Why terrorists will ultimately fail... by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Finn, since a terrorist is defined by their means (not their goals, since nobody argues that their goals are morally inferior) and the invasion of Iraq was entirely optional- what does that make Bush?

I really don't expect an answer.

The invasion of France was entirely optional. Almost all Islamic terrorist’s goals center on the destruction of Israel and the establishing of an Islamic fascist state. Effectively, their goals are the same as those of the Nazis. I would argue that the establishment of totalitarian regimes and the eradication of Jews are “morally inferior” goals to those generally expressed by the US whether they are sought by Nazi Germans or Islamic Terrorists.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Finn, since a terrorist is defined by their means (not their goals, since nobody argues that their goals are morally inferior) and the invasion of Iraq was entirely optional- what does that make Bush?

Bush does what his conscience (and God) tell him to do; those towel-heads only pretend to be doing the same.
See?

Chrisisall, who air-dries after a bath, no towel ever touches his head

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:31 AM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy. The war was fought for profit and the personal gain of a few corporations. The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for their ancient "holy" literature. Both reasons are equally wrong.
The US is a federal democratic republic by definition, and the US was much more aristocratic in the past then it is today. People who seek to equate the totalitarian theocratic philosophies of groups like the Taliban with the democratic republic of the US have very little perspective on the issue. You know, disagreement with this war would carry more credibility if they weren’t based on fantasies. Calling Bush a terrorist or claiming that the US is a totalitarian state doesn’t make your anti-war argument more plausible; it just diminishes your credibility and reliability, thereby making your arguments appear less plausible. This is what we call shooting your argument in the foot.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Did you hear me say that Bush is a terrorist? No (though by his own definition, he often fits the profile).

Did you hear me say that America is a totalitarian state? No.

The point that I was trying to get across was that America's government is run by corporate sponsored puppets that remain in office far too long (96% of representatives are re-elected; many have been in office for most of their adult life). So, to me, when it comes to comparing religious extremists fighting because an ancient book and a few crazy clerics tell them to, and our nation being manipulated into a war for profit, neither side is much better than the other.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Did you hear me say that Bush is a terrorist? No (though by his own definition, he often fits the profile).

You just did, didn’t you?

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Did you hear me say that America is a totalitarian state? No.

Yeah. Did you not say this? I think you did.

"No, there isn't a moral equivalent between a totalitarian Theocracy and a Democratic Republic. But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy." [[]Emphasis mine[]]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:16 PM

Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?

And...just because I fit the description of an idiot, doesn't necessarily make me one.

Chrisisall, leaving himself wide open...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?

No. Reaverman is. He believes that the US is a “Corporate Aristocracy,” but that (whatever that is) is “as bad as the Theocracy. [[]Emphasis mine[]]” Well, the theocracy that we are talking about is a “totalitarian” theocracy. Therefore, if we are to believe what reaverman said and we can assume that he understands the context of the discussion, then he believes that the US’s form of government is tantamount to totalitarianism. It’s plain as day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:30 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?
No. Reaverman is. He believes that the US is a “Corporate Aristocracy,” but that (whatever that is) is “as bad as the Theocracy. [[]Emphasis mine[]]” Well, the theocracy that we are talking about is a “totalitarian” theocracy. Therefore, if we are to believe what reaverman said and we can assume that he understands the context of the discussion, then he believes that the US’s form of government is tantamount to totalitarianism. It’s plain as day.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

That is some weird-ass logic you've got goin' there

. If I say that rape and murder are equally bad, does that mean that I am saying that they are the same thing? No.

Things being equally right or equally wrong does not mean that they are exactly the same. What I was saying was that being run by crazed religious regimes and being run by cold, calculating businessmen are both bad.

Maybe you need to think a little more before you type (jeez, and you say I'm ruining my credibility).

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn: Because nobody is going to blow up (bomb, shoot, or stab) people for what the perp believes is a morally inferior goal (unless of course you're a sociopathic sack of crap who simply uses nice-sounding words to mask sheer greed) can we please set aside the discussion of goals.... everyone's got a good one... and focus on means?

Terrorism is the process in which one advances a political goal by inducing a state of fear in the non-combatant population through violence. Terrorists believe that their goals justify ANY means. Finn believes that HIS goals justiy ANY means. Bush believes that HIS goals justify ANY means. And when other means are available....

