Yes and no, some people are terrorists for the simple fact that they have mental health issues are have a confused sense of reality.
However, if you talk about Terrorists that are fighting for a cause they believe is right, then yes, the poeple who share their ideals will praise him/her whilst the victims obviously hate him/her. Works vice versa too of course
It depends. A person/people's perception of fighting for one's freedom doesn't necessarily mean thats really what or why they're fighting or that their actions really meet such intentions or ends. If I walked into a populated civilian Middle-eastern market and blew myself up as a way to express my disdain towards Al Qaeda suicide-bombers...that doesn't really make me a freedom fighter imo.
However there's nothing to stop people from believing in just about anything since much of Western law encourages and protects one's stubbornness. We live in a world where people throw out labels without really getting into the definition or meaning behind it --- especially the Nazi label...I bet just about every prominent Western politician has been called a Nazi in some fashion or another.
The inherent difference between the 2 is that a 'terrorist' will specifically target civilians whereby a 'freedom fighter' will generally restrict their activities towards military targets.
2 obvious examples
IRA = Terrorists
French Resistance = Freedom fighters.
Though both have been refereed to as the opposite.
Of course there are always going to be guerrilla outfits who blur the lines (the Spanish guerrillas during the peninsula war or the Viet Cong are good examples in that they often killed both the military and civilians alike) in these cases it really does seem that one mans terrorist can indeed be another mans freedom fighter.
Of course people have different opinions on whether someone's in the right or not, it's not specific to terrorism. You could just as easily say "One man's genocidal dictator is another man's defender of his race's survival" or something along those lines.
Part of the issue is that the Western world views freedom as an intrinsic good; not surprising when one considers that the nation predates the state in most of it.
On other parts of the planet the state has been viewed as a means of unifying disparate cultural groups, and so the notion of freedom carries far greater implications.
Simply put, it doesn't matter if you value freedom in a nation composed almost entirely of White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants because most people will utilize their freedom in a similar fashion (and agree upon it limits). Now, if you emphasize freedom in a 'nation' with 27 distinct languages, the issue is far more difficult.
LuciusAR wrote:The inherent difference between the 2 is that a 'terrorist' will specifically target civilians whereby a 'freedom fighter' will generally restrict their activities towards military targets.
2 obvious examples
IRA = Terrorists
French Resistance = Freedom fighters.
Though both have been refereed to as the opposite.
Of course there are always going to be guerrilla outfits who blur the lines (the Spanish guerrillas during the peninsula war or the Viet Cong are good examples in that they often killed both the military and civilians alike) in these cases it really does seem that one mans terrorist can indeed be another mans freedom fighter.
The French Resistance killed around four times as many French civilians as it killed Germans. Collaborators were much more practical targets than German soldiers. But in general I agree, that while political affiliation is important to whether we view a group as freedom fighters or terrorists, the methods of the organisation are a really big deal.
With an organisation like the Tamil Tigers for instance, I had sympathies with their objectives. And they did target the military for the most part, but they also directly targetted civilians, and had a few attacks that killed more than a hundred civilians.
Thing is, I'm having a hard time thinking of a group that didn't target civilians at one time or another. It's why I answered 'no', because while there are groups that are basically terrorists, I'm not sure there are any freedom fighters that weren't also terrorists, at least some of the time.
In the end it doesn't matter if they are interchangeable; what matters is what you think of any given group. That doesn't mean being intractable and unwilling to consider new ideas, either.
I think Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The fact that some people see them different is inconsequential.
Of course that's right. While to the U.S. some of the militants/militia in the Middle-East are terrorists, they genuinely believe that they're doing what's right. It might not be right in our eyes, but it is for them. It's why it's very hard to define good and evil.
Ahtman wrote:In the end it doesn't matter if they are interchangeable; what matters is what you think of any given group. That doesn't mean being intractable and unwilling to consider new ideas, either.
I think Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The fact that some people see them different is inconsequential.
I don't see how your logic works. (if there is any). What of the young man whose family is killed by Americans? Would he not see Al Qaeda striking the Americans where it hurts? (9/11) And what's more, why is his pain and suffering any less consequential than the families of the 9/11 victims?
As for the argument of freedom fighters killing civilians, it's pretty much impossible to avoid in warfare. I think the issue is the targeting civilians. And even then, you'll be hard pressed to find military's that are clean of this.
I don't think it's that extreme.
