nobody really cares about anything that happens there still - until it happens closer to home as well.

I do remember when terrorism was something that just happened elsewhere. And nobody really made a big deal out of it, in the way that nobody really makes a big deal out of any war or possible genocides that happens in Africa now.


Even at that, though, large scale attacks happened in the US, prior to 2001. WTC 1 and OK-City are the two most obvious examples, but there were others. A lot of people died during the OK-City attack, and the attitude wasn't quite what it is now.

What I'd say, at least in the case of the US, is the significant difference of the September 11, 2001 attacks is not their scale, no, it was their visibility. OK-City, the bomb went off, and we didn't see any photos until the news crews arrived, at a later point in time. The entire world watched as the attacks happened. Millions saw the second plane crash into the twin towers, and millions more saw the individual towers fall. The visibility of the attacks, and their duration would have to be the most significant difference. It activated a higher degree of mortality salience, because we knew what we were watching was actually happening.

I've reference Greenberg and Pysczyznski (I think I spelled his name right) on these forums before. The work they've done on the psychology of terror (not terrorism, terror: I.E., the realization that, no matter what, our individual lives are temporary, and death is imminent) is excellent. They have collected so much vital information that it's almost astounding.

Not denying that, but it's not freedom from external control, like Neesika thinks. They would be controlled by a different country.

Well, they don't view it as a "different country".

Perhaps you ought to ask what the IRA were called in 1968/1969..... the " I ran aways"

Well that was actually due to the reluctance of the IRA command to engage. Eventually this led to the split between the Officials and the Provos.


The british army got deployed in Northern Ireland in 1969 because the police force of northern ireland had lost control of protestant mobs who were attacking catholics"

The police force in NI was greatly involved in the mobs who were attacking catholics. The "B Specials" in particular.

The great f*** up came in handing control of the army to northern ireland politicians... many of whom were linked to stirring up the trouble against catholics."

The Army were never under local control as far as I'm aware. Control of policing was removed when Stormont was devolved in 1972.

It had nothing to do with 'liberating Ireland from the evil british.... nothing to do with clamouring for 'joining with the south' or the other bollocks told in US irish bars."

I've already said exactly what was behind it, or at least motivating it. You may continue with your anecdotes concerning US bar conversations regardless though......

the great irony was always how the US gave money to people fighting marxists/communists.. then went to an irish bar and gave money to support a marxist organisation."

The Irony didn't damage the value of the currency though.

And as for the IRA, they bombed the very people whose freedom they claimed to be fighting for."

Well, there was the odd accident, but deliberately? No.

I has a question...how come listerine is an ethnic epithet? Are Native Americans are opposed to fresh breath, or something?

There exists a strong stereotype in the Prairies involving aboriginal people drinking Listerine to get drunk.

There exists a strong stereotype in the Prairies involving aboriginal people drinking Listerine to get drunk.

Ah.

So that's why my uncle uses that weird mouthwash. I've never used mouthwash for anything, so it's a topic I'm quite inexperienced on.

I guess when shit really hit the fan on 9/11, where one single attack killed more than 3,000 people, and caused the market to loose so much money, that people connect any sort of terrorism to what happened back in 2001.

And if a movement used violence at the beginning...eschewing established (if corrupt) judicial systems...will that movement forever be tainted by that use of violence even in absence of further actions?

That's what I'm talking about. There are things that groups have ended up doing out of desperation that don't necessarily jive with their ideological orientation. I can see how that can happen, and I can see how that can seriously impair a movement in the long run, turning well meaning revolutionaries into thugs.

Not to mention the question of 'when does someone stop being a civilian and start being a combatant'.
To me, personally, yes, they will always be tainted by use of violence no matter if they have since abandoned it.

In the larger context of politics, which isn't about me, then if there is NO ONE else to deal with then I guess I would have to suck it up and deal with them, but I would NEVER trust them. Never.

It is my personal opinion that, if one gets so desperate that one is seriously considering violating one's own ethics to keep a cause going, that means your cause is lost and its time to give up, go home, and think of a new approach.

Fair enough, if you can always, with crystal clarity, be sure of who is 'clean' and who is not.
Ah, a more nuanced approach. Not that I really expected less from you, but I'm glad for it anyway, because you don't get it much around here.

What I've always objected to is the arbitrary notion that 'civilian' and 'non-combatant' are necessarily always the same thing. Many would argue that settling is not an act of agression, and therefore does not make these people a legitimate target.
I am not one of those.

But on the other hand, you don't need crystal clarity on who is okay to kill and who isn't among your enemies. You only need crystal clarity about where you draw the line on what YOU will do, regardless of what the other side does. That's my definition of ethics.

For instance, I don't care if the Germans were hiding arms factories and munitions dumps in Dresden -- that city was overwhelmingly civilian and therefore not a legitimate target for carpet bombing and what was done to it was a crime against humanity. Same thing with the tactics used in Vietnam -- regardless of whether civilian villages were being used as fronts for the enemy, there was no justification for the massacres of civilians that were committed. Likewise, I don't give a shit if non-combatant civilians are enjoying life under a government that is oppressing you (rhetorical "you" of course), that does not make little kids in a daycare, or commuters waiting for a train, etc., legitimate targets for attack.

I still have a problem with a movement that relies on violence as its main expression, or only expression of self-determination.
Same here. I would certainly never do anything to support such a group under any circumstances regardless of what I felt about the cause they claimed to represent.

Agreed. Although my disgust with such violence does not necessarily extend to a repudiation of actions targeting property.
Same here again. When I was a kid, there were tons of bombings in NYC. In fact, my friend's brother, the cop, who at various times worked in homicide, burglary, the bomb squad and emergency services (he was with emergency services when 9/11 happened), told me that in any given week, the NYPD fielded over 200 bomb threats, and of that number maybe up to 50 turned out to be legitimate.

That's up to 50 potential explosions with a chance to kill people every single week. I tell you, the bomb squad earns its money. Among the most common were letter bombs through the mail and pipe bombs in public buildings. My mom worked with a woman who lost a hand to a letter bomb, and I went through bomb-threat-related school evacuations at three times that I remember.

But here was the interesting thing -- most of those bombs came with threats announcing that a bomb had been planted and where. Even some of the letter bombers would issue public statements announcing that bombs were in circulation. Why would they do that, given that it led to the police usually finding and disarming their bombs? They did it to minimize human casualties. See the aim of those various little groups was not actually to set off explosions but to grab and hold public attention, so they pulled these idiotic (imo) stunts that included taking responsibility for it and claiming that they were giving plenty of warning for the non-combatant public to get out of the way and protect themselves, and if we all go blown up we could blame Da Man for not looking out for us, just like they weren't looking out for <insert oppressed group of choice>.

Was that bullshit? Yes, it was. But it also led to only a few bombs going off per year, out of up to 50 planted per week.

Oh, by the way, this ^^^ is why I jump out of my skull everytime I hear someone say that, before 9/11 Americans had no experience of terrorism (as someone in this thread recently did). Speak for your damned selves!!! I'm an American, and I had plenty of experience of it my whole life. I grew up in a target zone.

That's one thing I could never understand...and it's what so many 'revolutionary' groups ended up doing...trying to squeeze the public harder, make them more afraid of them than they were of the government. I think this ultimately dooms them all.
I agree. I think you could count on one hand the number of times it has not happened that way.

Well, there was the odd accident, but deliberately? No.
There is no such thing as "the odd accident" of collateral damage in a bombing.

Bombs go boom. In all directions. They don't pick their targets. People who don't know that, should not play with bombs.

For instance, I don't care if the Germans were hiding arms factories and munitions dumps in Dresden -- that city was overwhelmingly civilian and therefore not a legitimate target for carpet bombing and what was done to it was a crime against humanity. Same thing with the tactics used in Vietnam -- regardless of whether civilian villages were being used as fronts for the enemy, there was no justification for the massacres of civilians that were committed. Likewise, I don't give a shit if non-combatant civilians are enjoying life under a government that is oppressing you (rhetorical "you" of course), that does not make little kids in a daycare, or commuters waiting for a train, etc., legitimate targets for attack.


If I recall correctly, under international law, the rule dictates that if civilians are killed in the destruction of a "legitimate military target", then the onus for their deaths rests not with the party who "pulled the trigger", rather, it rests on the party who was hiding out in the village. A part of the rules that pisses of "national liberation movement" states...but that's how it goes. Not that I'm saying its right, or not, just that's how the community of nations has determined it to be.

If I recall correctly, under international law, the rule dictates that if civilians are killed in the destruction of a "legitimate military target", then the onus for their deaths rests not with the party who "pulled the trigger", rather, it rests on the party who was hiding out in the village. A part of the rules that pisses of "national liberation movement" states...but that's how it goes. Not that I'm saying its right, or not, just that's how the community of nations has determined it to be.
The definition of ethics that I gave in my post does not require me to give a shit what the community of nations thinks. It's where I draw the line on what I will do or not do. Therefore, based on where I draw the line, the bombing of Dresden was a crime against humanity.

There is no such thing as "the odd accident" of collateral damage in a bombing.

Bombs go boom. In all directions. They don't pick their targets. People who don't know that, should not play with bombs.