Does it really matter if Germany did it first?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
That is some weird-ass logic you've got goin' there . If I say that rape and murder are equally bad, does that mean that I am saying that they are the same thing? No.

Things being equally right or equally wrong does not mean that they are exactly the same. What I was saying was that being run by crazed religious regimes and being run by cold, calculating businessmen are both bad.

Maybe you need to think a little more before you type (jeez, and you say I am ruining my credibility).

I never said you did say they were exactly the same, did I? I said you are equating them, which you are, aren’t you? You’re claiming that the US federal democratic republic is tantamount to a totalitarian theocracy? You are saying they are equivalent, in the same way that someone might say that rape and murder are equivalent, so therefore you saying that the US is tantamount to totalitarianism. Essentially, your argument is intellectually dishonest. You’re trying to get away with accusing the US of being totalitarian, without taking responsibility for that accusation, because you know you can’t defend that point. And yes, it damages your credibility.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: Because nobody is going to blow up (bomb, shoot, or stab) people for what the perp believes is a morally inferior goal (unless of course you're a sociopathic sack of crap who simply uses nice-sounding words to mask sheer greed) can we please set aside the discussion of goals.... everyone's got a good one... and focus on means?

The destruction of Israel and the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy are “good” goals? If that's what you really believe that would seem to say a lot about where you stand, doesn’t it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The destruction of Israel and the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy are “good” goals? That would seem to say a lot about where you stand, doesn’t it

Dang, Finn, can you possibly make yourself look any stupider?? Apparently not! In the eyes of a terrorist his (her) goals are always superior and worthy of any means. Apparently it's too subtle for you?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The destruction of Israel and the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy are “good” goals? That would seem to say a lot about where you stand, doesn’t it
Dang, Finn, can you possibly make yourself look any stupider?? Apparently not! In the eyes of a terrorist his (her) goals are always superior and worthy of any means. Apparently it's too subtle for you?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

But that's obvious. Every man sees himself as the hero in his own story, very few people look at themselves and see a heel. The Nazi's thought they were saving Europe from the scurge of world Jewery, they believed that history would vindicate them and that their brave actions would be celebrated by future generations. How warped would you have to be to believe shoveling children into gas chambers is an heroic act? If a human being can buy into that level of delusion then you could justify any horror.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Dang, Finn, can you possibly make yourself look any stupider?? Apparently not! In the eyes of a terrorist his (her) goals are always superior and worthy of any means. Apparently it's too subtle for you?

That does not change that some goals are not good regardless of what some terrorists think. And your desire is to muddy the water with relativist nonsense so that you can justify calling Bush a terrorist despite the fact that his goals share no similarity to the goals of Al Qaeda. Alternatively, you really believe the delusional nonsense that the goals of terrorists and fascists are morally sound because that’s what terrorists and fascists believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Finn- how many people are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?

Scratch a terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes- and you will find either a true believer or a sociopath. Bush is willing to kill civilians for political ends. Finn is willing to kill civilians for political ends. And apparently neither was interested in alternatives.

Some goals are good. Some means are not. Jeez, it's like talking to a brick wall.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn- how many people are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?

And how many would you kill?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:42 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I never said you did say they were exactly the same, did I? I said you are equating them, which you are, aren’t you? You’re claiming that the US federal democratic republic is tantamount to a totalitarian theocracy? You are saying they are equivalent, in the same way that someone might say that rape and murder are equivalent, so therefore you saying that the US is tantamount to totalitarianism. Essentially, your argument is intellectually dishonest. You’re trying to get away with accusing the US of being totalitarian, without taking responsibility for that accusation, because you know you can’t defend that point. And yes, it damages your credibility.

WTF are you talking about?!?! What do you call THIS:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, are you saying a Corporate Aristocracy IS a totalitarian state?

No. Reaverman is. He believes that the US is a “Corporate Aristocracy,” but that (whatever that is) is “as bad as the Theocracy. [Emphasis mine]” Well, the theocracy that we are talking about is a “totalitarian” theocracy. Therefore, if we are to believe what reaverman said and we can assume that he understands the context of the discussion, then he believes that the US’s form of government is tantamount to totalitarianism. It’s plain as day.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
WTF are you talking about?!?! What do you call THIS:.

As I said, it’s plain as day. I'm not going to keep pointing out to you what you said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And how many would you kill?