But here's the situation in the middle east from me
US citizens didn't really give a frig what happened, they watched TV and got thier oil. The BAM 9/11 happened. Understandably upset they invade...a random country. Random country, understandably upset, fights back any way they can.
On the one hand, Random Country has no option but to do whatever the feth they can to win, while America is removed from the violence. Occasionly watching ugly pictures while eating thier fast food.
MHO. YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Luna: Wow, you shortened THAT.
Pretty sure HE, not his WIFE was the one leading a guerilla warfare campaign blowing up many civilian targets such as post offices and power stations. Many civilians died as a result.
Well this is an interesting dilemna, (not the least of all that I just found out that my spelling of dilemna-the one that me and many others were taught in grade school-is wrong and should be dilemma. Whoa, major shock ) anyway, the major issue here is the vagueness of the labels terrorist and freedom fighter. For example: the American Founding Fathers were not labeled terrorists by the British, but instead as rebels, mostly because the word was non-existent. So were the Confederates, even though the word terrorist had indeed been invented by the time. We must first establish the idea that the definition of a terrorist is solely based on a Western perspective and adopted across the planet. What many Westerners would consider to be a terrorist is generally largely accepted around the globe, except for by the supposed "terrorists" benefactors. Indeed, I find this basis of definition to be the most troubling aspect of this whole debate. Here is how I have come to see it, and I think that this may be very helpful in our pursuance of this discussion.
I propose that for the sake of discussion we use an established definition that is more encompassing, and does not reflect a purely Western definition, ie someone who attacks a government as part of an uprising. Because the various Western nations have largely dropped the term "rebel" as a label, I feel that it should be lumped in with freedom fighter as well. So, here goes my quick definitions to help give us an understanding of both labels. Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail. Rebel/Freedom Fighter: A group or individual who does not indiscriminately attack all elements of society for the simple and selfish reason of making a statement or blackmail. This group or individual has a vested interest in creating a completely new system of laws or governance that has the support of the people behind it. Frazzled Old Guy Short Version: Terrorist=Bad guy or guys who just want to make a statement or get something by hurting anyone and everyone. Rebel/Freedom Fighter=guy or guys who seek to remake an established system through their last alternative - violence. Support of the people is vital to this definition.
I fully realize that even these more strict definitions are incomplete and I will not declare that I have the complete knowledge and wisdom to create them for our use. I fully welcome any and all reasonable comments or criticisms, hell I already have those for my own stuff! I think that we can all come up with an effective definition for the discussion, and at the same time further the debate on this poll.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just an add on to my last post: I know this is a hot button subject. Please don't take my comments as smug or superior in any way. It is just that I feel that we have to have a common definition that we all largely agree with in order to have a realistic discussion.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist=Bad guy or guys who just want to make a statement or get something by hurting anyone and everyone.
Rebel/Freedom Fighter=guy or guys who seek to remake an established system through their last alternative - violence. Support of the people is vital to this definition.
So if one side is so weak with absolutely no chance of winning a real war , what option do they have? Do they just give up? or fight for their ideals
with underhanded tactics because honestly what else can they do?
And if the other side have tactical missles , nukes , of course they can glorious blow the hell out of the other side without sneaky tactics.
All with help of some nice propaganda?
Our world suddenly feel more GrimDark than 40k ....
LunaHound wrote:
So what does that make ex president Bush of USA and his acts?
The same as every other leader of a NATO/UN country who was involved at all in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrorists? No. Quick and Careless? Of Course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
So if one side is so weak with absolutely no chance of winning a real war , what option do they have? Do they just give up? or fight for their ideals
with underhanded tactics because honestly what else can they do?
And if the other side have tactical missles , nukes , of course they can glorious blow the hell out of the other side without sneaky tactics.
All with help of some nice propaganda?
Our world suddenly feel more GrimDark than 40k ....
Well if they are so weak that they have no chance of winning a war, then it can be reasonably assumed that their level of support among the populace is not the strongest, and therefore -according to my humbly submitted definition-places them in the realm of terrorism. And lets be honest, no nation on the planet, not even one as cruel as Russia, has ever even considered using nuclear missiles against terrorists. That really would create more terrorists and cause them to gain support among the people. The effectiveness of ones weapons is no match for a determined and resolute people, Vietnam proved that. Because most countries no longer fight wars without any moral guidelines whatsoever I highly doubt that the extremes that you are suggesting will every come to fruition. Also, the effectiveness of ones weapons, and the weakness of their enemy, does not necessitate cruelty or the like.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist=Bad guy or guys who just want to make a statement or get something by hurting anyone and everyone.