Well you stated......
And as for the IRA, they bombed the very people whose freedom they claimed to be fighting for
which implies deliberate targeting, to my mind.

The definition of ethics that I gave in my post does not require me to give a shit what the community of nations thinks. It's where I draw the line on what I will do or not do. Therefore, based on where I draw the line, the bombing of Dresden was a crime against humanity.

I'm not questioning that you think the Dresden bombing was wrong, nor am I questioning that it was wrong. It certainly was. It's semantics, I know, but I'm questioning whether it was a crime, or if it was not. If it is a crime, then there ought to be some governing body or authority that has declared it illegal, and that can enforce some sort of punishment.

Well you stated......

which implies deliberate targeting, to my mind.

I think what she is saying is that you cannot deliberately not-target. You can't make it so that a bomb is "collateral damage-proof".

The definition of ethics that I gave in my post does not require me to give a shit what the community of nations thinks. It's where I draw the line on what I will do or not do. Therefore, based on where I draw the line, the bombing of Dresden was a crime against humanity.

Thank you. Legalistic (or pseudo legalistic) arguments about ethical issues just piss me off.

If I recall correctly, under international law, the rule dictates that if civilians are killed in the destruction of a "legitimate military target", then the onus for their deaths rests not with the party who "pulled the trigger", rather, it rests on the party who was hiding out in the village. A part of the rules that pisses of "national liberation movement" states...but that's how it goes. Not that I'm saying its right, or not, just that's how the community of nations has determined it to be.

Your recollection lacks nuance. It's not that black and white. A closer analysis of the situation would be warranted, including but not limited to an assessment of proportionality (or lack thereof - like an indiscriminate attack or a bombardment of an area), necessity (will the loss of civilian life be excessive) and the situation on the ground (how did the civilians come to be near the military target).

I think what she is saying is that you cannot deliberately not-target. You can't make it so that a bomb is "collateral damage-proof".

O thats true. In fact any act of vilolence has a risk of unforseen consequences. Thus it should be a matter of last resort.

The trekkies forgot that the Bajorans liberated themselves through terrorism.

If I recall correctly, under international law, the rule dictates that if civilians are killed in the destruction of a "legitimate military target", then the onus for their deaths rests not with the party who "pulled the trigger", rather, it rests on the party who was hiding out in the village.

You're oversimplifying the standard, I think. Maybe I'm confusing the rules here with the broader Western ethical tradition on the subject, but I'm fairly sure that there are components of proportionality and necessity involved as well: you can't just say "Well, there are military targets somewhere in the city" and then bomb the hell out of the whole place, you have to make sure that the use of force is proportionate to your legitimate objective and is the minimum necessary (in terms of "collateral damage") to achieve it.

In the case of Dresden, and analogous cases like the firebombing of Japanese cities and the dropping of the atomic bombs, not only was the destruction disproportionate to the legitimate military objectives involved (and far from narrowly targeted), but the prima facie intent appears to have been rather more sinister. We didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima to destroy the Japanese military forces there; we did it to demonstrate the capacity for destruction of which the bomb was capable. The legitimate military targets were just a nice bonus.

Terrorism as a tactic and social phenomenon will always be with us, in my opinion.
The forms that it takes will evolve to suit the political climate of the times.
There was a brief moment after 9-11, when I wondered if modern terrorism would go the way of the dodo, but I do not think this is possible.

Groups like the FARC and LTTE (Tamil Tigers) are pretty much screwed, because they don't have any external support. However, the PLO, Hezbollah and various Middle Eastern groups continue to get material and financial support from various Arab states.

But terrorism is, really, all a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the British, the colonial Minutemen and the founders of modern Israel were terrorists, but to us they are heroes.
As to what forms terrorism will take in the future, I can only speculate; but I can see the plausibility of the U.S. arming groups in eastern europe to fight the Russians, a la the Kosovo Liberation Army. Also, I could see us funding and arming groups of Kurds, Arabs and other militants to fight the current regime in Iran. In fact I would be surprised if we are not already funding such groups like the Mojahedin-e Khalq, the militant islamic group which advocates the overthrow of Iran's current government.

The Army were never under local control as far as I'm aware. Control of policing was removed when Stormont was devolved in 1972.


When deployed the cheif of the british army asked that the units were kept under control of the westminister government, not the locals....... sadly he was ignored



Well, there was the odd accident, but deliberately? No.

[/QUOTE]

Check out the Shanklin road fish bar bombing sometime.
2 IRA 'heros' blew themselves to glory killing 8 civilians when the bomb they were planting went off.
The instant you target civilians is the time you lose any claim to be different from your 'oppressors'

What if the civilians are your oppresors? It may be a rare case, but it's possible.

Well you stated......

which implies deliberate targeting, to my mind.
If someone sets fire to their neighbor's house and the fire spreads to the whole street, are you going to say, well, hey, he didn't burn all those other houses? Don't be silly. A person sets off a bomb, and they are responsible for everyone it harms, and that includes the people whose side they claimed to be on. If they didn't intend to blow them up (despite having chosen to use bombs, arguably the most indiscriminate weapon available to them), then that just makes them incompetent as well as murderous.

I'm not questioning that you think the Dresden bombing was wrong, nor am I questioning that it was wrong. It certainly was. It's semantics, I know, but I'm questioning whether it was a crime, or if it was not. If it is a crime, then there ought to be some governing body or authority that has declared it illegal, and that can enforce some sort of punishment.
The term "Crime against Humanity" is in this case a colloquial term for an ethical misdemeanour on a global scale. It doesn't necessarily need to be a crime, nor does it necessarily need to be directed against humans in general; it's just a phrase used to describe a massive wrongdoing.

I'm not questioning that you think the Dresden bombing was wrong, nor am I questioning that it was wrong. It certainly was. It's semantics, I know, but I'm questioning whether it was a crime, or if it was not. If it is a crime, then there ought to be some governing body or authority that has declared it illegal, and that can enforce some sort of punishment.Well, you'd have to prove that targetting the city center (as opposed to the outskirts where the industrial targets were) with incendiary bombs was deliberate, in which case it would be genocide. Unfortunately, as the Milosevic trial showed, you can't drag a corpse in front of a war crimes tribunal, so Churchill and the others responsible will never be held accountable.

I think what she is saying is that you cannot deliberately not-target. You can't make it so that a bomb is "collateral damage-proof".
Thank you, yes, this is what I was saying. And because of the nature of bombs, I am unimpressed with arguments from or about bombers that claim they were only trying to target a specific object, person, type of person, etc. That's not how bombs work, so either they are lying about their intention, or they stupidly used the wrong weapon.

I'm not questioning that you think the Dresden bombing was wrong, nor am I questioning that it was wrong. It certainly was. It's semantics, I know, but I'm questioning whether it was a crime, or if it was not. If it is a crime, then there ought to be some governing body or authority that has declared it illegal, and that can enforce some sort of punishment.
Well, I was not making a legal argument. I was stating my ethical position, so frankly, I don't care whether the international legal establishment agrees that Dresden as a crime under law or not. Ethically, it qualifies as a crime, regardless of whether it was punished.

Also, I have heard arguments both ways on Dresden, and I happen to think it may still be an open question. However, I also think it is one of many war crimes that will never be punished, regardless of what any future conclusion about it might be.

The trekkies forgot that the Bajorans liberated themselves through terrorism.

No they didn't. They simply kept fighting for so long that the Cardassians eventually felt it wasn't worth continuing, especially since they'd already gained the maximum amount of resources they felt they could conceivably obtain from Bajor.

It wasn't a victory. It was a hold-out.

I'll take that challenge for my own sake. I denounce BOTH terrorist organizations who attack civilians and claim they are doing it for a cause, and my own country (USA) for supporting terrorism in other countries, meddling illegally in the internal affairs of other countries, launching wars of aggression, directly committing acts of terror and gross human rights violations.

Happy? Am I now allowed to say I don't remember a time when terrorism wasn't so bad (which I already did, btw)?

I guess so. You didn't do the original post, so I can't see the relevance.

I know there are many people who think that both parties, terrorists and governments, performing and supporting terrorism are bad. The poster I responded to seemed a bit blinkered.

When deployed the cheif of the british army asked that the units were kept under control of the westminister government, not the locals....... sadly he was ignored.

Until a few weeks after bloody Sunday, when all security issues were taken out of local hands and transferred to Westminister.


Check out the Shanklin road fish bar bombing sometime.
2 IRA 'heros' blew themselves to glory killing 8 civilians when the bomb they were planting went off.

That wasn't an attack on the Republican community, but what was supposed to be a UDA meeting place.


The instant you target civilians is the time you lose any claim to be different from your 'oppressors'

So the US forces in WWII were no different to the Imperial Japanese then.....?


A person sets off (..........) murderous.

I take it you're a pacifist then....

The thing was, it wasn't so cut and dry. Some people were for, some people were against. These days...hardly anyone bandies around the word 'freedom fighter' anymore...not seriously. Only terrorist. And the 'terrorists' are not a diverse group anymore. Religious. Fanatic (as though political ideology isn't as powerful, as though it were the root, not the expression...). Alien. Other. Unsympathetic.