That's a stupid question which, I note, you refuse to answer. You're the one that's supporting the invasion, not me. But to anserw your question: I would be willing to kill Saddam and his top military people, but they're not civilians.

So, to ask the question AGAIN- How many civilians are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Scratch a terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes- and you will find either a true believer or a sociopath.

SO FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman, and the other leaders of the Allies in WWII(not to mention anyone who flew a strategic bomber) were terrorists(as well as sociopaths and "true believers"), because they obviously knew that to meet their political goals (preservation of their political systems) they had to kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you need to re-think your definition of "terrorist".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, WWII falls under the definition of "self defense". But Iraq didn't attack us and didn't pose to threat to us, yet we invaded.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn- how many people are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?
And how many would you kill?

As few as possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What- no response? Geezer? Finn? Nothing to say in support of killing people in order to bring them democracy?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And how many would you kill?
That's a stupid question which, I note, you refuse to answer. You're the one that's supporting the invasion, not me. But to anserw your question: I would be willing to kill Saddam and his top military people, but they're not civilians.

Really? Wow, that’s a good plan. And then what? Because if that's all you've got, it ain't gonna work. No Government=anarchy, civil war, competing warlords that may or may not establish a unified probably totalitarian regime, hundreds of thousands dead. In fact, Afghanistan was a pretty good model of that kind of solution.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, to ask the question AGAIN- How many civilians are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq?

For my own answer, I’m going with what Fletch2 said. He’s an insightful fellow. As few as possible. That’s a good answer.

I guess we should have prosecuted Churchill and Roosevelt as terrorists, but Hitler was a just doing what he thought was right. There’s just all kinds of crazy things going on in Sig’s head.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No Government=anarchy, civil war, competing warlords that may or may not establish a unified probably totalitarian regime, hundreds of thousands dead. In fact, Afghanistan was a pretty good model of that kind of solution.

Whoa Finn! Are you even IN reality??? We didn't just take out the Taliban by killing Mullah Omar and bin Laden. In fact, they're both still wandering around! We supported individual warlords- we STILL support individual warlords- altho Karzai has BEGGED us to funnel the $$ through his government instead. I mean.... really!

Quote:
I guess we should have prosecuted Churchill and Roosevelt as terrorists, but Hitler was a just doing what he thought was right. There’s just all kinds of crazy things going on in Sig’s head

What I said was that WWII was self-defense. I guess you didn't notice that part? Well, I guess when you don't have a good answer you can just lie. It does make you look like, well... a liar.

As far as acceptable death: If murder is taking place it's OK to kill to prevent further death. But it's NOT ok to mow down 50 hostages to get at a criminal. That's when you try negotiation, or subterfuge, or sharpshooting. But you don't go in with guns blazing because you're likely to cause more harm than good.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa Finn! Are you even IN reality??? We didn't just take out the Taliban by killing Mullah Omar and bin Laden. In fact, they're both still wandering around! We supported individual warlords- we STILL support individual warlords- altho Karzai has BEGGED us to funnel the $$ through his government instead. I mean.... really!

Yes, we did Afghanistan well. But I suppose what you would have had us do is kill Hussein and his ?top military people,? somehow, and then the country would disintegrates into feuding warlords. Now how you plan on killing and only killing Hussein et al, I don?t know. They aren?t going to pose for you, but I guess if you believe that we can just walk over there and kill Hussein and his top officials without causing any stir, then I guess you could believe there would have been no sectarian violence that would emerge from an ungoverned Iraq. All I can say is that your world is much simpler then reality.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I said was that WWII was self-defense. I guess you didn't notice that part? Well, I guess when you don't have a good answer you can just lie. It does make you look like, well... a liar.

Nope. It doesn't.

And Nazi Germany didnâ€™t attack us either, and it had no interest in going to war with the US, at least not at that time. But as the point has been clearly made, a simple show of force in the Rhineland might have forstalled the whole war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What did Iraq do to earn our invasion? I dunno- mebbe they took over New Jersey? Serves 'em right I say!

I know you keep bringing in extraneous arguments and stuff, but I'm still wondering why you think it was OK to kill civilians in order to bring the light of democracy to those suffering people?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:11 PM

Do you think it's ok to let a tyrant gas innocent civilians, torture/rape/murder others without interference.

