  |
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | If you're asking me to define what I mean when I use the word "terrorist," then the distinction is simple: a terrorist intentionally and knowingly targets innocent civilians. Whether that person sees himself as fighting for freedom from an oppressive regime is of no consequence to me. The goals do not define the terrorist; he is defined by his actions. I don't care how understandable or even laudable your goal may be; target innocent civilians, and you're a terrorist. |
Then, the US could fall into that category easily. The Mai Lai Massacre or the firebombing of Dresden. and those are just from the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raibeart
Veteran
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 533
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | If you're asking me to define what I mean when I use the word "terrorist," then the distinction is simple: a terrorist intentionally and knowingly targets innocent civilians. Whether that person sees himself as fighting for freedom from an oppressive regime is of no consequence to me. The goals do not define the terrorist; he is defined by his actions. I don't care how understandable or even laudable your goal may be; target innocent civilians, and you're a terrorist. |
OK. So, every Latin American dictator supported by the USA is, by your definition, a "terrorist" and a majority of the prime ministers of Israel in the last 40/50 years are also "terrorists". That's cleared that up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Raibeart wrote: | | TrespassersW wrote: | | If you're asking me to define what I mean when I use the word "terrorist," then the distinction is simple: a terrorist intentionally and knowingly targets innocent civilians. Whether that person sees himself as fighting for freedom from an oppressive regime is of no consequence to me. The goals do not define the terrorist; he is defined by his actions. I don't care how understandable or even laudable your goal may be; target innocent civilians, and you're a terrorist. |
OK. So, every Latin American dictator supported by the USA is, by your definition, a "terrorist" and a majority of the prime ministers of Israel in the last 40/50 years are also "terrorists". That's cleared that up. |
First, anyone who intentionally and knowingly targets innocent civilians is a bad guy and the world ought to be gunning for them. Period. That written, I failed to make one distinction that sets terrorism (as we use the term) apart; the goal of terrorism is to make a grievance heard and force a change in society. In that regard, I don't think those on your list qualify as terrorists, though if they've done similar things, the difference is purely semantics; we ought not tolerate those actions from anyone, for any reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: |
First, anyone who intentionally and knowingly targets innocent civilians is a bad guy and the world ought to be gunning for them. Period. |
absolutely! that is why we should be going after israel and out own u.s. government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
maybe this could aid in some way. 
terrorism...
you terriorize. Meaning to fill or overcome with people with terror
.....terrorist use terror to coerce citizens into submitting to their politcal will.
revolutionism....
you revolt. Meaning to break away from or rise against constituted authority.
.....revolutionaries use revolt to overthrow the authority of the state.
guerrilla warfare....
.....the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force.
war....
......A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
warfare.....
......the process of military struggle between two nations or groups of nations; war.
????????????????????????????????????????????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1564
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| War is terrorism. One can not exist without the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Terrorism accomplishes its goals through making people terrified.
Although war can do that also, it doesn't do that exclusively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just for the semantics fun of it everyone. 
Are we are seemingly...
in a state of warfare with guerrilla warriors that also use terrorist tactics to coerse citizen support to win a revolt against any U.S. authority or presence in the middle east?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| War conducted according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions is not terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| If used to coerce through fear, then a war is terrorism by definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TrespassersW wrote: | | War conducted according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions is not terrorism. |
good, then we agree that the u.s. partakes in terror!
torturing prisoners, using white phosphorous and using depleted uranium all violate the geneva convention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| How exactly do the phosphorous and uranium violate the geneva conventions? And no, environmnental pollution is not a violation of the geneva conventions (as far as i know). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons."
1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes".
these are attachments to the geneva convention...correct?
using WP in fallujah is in violation of both of these things. it was used indiscriminately against inhabitants of the city. a friend of mine was there and it was not pretty..."peoples cloths were melted into their bodies" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2222
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
the DU...i think that every person in an authority position should be executed for allowing DU to be used. using DU is a crime against humanity and they knew how terrible it is even before it was ever used in combat.
talk about a "smoking gun":
this, from 1987, states that the non-DU armor which DU rounds were fired through, to test its armor piercing capabilities, should be regarded as low level radioactive waste.
"The impacted armor targets used in testing high density armor- piercing ammunition containing depleted uranium (DU) are subject to disposal as low level radioactive waste. Because of the costs associated with disposal of the entire armor plate and the limited use of secured commercial sites in the future, the U.S. Army is seeking to identify and evaluate new technologies for decontaminating these armor plates. The objectives of this Phase I SBIR program are two-fold, namely: To develop a selective solvent that can decontaminate impacted armor targets containing DU for disposal or recycle. To identify and characterize technologies that can remove depleted uranium from the solvent for solvent recycle and uranium recovery for easier hazardous waste disposal. Keywords: Decontamination, Depleted uranium, Recycle, Solvent extraction, Ion exchange, Precipitation, Chelate, Radopactive waste, Dissolution."
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai.....=ADA183104 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jusdeadphunky wrote: | | Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." |
The united states did not sign that one (though perhaps they ought to have).
And, if you'll note the language of it, it prohibits attacks against civilians, not against military targets.
| Quote: |
1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes". |
Whether or not WP is in violation of this one depends on how it's used; that is to say, it's only a chemical weapon if its intended method of destruction is chemical in nature.
It's worth noting that i don't condone the use of WP, i just happent to enjoy arguing on the internet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