The problem itself is Reglion and it is the main source of Terrosim. Reglions tend to teach people that they are better than others and that their veiws are right no and all other veiws are worng. Killing is worng, unless if it is in the name of your god. God himself in many of the main Reglions is a radical, who like terrorists useses fear to contrul people. Just in a different.

Give us ______ or die!-terrorisits

Follow my laws and worship me and you will be rewared. Disobey me and you suffer. Forever.- god(s)

Theres no differnce each uses fear against people to get its will done. Reglion dose more bad than good for people. It divides us and conflict comes. Without reglion there would be less division amoung people and there would very terrorists.

To support terrorisits, is just as bad as being one of them.

I've always had a strong skepticism for anyone regarding themselves as "freedom fighters"... Considering the RUF in Sierra Leone and other African rebel groups do what they do in the name of "freedom," it's foolish to think these are good guys for the most part.

As an ethnic Jew who has family in Israel, I also loath the PLO and all their terrorist cronies. Most Americans are apathetic because they don't have to worry about their relatives getting blown to pieces simply for living where they live. The Palestinian terrorist groups are not freedom fighters, they don't target the IDF anywhere near as much as they target Israeli civilians. If everyone used the same logic as the PLO or Hamas, then the Native Americans should have the right to pick up guns and start gunning down every white person they see to take back their land.

I've always had a strong skepticism for anyone regarding themselves as "freedom fighters"...(........)back their land.

Well I'm glad that the founders of Israel were so good as to provide you with such clear and unambigous moral high ground, and didn't descend into indiscriminate bombings, reprisal shootings, and 'excecuting' the occassional informer.

I don't suppose you think that the building of settlements in the West Bank and in Arab East Jerusalem has anything to do with the actions of the Palestinians....?

1944: The enemy: Fascists. The ally: Communists.

1974: The enemy: Communists. The allies: Fascists and terrorists.

2004: The enemy: terrorists. The allies: any fascists or communists who will help.

I take it you're a pacifist then....
Wrong. Try again. Hint: Try reading my posts to see what my true position is.

I guess so. You didn't do the original post, so I can't see the relevance.

I know there are many people who think that both parties, terrorists and governments, performing and supporting terrorism are bad. The poster I responded to seemed a bit blinkered.
I know you weren't talking to me. I was just using you to preemptively cut off anyone who might try that argument on me.

The problem itself is Reglion and it is the main source of Terrosim. Reglions tend to teach people that they are better than others and that their veiws are right no and all other veiws are worng. Killing is worng, unless if it is in the name of your god. God himself in many of the main Reglions is a radical, who like terrorists useses fear to contrul people. Just in a different.

Give us ______ or die!-terrorisits

Follow my laws and worship me and you will be rewared. Disobey me and you suffer. Forever.- god(s)

Theres no differnce each uses fear against people to get its will done. Reglion dose more bad than good for people. It divides us and conflict comes. Without reglion there would be less division amoung people and there would very terrorists.

To support terrorisits, is just as bad as being one of them.
If you really think religion is the driving force behind terrorism, kindly account for all the non-religious terrorists that have existed in the world.

*snip*

Terrorism was never cool, it just never impacted many lives at one time. AQs innovations have finally brought people up to speed on how idiotic it is for one to cheer on such behaviour or call terrorists "freedom fighters".

The IRA long ago became a group of thugs who have betrayed any noble sense of "freedom" they were fighting for.

The easiest way to determine if someone or some group is a terrorist or a freedom fighter is to examine what they claim to be fighting for and then look at the tactics they are willing to employ. I would hardly call AQs view of the world "free" nor its tactics justifiable. Nor Hamas or Hezbollah.

Nice job though Neesika. Your OP is an excellent example of the mindset that allowed our current situation to occur.

Nice job though Neesika. Your OP is an excellent example of the mindset that allowed our current situation to occur.

I love that I can always count on you to completely miss the point, substitute your own unsubtle and unintelligent view for mine, and basically use this as an opportunity to pretend you have a clue.

I'd kiss you but I don't want to get warts on my lips.

The problem itself is Reglion and it is the main source of Terrosim. Reglions tend to teach people that they are better than others and that their veiws are right no and all other veiws are worng. Killing is worng, unless if it is in the name of your god. God himself in many of the main Reglions is a radical, who like terrorists useses fear to contrul people. Just in a different.

Give us ______ or die!-terrorisits

Follow my laws and worship me and you will be rewared. Disobey me and you suffer. Forever.- god(s)

Theres no differnce each uses fear against people to get its will done. Reglion dose more bad than good for people. It divides us and conflict comes. Without reglion there would be less division amoung people and there would very terrorists.

Religion does far more good than bad; people like Genghis Khan and Stalin would still have existed without it. Religion offers society a code of conduct, and while it enforces it through fear, at least that fear is imaginary. Religion scares the people into line, much like boogeyman stories scare children into line, and it does it while creating happiness from the belief that a paradise is approaching. Religion is often used as an excuse from violence, but the people who use this excuse would probably be violent anyway.

To support terrorisits, is just as bad as being one of them.

Nonsense.

Well I'm glad that the founders of Israel were so good as to provide you with such clear and unambigous moral high ground, and didn't descend into indiscriminate bombings, reprisal shootings, and 'excecuting' the occassional informer.

I don't suppose you think that the building of settlements in the West Bank and in Arab East Jerusalem has anything to do with the actions of the Palestinians....?

So you're saying the sins of the past justify the sins of the present, then?

I don't suppose you think that the building of settlements in the West Bank and in Arab East Jerusalem has anything to do with the actions of the Palestinians....?
No, I really don't think the one has anything to do with the other. The actions of the Palestinians were the same, always.

I love that I can always count on you to completely miss the point, substitute your own unsubtle and unintelligent view for mine, and basically use this as an opportunity to pretend you have a clue.

I'd kiss you but I don't want to get warts on my lips.

I am there for you baby!

I'd kiss you but I don't want to get warts on my lips.

....and the ones on your face are only part of what would be at risk....

So you're saying the sins of the past justify the sins of the present, then?

emmm No...I'm saying that similar aims occassion similar methods, and that for (a) to look down on (b) when (a) was doing it before (b) and was a damn sight better doing it too, is really rather hypocritical.


The actions of the Palestinians were the same, always.

O sorry, I forgot their unquenchable thirst for Jewish blood.

1944: The enemy: Fascists. The ally: Communists.

1974: The enemy: Communists. The allies: Fascists and terrorists.

2004: The enemy: terrorists. The allies: any fascists or communists who will help.

That's just incorrect. Communists were only "allies" in 1944 because we were fighting a common enemy. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Remember, they only BECAME one of our allies because, AFTER being allied with the Fascists, they got stabbed in the back by Hitler and joined the war against him. When the Western Allies and the Commies met in Berlin, they were hardly "allies" or friends. There was serious mistrust between the two and definite tension.

During the Cold War the enemy was obviously Communism and we worked with other Nationalist, anti-Communist states (like Spain and Chile), to work against a common enemy. Though I really wouldn't call these states fascist. There were a few, notably in Asia, but that was again "enemy of my enemy is my friend." Also, it is not correct to say neither the enemy nor the allies were "terrorists". We supported anti-Communist groups and were against pro-Communist groups, like Die Baader Meinhof Gruppe.

2004: Also, that's not true. For example, we have tension with North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, ect. All of these are extreme leftist (and arguably Communist, depending on which nation and who you ask) regimes. So it's not correct to say we don't deem "Communism" an enemy now against terrorists, but rather Communism is not worth our time and energy to focus on because it has largely been defeated as evidenced by America's winning of the Cold War and there are simply other things to worry about now.

emmm No...I'm saying that similar aims occassion similar methods, and that for (a) to look down on (b) when (a) was doing it before (b) and was a damn sight better doing it too, is really rather hypocritical.

So...you're saying Rathanan was a member of the Irgun? I'm confused as to who this (a) is that you're talking about in your scenario.

So...you're saying Rathanan was a member of the Irgun? I'm confused as to who this (a) is that you're talking about in your scenario.

What I'm saying is that its rather hypocritical to gloss over the way the state of Israel was founded in order to criticise the Palestinians for doing similar in order to acheive the same aim.

As an ethnic Jew who has family in Israel, I also loath the PLO and all their terrorist cronies. Most Americans are apathetic because they don't have to worry about their relatives getting blown to pieces simply for living where they live. The Palestinian terrorist groups are not freedom fighters, they don't target the IDF anywhere near as much as they target Israeli civilians.

He also skips over the methods of the IDF who, far from trying to found a nation for a refugee people as was the case in 1948 with the various zionist groups, are now acting as a colonial force, brutalising a native population in order to expand an internationally recognised state.

Are we clear now?

I vaguely remember a time when terrorism wasn't quite so bad. I also remember a time when the men in white coats would have come to take you away if you suggested this could ever be a possibility.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0410/csmimg/OSHAMROCK_P1.jpg

The time when all you thought that these guys would ever be able to do was to teach the future generation to hate each other with a passion equaling their own.

But back to the point, terrorism as an acceptable stance seems to have been a hang up from the French Resistance and the Spanish Civil War - the fight against fascism.