You speak as if without the invasion Iraq was a shiny happy place. It wasn't. Before the Kuwait incident Sadam gassed Kurdish villages, murdered entire families that opposed him, kidnapped, tortured and murdered still more. Had we dropped sanctions and the no fly zones as he wanted he would have been back at that game with a vengence. Rule by fear requires arbitary death and violence to work, he was a master of it.

Keep sanctions to slow him down? Well then hundreds of thousands would die each year from malnutrition and disease while he and his elite skimmed "oil for food" to pay for the army's upkeep.

Kill Sadam and his cronies? If you could then maybe you might get another hard man that was a little less brutal or you might get a civil war.

The point is that every action you take, even taking no action, has a cost in human lives. How many each option has we don't know, because we only pursued one choice. Some of the others could have been better or they could have been worse. Unless you have one of those parallel dimension "Sliders" gadgets handy we will never know. One thing is for certain though, there was no garenteed "no blood" option. Whatever we did or failed to do some Iraqi's were going to die because of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch- you should feel ashamed of yourself. Here you're given a shiny brain and you fail to use it. I compared Iraq to 50 hostages, not a shiny, happy place. But since gassing Kurdish villages, kidnapping families etc. happened (in your own words) "before the Kuwait incident"... in other words more than a decade in the past ... there was no reason for the SWAT team to rush in guns blazing at that very moment.

But as you might chose to recall (probably not) the only reason most people went along with invasion was because Bush deliberately misrepresented Iraq as an imminent threat- which it wasn't. Not to us, it's neighbors, or even to it's own people.

Several posts up, I mentioned four or five possible alternatives to invasion and sanctions and I'm sure there are more- a fact that you, Finn, and geezer conveniently forget. So I'm forced to ask why you, Finn, and Geezer keep misrepresenting me? (Since we all know the answer you can consider that a rhetorical question!

)

So, I'll repeat the question which I've repeated five or six times already, which has not yet been answered but has certainly been misrepresented more than once: Is it okay for Bush to kill civilians for political purposes?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:45 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
SO FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman, and the other leaders of the Allies in WWII(not to mention anyone who flew a strategic bomber) were terrorists(as well as sociopaths and "true believers"), because they obviously knew that to meet their political goals (preservation of their political systems) they had to kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you need to re-think your definition of "terrorist".

If you want to start down that road I'd say the pre-emptive strikes of Hitler against Russia are a far better parrellel for Iraq than the actions of the Allies.

Perhaps you need to open a history book and realise what drivel your spouting.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer doesn't mind if he spouts drivel. I find him profoundly amusing.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, WWII falls under the definition of "self defense". But Iraq didn't attack us and didn't pose to threat to us, yet we invaded.

But your definition of terrorist, "Scratch a terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes- and you will find either a true believer or a sociopath.", doesn't leave an out for self defense. Like I said, perhaps you need to refine your definition of "terrorist".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Self defense is generally not considered a "political purpose". Wow Geezer, I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you! But that's what makes you such a fun guy, I guess!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you want to start down that road I'd say the pre-emptive strikes of Hitler against Russia are a far better parrellel for Iraq than the actions of the Allies.

Perhaps you need to open a history book and realise what drivel your spouting.

I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.

Even allowing her to add self-defense as an out, (Terrorist - a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense) that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?

BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:22 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Self defense is generally not considered a "political purpose". Wow Geezer, I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you! But that's what makes you such a fun guy, I guess!

I consider defending the existence of your political system the ultimate political purpose, but let's try these, then,

Being lazy this morning, I'll just cut and paste from another spot.

"I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.

Even allowing her to add self-defense as an out, (Terrorist - a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense) that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense

Political purposes- as I have pointed out before- does not equal self defense or even defense of others. I have more than once compared Iraq to a hostage situation. If you're getting shot at, you shoot back. If people are being killed, you rush in. If the situation is static, you try negotiation, subterfuge, sharp shooting. The aim is to save life. If you chose to rush in when the sitaution doesn't warrant it...

Quote:
... that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Our involvement in Vietnam was a terible mistake that left us destroying villages in order to save them. We carpet-bombed Vietnam and neighboring countries, dumped tons of poisons on people that created lasting effects on civilians and soldiers alike (including ours) - possibly similar to the effects we will see from DU in the future. Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?

Absolutely.

Which is why you keep touching on the subject.

I can't answer about Korea because I don't know the history.

By the way, you might want to stop gratuitously misrepresentating me.

And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?

First, please define, clearly and unambiguously, "political purposes". You say it "does not equal self defense or even defense of others." but that still leaves a lot of grey.

Until then, I guess my answer is "It depends on what the "Political Purposes" are.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 2:52 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.

I didn't insult YOU at all. I said what you were saying was drivel and you need to open a history book if you think the actions of the Allies are synomonous with the actions of the coalition with respect to Iraq. I stand by that, the two are completely dissimilar, and it isn't an insult to say so.

In short I went after your point, not you.

Quote:
Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.

Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?

As an excuse for the invasion of Iraq? Korea was a UN mandated and supported effort, where else have I NOT heard that?

It was also a reaction to an unsolicited aggressive attack on an allied nation, again nothing like the current situation in Iraq.

In fact both Vietnam and Korea were both attacked, remember that the Vietnam war was a war much like the Korean war, a conflict between North Vietnam and her allies (namely the PRC and USSR) and South Vietnam and her Allies, principally Australia, Korea and the USA.

Sorry but defending you allies is a whole lot different to 'pre-emptive' action undertaken on false evidence.

Quote:
I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.

It's a change to the normal definition:
A terrorist is someone who attacks US.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?

What if, in some fictional fantasy stroke of magic, we could waltz into Iraq and kill “Saddam and his top military people” without any collateral damage, which resulted, as it likely would, in a civil war in which thousands of innocent people died. Would that be okay? Or what if the US simply left sanctions in place and thousands of innocent people continued to die. What that be okay? Or what if we just increased trade with Iraq? And Saddam killed thousands of innocent people while we were doing nothing but fattening out economy on Iraqi trade? Would that be okay? These were all solutions YOU proposed. All of them would result in the death of thousands of innocent people, and considering that the war will eventually end and there is a good chance that Iraq will be left with a better government and a better life for its people afterward, while none of the other options provide that assurance, the war is quite possibly the better solution of many bad ones.

The irony is that the administration’s strategy was actually a real world variant of your kill Saddam et al. solution. We could have bombed Iraq into the Stone Age before committing ground troops, which is what we did in the first Gulf War and what is considered standard military practice. However, we didn’t, because the interests of the US/UK/Aus (the major allied players) was to only kill “Saddam and his top military people,” without (if possible) killing anyone else. In fact the bulk of the reconstruction following the war was fixing infrastructure damage left by Saddam, not allied bombing. So effectively, you have no solution; all you’re doing is reciting things that have already been tried or proposed by people who would appear to have a much better grasp of the realities involved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, let's build that definition of "poltical purposes", possibly by drawing from accepted examples: Stalin, Saddam, Hamas, al Qaida.

Stalin's purpose was to gain absolute control of the Soviet government. Saddam's purpose was to gain absolute control of the Iraqi government. Hama's charter calls for the destruction of Israel and any secular Palestinian organization and the formation of a relgious government based on Sharia. Al Qaida- pretty much same thing.

"Political purposes" probably has something to do government. Being able to create and enforce laws. So a terrorist is someone who kills non-combatants in order to be able to create and enforce laws.

How's that for a first cut?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?

Absolutely.

This is an absolute fact. No one on this board can justify what was done there, and if they could, I'd like to see them try.
(I like a good sh**storm, apparently

)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What if, in some fictional fantasy stroke of magic, we could waltz into Iraq and kill “Saddam and his top military people” without any collateral damage, which resulted, as it likely would, in a civil war in which thousands of innocent people died. Would that be okay? Or what if the US simply left sanctions in place and thousands of innocent people continued to die. What that be okay? Or what if we just increased trade with Iraq? And Saddam killed thousands of innocent people while we were doing nothing but fattening out economy on Iraqi trade?

Oh quibble, quibble, whine, whine.

What if we imposed tarrifs that would be lifted for "good behavior"? What if we retained the "no-fly" zones? What if we expanded inspections? What if we placed area nations in charge of inspections in various regions? What if we used increased trade and the attendant increased presence of foreigners to infiltrate Iraq? What if Finn stopped shooting himself in the foot?

Oh wait... that would be impossible!

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 3:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.