Oh, and no one's mentioned the ANC yet. They were responsible for a significant number of civilian deaths throughout their resistance of apartheid and were deemed a terrorist organisation by the West. But I don't suppose anyone thinks of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. However, he was arrested and imprisoned before any of the ANC's tactics would be responsible for civilian deaths. Almost lucky in a sense, in that he gets to retain the moral high ground.

Remember when terrorism wasn't so bad?
No.

No.

Agreed.

:eek:

Ok, but only after you dress up like a cowboy and drive through a Reservation tossing out bottles of Listerine and trying to buy sex from every aboriginal woman you see.

Ah, there's a weekend I won't forget in a while. Good times.

I do remember when terrorism was something that just happened elsewhere. And nobody really made a big deal out of it...

Maybe in the US. When you were living in London, and the IRA were planting bombs on busy shopping streets, or in shopping centres, it was quite a big deal.

And that's what it comes down to - the top half of the Americas got away with little or no terrorism for a while, and when it hit home, it got made into a REALLY big deal. All of a sudden, it wasn't okay to be offering support to groups like the IRA.

What I'm saying is that its rather hypocritical to gloss over the way the state of Israel was founded in order to criticise the Palestinians for doing similar in order to acheive the same aim.



He also skips over the methods of the IDF who, far from trying to found a nation for a refugee people as was the case in 1948 with the various zionist groups, are now acting as a colonial force, brutalising a native population in order to expand an internationally recognised state.

Are we clear now?

Except that criticizing the one does not necessitate giving the other a free pass. I'm going to go out on a limb here and agree that I find the actions and beliefs of certain Palestinian groups despicable. I also find the actions and beliefs of the settlers sad and pathetic and loathe many actions of the IDF, however neither of those are terrorist forces. The first is in no way an organization but rather multiple groups of religious zealots doing their part to make this world a sadder place, the latter is an oppressive military power which is a whole different barrel of bananas from a terrorist group (i.e. they wield legal political authority and are recognized as legal entities internationally).

I'm not really seeing the hypocrisy here.

That's just incorrect. Communists were only "allies" in 1944 because we were fighting a common enemy. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. Remember, they only BECAME one of our allies because, AFTER being allied with the Fascists, they got stabbed in the back by Hitler and joined the war against him. When the Western Allies and the Commies met in Berlin, they were hardly "allies" or friends. There was serious mistrust between the two and definite tension.Funny you should mention them meeting in Berlin as early as 1944...

During the Cold War the enemy was obviously Communism and we worked with other Nationalist, anti-Communist states (like Spain and Chile), to work against a common enemy. Though I really wouldn't call these states fascist. There were a few, notably in Asia, but that was again "enemy of my enemy is my friend." Also, it is not correct to say neither the enemy nor the allies were "terrorists". We supported anti-Communist groups and were against pro-Communist groups, like Die Baader Meinhof Gruppe. Because you happen to like them and fascism is a word that got fellow jews killed.

2004: Also, that's not true. For example, we have tension with North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, ect. All of these are extreme leftist (and arguably Communist, depending on which nation and who you ask) regimes. So it's not correct to say we don't deem "Communism" an enemy now against terrorists, but rather Communism is not worth our time and energy to focus on because it has largely been defeated as evidenced by America's winning of the Cold War and there are simply other things to worry about now.It's not? China's "helping". So are a bunch of regimes in Central Asia. If you'd have read the short sentence posted, you might have noticed the "who will help" bit. Obviously, North Korea and Cuba are in the "who will not help" category.

There is now a third option, terrorist, freedom fighter, or performance artists (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/stormont-incident-was-performance-art-uda-man-stone-tells-court-13980285.html)

Terrorism is just what the strong guys call the way the weak guys fight. It also happens to be how we won our independence.

If you have fewer and weaker weapons, less manpower and money, you don't fight "fair." That would be stupid. And guarantee you lose.

terrorists are cowards for not having a multi trillion dollar army to 'fight fair' with

Terrorism is just what the strong guys call the way the weak guys fight. It also happens to be how we won our independence.

If you have fewer and weaker weapons, less manpower and money, you don't fight "fair." That would be stupid. And guarantee you lose.

I'm not sure that sums it all up - it's possible to fight an asymmetric war without targetting civilians.

Terrorism is just what the strong guys call the way the weak guys fight. It also happens to be how we won our independence.

Certainly the United States did not win independence by slaughtering non-combatants.

Terrorism is just what the strong guys call the way the weak guys fight. It also happens to be how we won our independence.

If you have fewer and weaker weapons, less manpower and money, you don't fight "fair." That would be stupid. And guarantee you lose.
I disagree. Terrorism is a type of tactic that is specifically intended to terrorize a civilian/non-combatant population. It is not the same as guerilla tactics or insurgency at all.

Remember, they only BECAME one of our allies because, AFTER being allied with the Fascists, they got stabbed in the back by Hitler and joined the war against him.

and what happened in spain didn't influence that?

I still morally support groups like the ELF and ALF. Not that they need to burn SUVs anymore with gas prices being what they are.

Oh, and no one's mentioned the ANC yet. They were responsible for a significant number of civilian deaths throughout their resistance of apartheid and were deemed a terrorist organisation by the West. But I don't suppose anyone thinks of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. However, he was arrested and imprisoned before any of the ANC's tactics would be responsible for civilian deaths. Almost lucky in a sense, in that he gets to retain the moral high ground.
See also ZANLA and ZIPRA.

I still morally support groups like the ELF and ALF. Not that they need to burn SUVs anymore with gas prices being what they are.
Uhu...

Why?

I am against cosmetic animal testing completely, but scientific research needs animal testing before people are allowed to test drugs on people. Obviously I'd be perfectly happy for ALF members to give Phase I drug trials a try. Digging up scientists' dead family members or setting bombs under peoples' cars is the kind of thing that should get you in prison, though.

Uhu...

Why?

I am against cosmetic animal testing completely, but scientific research needs animal testing before people are allowed to test drugs on people.

Not actually true - and a lot of scientific research on animals is somewhere between useless, and deceptive.

Lethal Dose in rats? Sure - pick an animal that can't vomit to test for poison responses...

Not actually true - and a lot of scientific research on animals is somewhere between useless, and deceptive.
Uhu... you want it all on humans, then? Or not done at all?
Lethal Dose in rats? Sure - pick an animal that can't vomit to test for poison responses...
No animal humans hate quite so much as rats. You start doing it on a large scale with slightly cuter animals and the ALF have a fucking field day.

Uhu... you want it all on humans, then? Or not done at all?


Somewhere between irrelevent and deceptive, unfortunately.

It's not that black and white. Pointing out that most animal research is pointless is not new information, but that doesn't instantly throw us into the situation that ALL animal research must be forfeit in preference of human testing, or that there should be NO testing at all.

There are a number of options - not least being that most drug creation in our time, is done with design in mind, and based on templates. We already KNOW what reactions we're looking for in the chemicals we're testing, because we tailormake our medications based on precedent.

Under those circumstances - what most testing is REALLY looking for, is unexpected side-effects... and, for the most part, animal trials are more of a formality than anything else.

Most of the time.

So - could we skip animal testing altogether... pretty much yes.

Based on a tools like projections (based on similar chemicals), and simulations of how a new drug should react (based on biochemical mechanisms, etc) it's largely possible to move straight to lowdose testing in humans.

And almost all of the real data is obtained at that stage, anyway.


No animal humans hate quite so much as rats. You start doing it on a large scale with slightly cuter animals and the ALF have a fucking field day.

Agreed. Rats get it in the neck because they're icky. It doesn't matter that the data is almost/entirely irrelevent.

I dislike the term terrorism, mainly it how it is used.

Terrorism implies use of terror by a person or group. If we continue to call this a war on terror, then that is a contradiction as all the governments of the world have used terror against their citizens at least one point in their history so we are all terrorists.

What a better term would be is War on Extremism, because that is what the the people blowing up bombs in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan for example are. They are extremists because they have extreme views on how their religion or nation should be.

So when people say the war on terror, I think, hey! What about Pinochet in South America the US put that terrorist in power. So personally I think it should be referred to as a War on Extremism and not terror.

Uhu...

Why?

I am against cosmetic animal testing completely, but scientific research needs animal testing before people are allowed to test drugs on people. Obviously I'd be perfectly happy for ALF members to give Phase I drug trials a try. Digging up scientists' dead family members or setting bombs under peoples' cars is the kind of thing that should get you in prison, though.

You know the typical American mentality: It's Not Terrorism If Muslims Didn't Do It.

You know the typical American mentality: It's Not Terrorism If Muslims Didn't Do It.

or, you know, holding a consistent definition

Growing up, there was a fair amount of sympathy for the cause of the IRA where I grew up. Lots of Irish families. Before then, you had the hippies cheering on Che...then on into the 70s and 80s with the central american revolutionaries. Of course, it was about freedom, not terrorism. Teachers who were sympathetic to the PLO, etc.