I didn't insult YOU at all. I said what you were saying was drivel and you need to open a history book if you think the actions of the Allies are synomonous with the actions of the coalition with respect to Iraq. I stand by that, the two are completely dissimilar, and it isn't an insult to say so.

So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool.

Quote:
In fact both Vietnam and Korea were both attacked, remember that the Vietnam war was a war much like the Korean war, a conflict between North Vietnam and her allies (namely the PRC and USSR) and South Vietnam and her Allies, principally Australia, Korea and the USA.

Sorry but defending you allies is a whole lot different to 'pre-emptive' action undertaken on false evidence.

OK. So we're refining the definition of a terrorist a bit more: a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes (Note - the phrase "political purposes" has yet to be defined), except for reasons of self-defense or defense of allies.

Still a bit of wiggle room there. Suppose the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blows up a bus of Israeli civilians to break up an IDF ambush of a Hamas leader. They're killing civilians to defend an ally, hence they're not terrorists.

Looks like the definition needs a bit more work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?

Absolutely.

This is an absolute fact. No one on this board can justify what was done there, and if they could, I'd like to see them try.
(I like a good sh**storm, apparently)

Chrisisall

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch- you should feel ashamed of yourself. Here you're given a shiny brain and you fail to use it.

.

You have functional ears but you refuse to listen. I suspect that makes us even.

To be truthfull I didn't even notice your fascile "SWAT" analogy, and instead was talking to you as an adult rather than a teen with a TV cop show fetish. Ok if you want something more entertaining I'm game.

In "SWAT World" your scenario is more along these lines.

Some guys take hostages in a building. Before SWAT gets there 4 hostages are killed and 50 taken captive. The police cordon off the area and attempt to limit the people going in and out. The "mayor" (UN) gives the SWAT team general orders authorising security but for political reasons doesnt authorise an assault. Some of the hostages, knowing the cops are outside decide to do a "Flight 93" style rebelion against the gunmen. They are murdered immediately and after that no more hostages try anything.

The Mayor, not wanting bloodshed turns off the electricity to the building intending to sweat the gunmen out but for humanitarian reasons deliveries of food and water are provided. They wait, and weeks turn to months. It becomes clear that the gunmen are taking the bulk of the supplies for themselves and hardly suffering at all. Over time though heat and malnutrition work on the hostages and they start to die. The press covers every death. Since they know the mayor won't authorise an assault the press starts to feel that maybe the cordon around the building should be lifted and the gunmen allowed to escape rather than have more hostages die. SWAT knows that if the gunmen get away they will do the same sorts of things again and kill more people. They suspect some in the press have done deals with the gunmen for "exclusives" if they escape.

Then another group of gunmen attack two downtown office blocks and kill everyone inside. The city is paralysed by fear and the SWAT captain thinking fast starts to tell the press that the gunmen inside the building had all kinds of weapons going in, maybe they still have them? In which case if they are allowed to get away they could do far worse than wipe out two office buildings. Public support backs the captain, because folks in the city are scared. He uses the opertunity to order an attack without the mayor's blessing, citing one of the mayor's original orders and claiming an iminent threat. Most of the gunmen are eliminated and the hostages rescued. However some of the gunmen escape and start killing SWAT officers, former hostages and newcomers to the building out of revenge......

Roll credits.

Back in the real world you still haven't faced the point I put to you. Yet me explain it very simply this time.

It's the pottery barn principle --- if you break it you buy it. Except Iraq wasn't broken in 2003, it was broken in 1991 after Gulf War 1. We did that and then we put on sanctions to make sure it stayed broken. That left us in the following situation.

1) we had sanctions that combined with Saddam's neglect were killing thousands of Iraqis a year.

2) We had two no fly zones which limited Saddam just enough that he couldn't act with force against the Shiites or the Kurds.

3) We had substantial political pressure on the UN to lift sanctions some of which we now know was paid for by Saddam using Oil for Food money.

That puts us in a crap position as follows. Let's look at our options.

Plan A
------
The status quo, keep sanctions and the no fly zones. This has the following effects.

1) Thousands of Iraqi's starve to death each year.
2) US and UK aviators risk being shot down daily patroling the no fly zone, so there are risks of allied dead.
3) To provide troops for the no fly zone US troops have to stay in places like Saudi. This pisses off folks like Bin Laden. The Iraqi deaths continue to piss off the Arab street. We are seen as the bad guys.
4) If the US keeps vetoing the lifting of sanctions at the UN there will be diplomatic repercusions in teh region especially in moderate countries like Jordon because the Arab street directly links starving Iraqi's with the US veto. Those regimes will be forced to either put distance between themselves and the US or risk unrest at home.

So doing nothing has several thousand additional Iraqi dead and god knows how much other peripheral damage.

Plan B
-----

We pack up and dump sanctions but maintain the no fly zone.

result

1) Still some starving Iraqi's --- Saddam had extra money from oil for food he could have spent on humanitarian aid, the fact that it was channeled into the military suggests that once more money is available the military will get fully funded first.

2) Reintegration of WMD programs dormant due to sanctions.

3) More goodies to fire at our flyboys, good chance they will get to down a few. Ie US and UK casualties. This would probably result in

4) Weakening of no fly zones coupled with more military spending puts Kurds and Shiites at risk. Saddam wants his country whole again he's going to want to smash any thoughts of autonomy. Ergo More Iraqi dead.

5) US can not pull out of places like Saudi because a re energised Iraqi military could become a threat to it's neighbors. This pisses of Bin Laden and the Arab Street.

So, plan B doesnt look that bloodless either.

Plan C

Like plan B except we shut down the no fly zone and go home.
points 1 and 2 still stand. 4 becomes a certainty.

New 5) pulling out of Saudi leaves it open to Iraqi invasion some years down the road. This shakes our allies in the region. The Arab street will consequently blame us for anything bad Saddam does to his neighbors while at the same time his standing only improves. He faced down the great satan and lived.

So, kinda bloody there too.

Plan D

We somehow get all the top guys together and kill them....

Ignoring that we tried that and failed to find anyone we could use. Ignoring for the moment the likelyhood that a survivor like Saddam would let that happen we have no idea what the resulting power vacuum could produce. If we are lucky it's another hard man that wants tp play nice rather than have the same thing happen to him, perhaps it's a civil war. In the interim we would either have to continue sanctions until the deed is done or risk lifting them and then acting.

Deathtoll --- unable to quantify but certainly in the 100's as a minimum.

So now we see the nature of the problem. Keep sanctions and we are killing innocent Iraqis and the death toll pisses off the Arab Street. Remove sanctions without removing Saddam first and he will act to strengthen his military and crack down on the Shiites and Kurds. The arab street will blame us for that too and down the road a little he will get WMDs.

Which brings us to

Plan E

Invade and topple Saddam, then lift sanctions

Now here we make what I call the Pearl/Rumsfeld assumption, that is that most Iraqis will be so pleased to be rid of Saddam that they will at least tolerate our presence for a little while. Now we can argue that that was a stupid assumption but we know that they made it. Everything from level of forces to the post war planning points to it. They genuinely didn't think that there was going to be a problem once Saddam was gone.

So let's look at that.

1) Taking out Saddam now is easier than waiting a few years until he his more of a threat. Because of sanctions his army is crippled, attacking now means fewer US casualties than waiting a few years for him to build up his forces and do something naughty.

2) Once he's gone you can drop sanctions immediately. Further the US military intrastructure can rebuild bridges, arrange shipping of aid etc. It is the quickest way to ensure that easing sanctions will help destressed Iraqis.

3) US precision weapons mean that there are fewer colateral civilian casualties than in previous wars. Civilians always die in war but precision bombing (hopefully) keeps that to a minimum.

4) Having US forces in the country means you can shape the political climate, less risk of another homocidal hard man taking over.

5) Once the job is done there is no need to keep troops in Saudi and piss off Bin Laden. One of the big recruiting cries for Islamic fundies goes away.

Looks good on paper, in fact if you don't look at it too closely it might actually appear to be the lowest bodycount option. Certainly removing Saddam before removing sanctions is the best and only way to ensure the safety of the Kurds and southern Shiites.

This is real world "screwed whatever you do" stuff. The question is what has the lowest body count? Zero body count is not even an option.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:16 AM

Finn, you make more than a few good points, but let me try to go outside the box for a moment.

After 911 it was my idea that we should have spent the time we needed gathering the precise intel, then sent teams after the terrorist strongholds, taken out Bin-Laden, and as many of his goons as possible, and then focus on destroying Iraq's defensive capabilities; all WITHOUT a formal declaration of war, and all as quickly and quietly as possible.
(This is all under the assumption that Saddam HAD to be taken out when he was, I still say that that should have been done during the Gulf War, and the necessity of the Gulf War is assuming we couldn't have seen the attack on Kuwait coming- big assumptions, I think...)