The thing was, it wasn't so cut and dry. Some people were for, some people were against. These days...hardly anyone bandies around the word 'freedom fighter' anymore...not seriously. Only terrorist. And the 'terrorists' are not a diverse group anymore. Religious. Fanatic (as though political ideology isn't as powerful, as though it were the root, not the expression...). Alien. Other. Unsympathetic.

So I watch movies from the good old days, when the IRA was still hugely active...when we wondered if things in Ireland would ever settle down. When such a thing seemed impossible...and I sort of miss cheering for the freedom fighters. White people fighting white people...maybe it was something that appealed to a wider range of alignments?

It was more complicated back then. I sort of miss that.

Yup, too bad terrorists aren't warm and fuzzy like they were in the old days. At least back then they'd give people hugs and nice sugary wowwy pops. :p Back then there was no uncivilized slaughter of civillians, no brainwashing, no raping and mayhem oh wait there was...:confused: My mistake.

LOL This thread is hilarious. Your overtly saying out in the blue that back in the old days terrorists were ok. I ask you, is ever employing or inciting fear for a political cause (especially in a free country) ok? Democracy should eliminate the need for such barbarity and uncivil behavior. And when I say that I mean that a proper democratic system would allow people to express views or change things without resorting to blowing trucks up and sending thraxed hate mail.

The first is in no way an organization but rather multiple groups of religious zealots doing their part to make this world a sadder place, .

And the Palestinians are multiple groups, some of whom are religous zealots, many of who are resisting occupation.


the latter is an oppressive military power which is a whole different barrel of bananas from a terrorist group (i.e. they wield legal political authority and are recognized as legal entities internationally).

I'm not really seeing the hypocrisy here.

But what they're doing is generally recognised as illegal, not to mention the methods being lethal and brutal. I fail to see how the fact that they have nice uniforms and belong to a recognised state makes that any better.

Under those circumstances - what most testing is REALLY looking for, is unexpected side-effects... and, for the most part, animal trials are more of a formality than anything else.I remember being told once that animal testing is doubly bad, not just because a side-effect might not show up in an animal, but because it does -- a side effect produced in an animal is not necessarily an indicator that the same side effect will be produced in humans. Hence, the person claimed, that there could be many drugs that would of benefit to humans that never made it through the animal testing phase.

Well, let me ask you something and really this is more for my own clarification. The "freedom fighters" that people supported, did they target innocent civilian?

How old are you?
Here you have a few PLO pickings.

Category:Palestinian terrorist incidents in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_terrorist_incidents_in_Europe)

Achille Lauro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro)
Rome and Vienna airport attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_and_Vienna_airport_attacks)
TWA Flight 840 (1986) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1986))
TWA Flight 841 (1974) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1974))
Pan Am Flight 103 - Lockerbie bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103)

Actually the list (even the wiki one) could be longer.

CIA, IRA, ETA, FLNC, PKK etc. all have their share at targeting innocent civilians in their terror operations.
What puzzles me is the media spin on 9/11. The US AMERICAN victims of previous terrorist attacks nobody cares about them.

And the Palestinians are multiple groups, some of whom are religous zealots, many of who are resisting occupation.



But what they're doing is generally recognised as illegal, not to mention the methods being lethal and brutal. I fail to see how the fact that they have nice uniforms and belong to a recognised state makes that any better.

Their actions are illegal, yes, but the organization is not centered around the sole purpose of an illegal act, however much it does or does not figure into its actual daily routine. I'm not making a normative statement about Israeli actions, I am simply pointing out that they can't be considered terrorists. Be it a purely semantic point or a legal stance, there is a distinction between the two (well, more than two...as you say, there are multiple groups, on both sides).

You seem to be inserting certain normative values into purely semantic debates. Bad does not necessarily mean terrorist.

How old are you?
Here you have a few PLO pickings.

Category:Palestinian terrorist incidents in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_terrorist_incidents_in_Europe)

Achille Lauro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro)
Rome and Vienna airport attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_and_Vienna_airport_attacks)
TWA Flight 840 (1986) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_(1986))
TWA Flight 841 (1974) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1974))
Pan Am Flight 103 - Lockerbie bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103)

Actually the list (even the wiki one) could be longer.

CIA, IRA, ETA, FLNC, PKK etc. all have their share at targeting innocent civilians in their terror operations.
What puzzles me is the media spin on 9/11. The US AMERICAN victims of previous terrorist attacks nobody cares about them.

It's the combination of the audacity of the 9/11 attacks in broad daylight over American airspace as well as the massive body count the likes of which haven't been seen since Pearl Harbor that makes it a subject of media fascination. The victims of previous terrorist attacks were often in foreign soil and/or small in numbers by comparison- the most attention they receive is a few weeks or even a month, and maybe a movie small or big if memorable enough for that.

I guess the republican cause in Ireland seems more reasonable to people than Al Qaeda's cause.

It's the combination of the audacity of the 9/11 attacks in broad daylight over American airspace as well as the massive body count the likes of which haven't been seen since Pearl Harbor that makes it a subject of media fascination. The victims of previous terrorist attacks were often in foreign soil and/or small in numbers by comparison- the most attention they receive is a few weeks or even a month, and maybe a movie small or big if memorable enough for that.
And you can say what you will, but the imagery was pretty evocative. Sure, we've seen big buildings exploding in Hollywood a million times, but there is something haunting about watching some of the footage - not even so much because there are planes flying into buildings, but because of the reactions from the people around the cameras. That's something a bus bombing just can't match.

And yes, it was also bigger quantitatively than any other terrorist attack by some margin, which also makes it special.

You seem to be inserting certain normative values into purely semantic debates. Bad does not necessarily mean terrorist.

And 'terrorist' does not nessecarily mean bad.

And 'terrorist' does not nessecarily mean bad.

Actually, yes, yes it does.

It's the combination of the audacity of the 9/11 attacks in broad daylight over American airspace as well as the massive body count the likes of which haven't been seen since Pearl Harbor that makes it a subject of media fascination. The victims of previous terrorist attacks were often in foreign soil and/or small in numbers by comparison- the most attention they receive is a few weeks or even a month, and maybe a movie small or big if memorable enough for that.
I take some exception to this on these points:

(A) "Foreign soil" from whose standpoint. As is often pointed out, this is an international forum, yet so many here are pretending that NO ONE took terrorism seriously before the US got hit on 9/11, and they keep using the word "we" to say that. Well, I'm sorry, but "we", meaning the whole world, did not think that way before 9/11. And as long as the US is going to claim it is fighting a Global War on Terror, then I think it's time some people stopped pretending otherwise. One of the reasons the world is so fucked now is because Americans acted as if the decades of terrorism that had happened and were happening in other countries did not matter, and nobody else knew anything about what we were going through -- a typical teenager response. In other words, childish, self-centered and unrealistic.

B) I remember the Achille Lauro. I remember "The Troubles" in Ireland. I remember years of reports of bombings in Greece and France. I heard/saw them all from the vantage of the US. But despite that, I took them all very seriously. They all seemed fucking horrible to me.

C) I also remember the letter and pipe bombings that randomly struck NYC (where I lived) for the first 15-20 years of my life. I remember the school evacuation drills, and the police coming to give talks to our classes about what to do if we see a package left on the street (DON'T TOUCH IT!!), and my mom's offices being evacuated because of bombs, and one of her co-workers losing a hand to a random letter bomb.

D) And when terrorists kidnapped and murdered the Israeli Olympic Team at the Berlin Olympics, I was too young to follow all the news reports, but I remember the pictures on the tv, and I remember how horrified my family were, and the blood-freezing emotions that event caused.

E) But since 9/11 Americans have claimed to have been completely unaware of most of that shit and unconcerned with the rest of it. What, was the entire country in a fucking coma? Or did everyone outside NYC just have their heads shoved so far up their own asses that they just couldn't hear the bombs going off?

In case anyone is wondering, I am sick and tired of this "but it just wasn't as dramatic before 9/11" bullshit.

And 'terrorist' does not nessecarily mean bad.
Wrong. It does.

"Freedom fighter" =/= bad, necessarily.
"Guerilla" =/= bad, necessarily.
"Insurgent=/= bad, necessarily.

"Terrorist" = bad. Every single time. No exceptions.

"Terrorist" = bad. Every single time. No exceptions.

is your claim that anyone called a terrorist is bad? or is it conceptual and definition-based?

is your claim that anyone called a terrorist is bad? or is it conceptual and definition-based?
I never claimed that "anyone called a terrorist is bad." Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

Here, to cut off pointless defenses of a misreading of my statement (or a deliberate strawman, whichever), I'll add to what I DID actually say:

If someone accuses you falsely of being a murderer, does that mean it's sometimes good to be a murderer?

No, it does not.

It is true that some people/governments will slap the label "terrorist" on their enemies, regardless of whether they are actually using terrorist tactics or not. But such lies do not change the nature of "terrorist/terrorism."

A terrorist uses the tactics of terrorism, designed to terrorize a non-combatant and unarmed population without provocation, and THAT is always bad.

A person who does not use such tactics is not a terrorist, regardless of what lies their opponents tell about them.

So, to sum up:

Terrorist = bad.

Non-terrorist =/= bad, necessarily.

A terrorist uses the tactics of terrorism, designed to terrorize a non-combatant and unarmed population without provocation, and THAT is always bad.


When you say without provocation, do you mean in the sense that the targets have not provoked the terrorist at all, or the terrorist has not been provoked at all by anyone?

When you say without provocation, do you mean in the sense that the targets have not provoked the terrorist at all, or the terrorist has not been provoked at all by anyone?
I mean the targets have not provoked the one who attacks them.


And a general question to all NSGers: Is there some kind of new rule in the forums AGAINST actually reading the threads you participate in? A rule I didn't know about? Because I've already said these things in this thread, at least once. But in almost every thread this summer, I and others are continuously being asked to answer the same questions and type the same points over and over again. It's very frustrating.

I mean the targets have not provoked the one who attacks them.


Do you consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acts of terrorism?


And a general question to all NSGers: Is there some kind of new rule in the forums AGAINST actually reading the threads you participate in? A rule I didn't know about? Because I've already said these things in this thread, at least once. But in almost every thread this summer, I and others are continuously being asked to answer the same questions and type the same points over and over again. It's very frustrating.

I suggest you start getting used to it.

Do you consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acts of terrorism?
*prints out the entire thread, rolls it up really tight, and smacks Hydesland across the nose with it*

YES, DAMN YOUR LAZY, NON-READING EYES!!! I HAVE ALREADY SAID AS MUCH IN THIS THREAD!

EDIT: In fact, here's a present for you, from earlier in this very thread, which you apparently can't be bothered to pay attention to:

Orginally posted by Fishutopia
You can't pick and choose my friend. Governments do the same.
Vietnam, especially the napalming and defoliation killed many an innocent. The support for the Contras. The support for Osama when he was fighting the Russians, etc.

If you are willing to criticise your country for it's actions, then I will take your criticism of terrorists more seriously.
I'll take that challenge for my own sake. I denounce BOTH terrorist organizations who attack civilians and claim they are doing it for a cause, and my own country (USA) for supporting terrorism in other countries, meddling illegally in the internal affairs of other countries, launching wars of aggression, directly committing acts of terror and gross human rights violations.

Happy? Am I now allowed to say I don't remember a time when terrorism wasn't so bad (which I already did, btw)?

I suggest you start getting used to it.
What, get used to you being a lazy sot who can't be bothered to learn what someone's position is before attacking it? I already am used to that.

What, get used to you being a lazy sot who can't be bothered to learn what someone's position is before attacking it? I already am used to that.

Then why do you keep whining about it?

Then why do you keep whining about it?
So that you will never get the mistaken impression that you are not annoying.

It's amazing though how terrorists will target civilians yet end up with less of a body count of innocents than what 'legitimate' governments rack up with their 'legitimate targets', yet terrorism is supposedly the greatest threat of our time.

It's amazing though how terrorists will target civilians yet end up with less of a body count of innocents than what 'legitimate' governments rack up with their 'legitimate targets', yet terrorism is supposedly the greatest threat of our time.

Actually, much more civilians were killed by the IRA than by Royal Armed Forces, so that's one war where that didn't happen.

I thought I'd posted here already, but I guess I was thinking of another thread. Anyway, Terrorism can take two forms, that I believe to be worth distinguishing between. There is Terrorism that occurs because one's ideas are indefensible and there is Terrorism that occurs because one's ideas are inaudible.

Some try to use force as their means to impose their ideology on others. This is unacceptable. If your belief system or ideas do not stand up to critical evaluation then imposition by terror is no substitute, whether by government or by organisation.

Others try to use force because others are imposing upon them and their only method of speaking out is to make a scene. This is not acceptable either, but I am sympathetic to those to whom it is a seriously considerable course of action. I do think that the use of indiscriminate force is fundamentally lazy, and that there should be much more effective and life-preserving tools available to make a public statement. I think that this form of Terrorist is simply not being creative enough.

For instance, if members of Al Qaeda were really concerned about American oppression, they could sneak into the White House (or some embassy or something), capture a high-ranked figure on Camera with a gun to his head then leave willingly, without shooting him, with a statement to the effect that "We could kill him, but we choose not to. This is the extent of our conviction". How much more powerful would that message be than blowing up a building or a subway?

Maybe it's because I'm only 22, but I really cannot recall, all that easily, a time when terrorism was not "bad." Heck, from 1991-on I can only recall it as being a totally sucky thing to do, an attitude that was reinforced in 1996 (I was ten) and 2001 (I was fifteen). Most people in my generation don't really know a time when terrorism was a popular thing in Western society, I'd say.

I thought I'd posted here already, but I guess I was thinking of another thread. Anyway, Terrorism can take two forms, that I believe to be worth distinguishing between. There is Terrorism that occurs because one's ideas are indefensible and there is Terrorism that occurs because one's ideas are inaudible.

Some try to use force as their means to impose their ideology on others. This is unacceptable. If your belief system or ideas do not stand up to critical evaluation then imposition by terror is no substitute, whether by government or by organisation.

Others try to use force because others are imposing upon them and their only method of speaking out is to make a scene. This is not acceptable either, but I am sympathetic to those to whom it is a seriously considerable course of action. I do think that the use of indiscriminate force is fundamentally lazy, and that there should be much more effective and life-preserving tools available to make a public statement. I think that this form of Terrorist is simply not being creative enough.

For instance, if members of Al Qaeda were really concerned about American oppression, they could sneak into the White House (or some embassy or something), capture a high-ranked figure on Camera with a gun to his head then leave willingly, without shooting him, with a statement to the effect that "We could kill him, but we choose not to. This is the extent of our conviction". How much more powerful would that message be than blowing up a building or a subway?

When did they blow up a subway?

I do not think that anybody was ever really all that sympathetic with the PLO terrorists. There may have been some sympathy with the various Jewish or Muslim political movements but I do not think that there was all that much sympathy for the PLO. When I grew up we had some sympathy for Kahanehi (I am not sure if this was spelled even remotely right) because they were seen as vigilante heroes who took on the PLO terrorists. Irish families really seemed to be for the IRA and you sort of got the sense that the British deserved attacked for mistreatment of the Irish. It seemed that the IRA was less of the blow up busses sort and more of the murder british soldiers and nobility and irish protestants. I guess it was not very nice to kill noble and protestant civillians in hindsight.

When did they blow up a subway?

July 7, 2005, in London. It was all over the news and everything.

July 7, 2005, in London. It was all over the news and everything.

That wasn't Al-Qaeda.

It seemed that the IRA was less of the blow up busses sort.

Wrong. They did blow up a bus once, along with a few pubs and bridges etc. You know that whole bombing campaign that they had going until 1997?

That wasn't Al-Qaeda.You are mistaken.

You are mistaken.

No I'm not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7_bombings#Identification_of_bombers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/london_bombings/

Just English Islamic Extremists protesting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

If they consider themselves al-Qaeda, they are, as far as I'm concerned. I have no more interest in deciding who is a "real" al-Qaeda than in the tiresome "who's a real Christian?" argument.

If they consider themselves al-Qaeda, they are, as far as I'm concerned. I have no more interest in deciding who is a "real" al-Qaeda than in the tiresome "who's a real Christian?" argument.

They didn't consider themselves Al-Qaeda, though.

According to the article YOU linked to, they did.

According to the article YOU linked to, they did.

They did? In their high profile widely covered by the media defence, the other plotters all said they weren't part of Al-Qaeda and were acting alone.

AFTER the bombings, yes, they said that. Sidique Khan had been in al-Qaeda-wannabe cells before, though.

AFTER the bombings, yes, they said that. Sidique Khan had been in al-Qaeda-wannabe cells before, though.

Keyword is wannabe.

That's why I said I don't give a rat's ass about who is "real" al-Qaeda and who isn't. It's a name that anybody can choose for themselves, like "Christian", and if they subsequently decided they no longer wanted the name, too bad.

The support for Osama when he was fighting the Russians, etc.


Not to be too much of a pain the the toosh, but links between the US and bin Laden during the Afghan war are less than tenuous: They are non-existent. Bin Laden & Friends didn't arrive in-region until very near to the end of the Afghan war, and they were opposed to the Mujahadeen Warlords, just as much as they were opposed to the Soviet-backed government. Beyond that, the actions he, and his personal organization, undertook were largely funded by his fortune, and not foreign cash inflows.

Beyond that, as a rule, the US avoided funding the foreign import fighters, rather, sticking to the indigenous Afghan fighters, during the Afghan War. Foreign fighters were usually self-supporting, whilst the indigenous movements were the ones that required cash flows from that big, other superpower.

"Terrorist" = bad. Every single time. No exceptions.

..but, as its employed as an entirely subjective term, no, its not 'every single time'.

..but, as its employed as an entirely subjective term, no, its not 'every single time'.

It isn't "entirely subjective." There are both legal and colloquial distinction that designate one a terrorist rather than an insurgent or a "freedom fighter" or a rebel or what-have-you.

If they consider themselves al-Qaeda, they are, as far as I'm concerned. I have no more interest in deciding who is a "real" al-Qaeda than in the tiresome "who's a real Christian?" argument.

So if I shot up my local mall and claimed I was Al Qaeda, would I be?