After all, the schoolyard punk punches you, you don't formally declare a defensive strike; you hit 'em.

But in the end, there is no totally bloodless way out...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

They certainly performed their part, and we kept up with them, did we not?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:37 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.

They certainly performed their part, and we kept up with them, did we not?

Chrisisall

I'd probably disagree with you there, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:42 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool.

Not only did I not say that, my statements can't be construed as such. I said you trying to equate the current situation in Iraq is drivel, Too put it on a level with what you have just said to me: at that moment you were talking shit, which is a wholly different thing to saying you are full of shit. One is saying your wrong, the other is an insult directed at you.

In fact the way I see it to construe what I said as a personal insult means one of three possibilities:
A) You are quite possibly the most over-sensitive person around here.
B) You're trying to pull the 'stop insulting me' card in order to discredit me.
C) You think someone pointing out your 'point' is absurd is a personal insult. Actually see A) for that one.

So which is it? Personally I'm leaning to B), considering you've not actually hit on any of my points and merely going with the "You're insulting me, waa!" line. Stop playing the hard done by thing, it doesn't impress.

Oh and the only person who's done any obvious insultin' here would be you, I'm not full of shit, I await your apology for the unsolicited personal insult.

Quote:
OK. So we're refining the definition of a terrorist a bit more: a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes (Note - the phrase "political purposes" has yet to be defined), except for reasons of self-defense or defense of allies.

Still a bit of wiggle room there. Suppose the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade blows up a bus of Israeli civilians to break up an IDF ambush of a Hamas leader. They're killing civilians to defend an ally, hence they're not terrorists.

Looks like the definition needs a bit more work.

I didn't define anything, you're having that conversation with SignyM, do try to keep up please. I said the situations of WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and hell the first Gulf War bear no relation to the current situation in Iraq.

Here's a hint, there is but one parallel between those wars and the current situation in Iraq, American Troops are doing some of the fighting. There the similarities begin and end.

But since you want to drag me in too the "Is Bush a terrorist?" argument, for whatever reason I don't know:

A terrorist is someone who specifically TARGETS civilians in order to produce fear in a civilian population to bring pressure to that populations governing body, in order to satisfy a political end.

Simply put Bush doesn't need to be a terrorist. If the IRA or Al qaeda had the resources of the American Military they wouldn't be Terrorists either.

Think about it if Osama had a military to rival the US he could just tell the US to get bent, and there would be Sweet FA ya'll could do about it. He wouldn't need too fly planes into buildings to satisfy his political ends, he'd just have to rattle his Sabre ever now and then.

Is Bush a Terrorist? I don't think so, for a start he lacks the subtlety (yes it requires a degree of subtlety) and intelligence to operate a terrorist network. Secondly the coalition forces aren't specifically targeting civilians, though that having been said the coalition forces have attacked civilians, whether this is a case of mistaken identity or actual targeting of civilians, or whether that puts the coalition in the realm of 'terrorists' is something I'll leave to the reader to decide.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So a terrorist is someone who kills non-combatants in order to be able to create and enforce laws.

How's that for a first cut?

So that makes Lincoln a terrorist? He killed many non-combatants during the sieges of several Confederate cities, all so he could enforce his laws of Federalism and abolition of slavery. So we still need some work.

But maybe we can simplify. Let's go back to good old Webster's II for a moment.

Terrorism - Systemic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

There's no specific definition of "terrorist", just a note under Terrorism that its the noun form. I guess that makes it:

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

And that's really no help, because anyone who conducts a military campaign uses violence, terror and intimidation. Looks Like Webster's let me down this time.

But lets throw your "non-combatants" into the mix and see.

Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation against non-combatants to achieve an end.

Closer, but still could apply to, say, strategic bombing as part of an overall military campaign. Need even more emphasis on the non-combatants.

i]Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, to achieve an end.

So. Does this get us any closer to agreement on what a terrorist is? I think we still have to determine if there should be more detail in the "...to achieve an end" part. Is there any end which justifies the use of violence, etc. primarily against non-combatants? But maybe we can at least have a start.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 28, 2006 5:03 AM