So if I shot up my local mall and claimed I was Al Qaeda, would I be?Yep. Al-Qaeda is all about inspiring people to shoot up the local mall, or whatever, and spread the "brand name" while they are doing so.

..but, as its employed as an entirely subjective term, no, its not 'every single time'.
People just don't read. They just don't.

I never claimed that "anyone called a terrorist is bad." Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

Here, to cut off pointless defenses of a misreading of my statement (or a deliberate strawman, whichever), I'll add to what I DID actually say:

If someone accuses you falsely of being a murderer, does that mean it's sometimes good to be a murderer?

No, it does not.

It is true that some people/governments will slap the label "terrorist" on their enemies, regardless of whether they are actually using terrorist tactics or not. But such lies do not change the nature of "terrorist/terrorism."

A terrorist uses the tactics of terrorism, designed to terrorize a non-combatant and unarmed population without provocation, and THAT is always bad.

A person who does not use such tactics is not a terrorist, regardless of what lies their opponents tell about them.

So, to sum up:

Terrorist = bad.

Non-terrorist =/= bad, necessarily.

People just don't read. They just don't.

Its bad for one.

Snip...
In case anyone is wondering, I am sick and tired of this "but it just wasn't as dramatic before 9/11" bullshit.
...Snap


That's what I say. I witnessed both the Achille Lauro, Lockerbie and 9/11 on TV. The first one is the one that impressed me the most.

Do you consider the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acts of terrorism?

I do, strategic bombing is just a pretty name for an act of terrorism. The goal and modus operandi are pretty much the same. To scare the population so that it forces the government to change its stance on some issue.

Or does the means of transportation of a bomb to an hospital change the effect?

I'm reminded of a joke:
Journalist: Mr Rumsfeld, how do you know that saddam has weapons of mass destruction?
Rumsfeld: That's easy, we kept the receipts.

If anyone wants to hear and see the truth behind that little joke, go to:
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

I never claimed that "anyone called a terrorist is bad." Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

that's why it was phrased as a question with two possibilities which i have actually seen people hold, to determine which you intended.

A terrorist uses the tactics of terrorism, designed to terrorize a non-combatant and unarmed population without provocation

without provocation? hmm, so what about attacking colonizers?

that's why it was phrased as a question with two possibilities which i have actually seen people hold, to determine which you intended.



without provocation? hmm, so what about attacking colonizers?
RIF = Reading Is Fundamental. How tragically that old educational program apparently failed.

Attacking civilian populations is where I draw the line, and personally I DON'T find it easy to blur the line between "what needs to be done" and "what we do." Nope, no matter how much dirt I kick up, the bright clear line between "legitimate target" and "not legitimate target" always shines through, bright and clear.

Yes, I can easily understand the need to resort to violence to break the stranglehold of an oppressive power -- or even just to bring public attention to an oppressive condition. Remember, I come from a country that was created by violent revolution, and I do believe a time may come eventually when one just has to act.

BUT I see ZERO justification for any unprovoked attack against people who are not and have never harmed you, nor are members of the government that is harming you, nor have contributed in any way to the situation that is harming you. No. Justification. Ever. For that.

If Palestinians want to fire mortars at Jewish settlements in disputed territories that were put up in direct violation of or reneging on an Israeli promise not to put up more settlements there, then you know what, let those settlers learn to duck and cover. They ARE contributing to the problem and participating in escalation of hostilities. They place themselves in the position of provacateurs and they cease to be innocent bystanders.

But the average Israelis going to shopping malls or waiting at bus stops in Tel Aviv? No, I'm sorry, those people are NOT part of the problem. They are NOT legitimate targets, and the terrorists who blow themselves up in those places in order to kill them are nothing but murderers, as are their leaders.

And as for the IRA, they bombed the very people whose freedom they claimed to be fighting for. Fuck the IRA -- both killers and hypocrites.
I could see if I was asking people to notice one tiny phrase out of a big post originally posted 60 pages ago, but as you should be able to see, this is not the case.

The bottom line is this: A little kid going to school or an old person buying groceries is NOT provoking anyone. Period. You know what I mean when I say "bottom line"? I mean there isn't anything beyond that. That's what it all boils down to. There's no point in adding "what if this or that" to it, because that's the bottom. Nowhere else to go. You add everything up, and that's what you get. Done.

Attacking civilian populations is where I draw the line, and personally I DON'T find it easy to blur the line between "what needs to be done" and "what we do." Nope, no matter how much dirt I kick up, the bright clear line between "legitimate target" and "not legitimate target" always shines through, bright and clear.
...
If Palestinians want to fire mortars at Jewish settlements in disputed territories that were put up in direct violation of or reneging on an Israeli promise not to put up more settlements there, then you know what, let those settlers learn to duck and cover. They ARE contributing to the problem and participating in escalation of hostilities. They place themselves in the position of provacateurs and they cease to be innocent bystanders.

But the average Israelis going to shopping malls or waiting at bus stops in Tel Aviv? No, I'm sorry, those people are NOT part of the problem. They are NOT legitimate targets, and the terrorists who blow themselves up in those places in order to kill them are nothing but murderers, as are their leaders.

your bright and clear line seems less bright and clear to me, given that you explicitly allow that civilian populations are at least sometimes not innocent bystanders and attacking them can be morally permissible. being a civilian is apparently only partially connected to being off-limits by this standard. rather, the standard appears to be something more like 'civilians not currently engaged actions which are contributing to the escalation of hostilities'. though i think that last part is a bit murky - if one group reacts all out of proportion to something first, does the second group responding open them up as legitimate targets? presumably not always, perhaps never.

also, is there like a statute of limitations on when colonizers and other legitimate civilian targets cease to be legitimate targets and become innocent bystanders again? there probably must be, given the realities of history and having to live together, though it isn't immediately obvious when that should be set at.

your bright and clear line seems less bright and clear to me, given that you explicitly allow that civilian populations are at least sometimes not innocent bystanders and attacking them can be morally permissible. being a civilian is apparently only partially connected to being off-limits by this standard. rather, the standard appears to be something more like 'civilians not currently engaged actions which are contributing to the escalation of hostilities'. though i think that last part is a bit murky - if one group reacts all out of proportion to something first, does the second group responding open them up as legitimate targets? presumably not always.

also, is there like a statute of limitations on when colonizers and other legitimate civilian targets cease to be legitimate targets and become innocent bystanders again? there probably must be, given the realities of history and having to live together, though it isn't immediately obvious when that should be set at.
The only reason the line is not clear is because you are trying to invent exceptions to it, but you're not succeeding. 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't matter if you set it aside and look at it again after lunch, or if you turn it upside down, or if you squint real hard, or if you come at it from the other side. The bottom line is always 4.

Likewise, people who are not doing things to provoke or threaten you are neither provoking nor threatening you. I refer you back to the rhetorical little kid and old person. You blow them up, you are a murderer. You do it for the specific purpose of creating an atmosphere of terror among the people around them, then you are a terrorist. That's all there is to it.

People who want to commit such acts should learn to just embrace the words that belong to them. Trying to weasel out of the labels by attempting to claim that the little kids and old folks were actively oppressing them just makes them cowards and liars as well as murderers and terrorists. Hell-fuck, even bin Laden never pretended that the specific people he killed were actually oppressing anybody. I find it rather dismaying that your arguments seem to be less honest than an actual evil bastard's.

People just don't read. They just don't.

Just like you when you responded to my post.

Just like you when you responded to my post.
Do you mean the one in which you tried to correct my characterization of the IRA as bombing the very people they were claiming to fight for, by explaining the alphabet soup of bomb-setting clubs in Ireland?

I didn't not read that post. I just ignored part of it as being beside the point. As other posters pointed out to you, some of the bombs of that period could be laid squarely at the door of the IRA. As was also explained to you, the more important part of my point (made in a post of which the IRA comment was only a small part) was that anyone who claims to be aiming only for specific targets by leaving bombs in open public spaces is either a liar or a fool.

Personally, I saw your remark about how "oh, it wasn't the IRA, it was those other guys" as a prevarication, but I did not address it because it was beside the point I was trying to make.

So, you see, I DID read your post when I responded to it.

The only reason the line is not clear is because you are trying to invent exceptions to it, but you're not succeeding.

so you don't think that
If Palestinians want to fire mortars at Jewish settlements in disputed territories that were put up in direct violation of or reneging on an Israeli promise not to put up more settlements there, then you know what, let those settlers learn to duck and cover. They ARE contributing to the problem and participating in escalation of hostilities. They place themselves in the position of provacateurs and they cease to be innocent bystanders.
?

or do you mean that part of the definition of 'civilian' is a requirement that they not do anything provocative or something? because either you have claimed that civilians can be legit targets, or you have an as yet unexplained nonstandard definition of 'civilian' that somehow excludes certain classes that look a hell of a lot like civilians to me.

Do you mean the one in which you tried to correct my characterization of the IRA as bombing the very people they were claiming to fight for, by explaining the alphabet soup of bomb-setting clubs in Ireland?

I didn't not read that post. I just ignored part of it as being beside the point. As other posters pointed out to you, some of the bombs of that period could be laid squarely at the door of the IRA. As was also explained to you, the more important part of my point (made in a post of which the IRA comment was only a small part) was that anyone who claims to be aiming only for specific targets by leaving bombs in open public spaces is either a liar or a fool.

Personally, I saw your remark about how "oh, it wasn't the IRA, it was those other guys" as a prevarication, but I did not address it because it was beside the point I was trying to make.

So, you see, I DID read your post when I responded to it.

OK, great. I never once said the IRA didn't bomb anything, what are you talking about? 2. The IRA did NOT bomb the people they were fighting for, they bombed British soldiers, English and Northern Irish civilians and Northern Irish police stations. When did I say this : "oh, it wasn't the IRA, it was those other guys"?

so you don't think that

?

or do you mean that part of the definition of 'civilian' is a requirement that they not do anything provocative or something? because either you have claimed that civilians can be legit targets, or you have an as yet unexplained nonstandard definition of 'civilian' that somehow excludes certain classes that look a hell of a lot like civilians to me.
I have already explained in this thread (and in that post) exactly what I meant by that statement and I stand by it and by all my other statements, all taken together as a whole. If you cannot figure out how they fit together, I'll try to find time tomorrow to care. For now I have better things to do than explain the same simple points to you over and over.

OK, great. I never once said the IRA didn't bomb anything, what are you talking about? 2. The IRA did NOT bomb the people they were fighting for, they bombed British soldiers, English and Northern Irish civilians and Northern Irish police stations. When did I say this : "oh, it wasn't the IRA, it was those other guys"?
I was not attributing those words to you. I was characterizing your argument as being like that. If I had been quoting you, I would have used the forum's quote function.

Those quote marks are so-called "scare quotes." Note how the phrase "scare quotes" is in quotes, even though I'm not quoting anyone as having said it. Can you guess why? And then can you guess why I put the above phrase about the IRA in quotes even though I was not actually quoting you?

As for your item 2 (which does not follow an item 1, btw), you said that the first time, and now this is the THIRD time I have told you that I disagree. Guess how many more times I'm going to tell you that? (Hint: The answer is zero.)

I was not attributing those words to you. I was characterizing your argument as being like that. If I had been quoting you, I would have used the forum's quote function.

Those quote marks are so-called "scare quotes." Note how the phrase "scare quotes" is in quotes, even though I'm not quoting anyone as having said it. Can you guess why? And then can you guess why I put the above phrase about the IRA in quotes even though I was not actually quoting you?

As for your item 2 (which does not follow an item 1, btw), you said that the first time, and now this is the THIRD time I have told you that I disagree. Guess how many more times I'm going to tell you that? (Hint: The answer is zero.)

Maybe you could answer my questions next time, or at least tell me how I implied it wasn't the IRA that bombed places.

Maybe you could answer my questions next time, or at least tell me how I implied it wasn't the IRA that bombed places.
I have answered every question you asked me in this thread, as far as I can recall. The post you seem intent on arguing about was not a question.

Also, I never said that you said or implied anything like the IRA didn't bomb places.

I have to go until tomorrow. Maybe while I'm gone, you could take some time to sort out what I actually said and what I didn't. Have fun.

I have already explained in this thread (and in that post) exactly what I meant by that statement and I stand by it and by all my other statements, all taken together as a whole. If you cannot figure out how they fit together, I'll try to find time tomorrow to care. For now I have better things to do than explain the same simple points to you over and over.

i'm sorry, i didn't realize the question of whether civilian israeli settlers are civilians would prove so taxing

I have answered every question you asked me in this thread, as far as I can recall. The post you seem intent on arguing about was not a question.

Also, I never said that you said or implied anything like the IRA didn't bomb places.

I have to go until tomorrow. Maybe while I'm gone, you could take some time to sort out what I actually said and what I didn't. Have fun.

You didn't answer my 2 questions in my post, but I can't be fucked to argue with an obnoxious dick like you anymore.

Because when the terrorist attacked American Citizens on 9/11/01, we stopped being symphathetic. Yea, it's pretty normal actually, it's a combination of "Well it doesn't really concern us since it's not on our backyard." and "Hey, as long as they don't mess with us, go freedom fighter, go."

Terrorists having received their orders from the US government. I still fail to see how the sheep could've been so easily misled.

Terrorists having received their orders from the US government. I still fail to see how the sheep could've been so easily misled.

"The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one." - Adolf Hitler

Wrong. They did blow up a bus once, along with a few pubs and bridges etc. You know that whole bombing campaign that they had going until 1997?

I am sure you are right. I do not know much about them but it just seemed that there for a while they were not all that bad. Also, didn't they kill drug dealers and other scumbags?

I am sure you are right. I do not know much about them but it just seemed that there for a while they were not all that bad. Also, didn't they kill drug dealers and other scumbags?

No, half of them are drug dealers and other scumbags.

No, half of them are drug dealers

Really? And you'd have proof of that....?

I am sure you are right. I do not know much about them but it just seemed that there for a while they were not all that bad. Also, didn't they kill drug dealers and other scumbags?
Eh they did indulge in summary justice for a bunch of things, aye. Doesn't make them good people.

I am sure you are right. I do not know much about them but it just seemed that there for a while they were not all that bad. Also, didn't they kill drug dealers and other scumbags?

I hope hope hope I'm wrong.. but I seriously think you might have confused the IRA with the Mafia....

Terrorists having received their orders from the US government. I still fail to see how the sheep could've been so easily misled.

I see you're one of those conspiracy theorists.

Don't delude yourself- the U.S. government would not have killed several thousand people to start a war.

I despise- and I mean, loath with a passion- people who say that Congress somehow organized 9/11.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot2.gif

Don't delude yourself- the U.S. government would not have killed several thousand people to start a war.


Yeah - that would be insane.

Killing people to start a war. Errr...

I thought I'd posted here already, but I guess I was thinking of another thread. Anyway, Terrorism can take two forms, that I believe to be worth distinguishing between. There is Terrorism that occurs because one's ideas are indefensible and there is Terrorism that occurs because one's ideas are inaudible.

Some try to use force as their means to impose their ideology on others. This is unacceptable. If your belief system or ideas do not stand up to critical evaluation then imposition by terror is no substitute, whether by government or by organisation.

Others try to use force because others are imposing upon them and their only method of speaking out is to make a scene. This is not acceptable either, but I am sympathetic to those to whom it is a seriously considerable course of action. I do think that the use of indiscriminate force is fundamentally lazy, and that there should be much more effective and life-preserving tools available to make a public statement. I think that this form of Terrorist is simply not being creative enough.

For instance, if members of Al Qaeda were really concerned about American oppression, they could sneak into the White House (or some embassy or something), capture a high-ranked figure on Camera with a gun to his head then leave willingly, without shooting him, with a statement to the effect that "We could kill him, but we choose not to. This is the extent of our conviction". How much more powerful would that message be than blowing up a building or a subway?
That's an interesting idea. It gets the message across without the full violence that goes with it.

And if said group is subsequently targeted with violence, people are much more likely to sympathize with them.

It'd be a much better tactic, one to follow if one were, say, trying to actually fight an oppressive government.

Of course, they're not, and Al Queda is merely a group that is fighting for positions that are directly contrary to the true interests of just about everyone on the planet.

Yeah - that would be insane.

Killing people to start a war. Errr...

Its own people, smart-ass.

I know you knew that. You're just being difficult.

Yeah - that would be insane.

Killing people to start a war. Errr...

I think the objection is the idea that September 11th was started by the Bush administration, which is a ridiculous notion, because there would be absolutely no way to keep it secret. None. It'd have been impossible.

Possibly if the Bush Administration was known for super-competence, but...

Its own people, smart-ass.

I know you knew that. You're just being difficult.

Sacrificing some of your own for 'the greater good' is hardly a new military innovation.

I think the objection is the idea that September 11th was started by the Bush administration, which is a ridiculous notion, because there would be absolutely no way to keep it secret. None. It'd have been impossible.

No, not exactly. The idea that the whole thing could have been conducted 'in house' is a little far-fetched, although in a regime that would invoke executive privilege if you asked them the time, not entirely impossible.

However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a small circle of government officials in the US could have orchestrated such an incident with... for example... contacts in Saudi Arabia.

Not beyond, perhaps, but I would find that more than a little hard to believe, considering it's not all that plausible and smacks more of trying to find even more fault in this administration than is really there.

Seriously, guys, hasn't it done enough without having to try to find shadows of even worse actions?

You didn't answer my 2 questions in my post, but I can't be fucked to argue with an obnoxious dick like you anymore.
Which 2 questions in which post? Because the old post you were referring to did not have any questions in it -- you were telling me something, not asking me something, and the post that made me go back and check it again also did not ask a question. And I DID answer the questions in the posts that came after that.

You asked me to show you were you said the IRA never bombed anything, and you asked me where you said the IRA never bombed places, and I answered you by saying that I never said that you ever said those things. Actually, I just said that I never said that you had said or implied that the IRA never bombed places, without referring to the other question that said "anything" because I took those to be two ways of saying the same thing. The point is, I never said that you denied that the IRA bombed stuff/places/things.

If you're not talking about those posts and those questions, then I don't know what you're talking about.