Rebel/Freedom Fighter=guy or guys who seek to remake an established system through their last alternative - violence. Support of the people is vital to this definition.
So if one side is so weak with absolutely no chance of winning a real war , what option do they have? Do they just give up? or fight for their ideals
with underhanded tactics because honestly what else can they do?
And if the other side have tactical missles , nukes , of course they can glorious blow the hell out of the other side without sneaky tactics.
All with help of some nice propaganda?
Our world suddenly feel more GrimDark than 40k ....
QFT. When the going gets tough the tough do whatever the feth they can to survive and blow the s**t out of the enemy.
I do agree with JEB's attempt at a definition. Except for the fact that NO underground operations would be able to survive and operate (let alone excel) without the support of the people to some extent. I believe you are missing the point of the saying. The point is that there IS NO way of deciding who is right and who is wrong in such arrangement. Probably becuase they both are...or aren't.
Middle East
1) USA pissed off (understanbly) about 9/11 and other threatened by further attacks.
2) Middle East pissed of at America acting all badass towards it (room for elaboration)
WWII France
1) French Resistance pissed of at Nazis taking over their country.
2) Germans pissed off at how France practically s**t all over them at the end of WWI.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @JEB: As it comes to Vietnam is was just as much due to the fact that America had lost support for the war as it was the Viet Cong had gained it.
So doesn't that make America the terrorist in said case?
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't see how your logic works. (if there is any). What of the young man whose family is killed by Americans? Would he not see Al Qaeda striking the Americans where it hurts? (9/11) And what's more, why is his pain and suffering any less consequential than the families of the 9/11 victims?
You're missing the point. A distinction based upon variant perspective is not necessarily irrelevant. This is where people usually stumble when they start to critique moral relativism. If all morality is relative, then my moral imperatives will be more important to me in the event they come into conflict with yours. There is nothing wrong with this, we are all individuals after all.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
As for the argument of freedom fighters killing civilians, it's pretty much impossible to avoid in warfare. I think the issue is the targeting civilians. And even then, you'll be hard pressed to find military's that are clean of this.
The issue is centered on the disruption of order (where order can relate to anything from social norms to power dynamics), not the tactics employed in the course of that disruption.
Do you mean, the END goal? Regardless of how it's achieved?
Here's how a see it.
Freedom Fighter = From the oppresed people view.
Terrorist = From the oppresers view.
In my two scenarios, guess who the oppresser is?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the whole 'What I think is more important than what you think' is hardly a viable argument. Or even relavent to the discussion. Read the OP. So far I can not tell if you have answered the question. The question is not whether different views matter, it is whether there will always be different views. (And I'm trying to ignore the terrorist/Fu Fighter himself)
You could just as eailly define a terrorist as someone who achieves there ends by violent means, terrorism most obvously. Most so called freedom fighters don't deserve to be called that in the company of Martin Luther King jnr. and Ghandi.
QFT. When the going gets tough the tough do whatever the feth they can to survive and blow the s**t out of the enemy.
I do agree with JEB's attempt at a definition. Except for the fact that NO underground operations would be able to survive and operate (let alone excel) without the support of the people to some extent. I believe you are missing the point of the saying. The point is that there IS NO way of deciding who is right and who is wrong in such arrangement. Probably becuase they both are...or aren't.
@JEB: As it comes to Vietnam is was just as much due to the fact that America had lost support for the war as it was the Viet Cong had gained it.
So doesn't that make America the terrorist in said case?
EF, the support from the people is what I keyed as essential to not being labeled a terrorist. I also declared that even I felt my attempts at definition to be incomplete. There is, I think, a way to define actions as right or wrong, and I think that attacking the civilians you propose to help is most definitely wrong and should place you in the camp of terrorism. I will not deny that accidents happen, but consistent bombings of marketplaces in Iraq is gonna always be a mistake.
As for Vietnam, America had lost the support of its own people. But don't forget, we were INVITED by the South Vietnamese after the nation was split in two. Stupid French, always have an excuse to feth up a good war. Dienbenphlu my ass! The Americans were largely supported by the South Vietnamese, but we could no longer justify the war to our own people which resulted in our withdrawal from SV. I do not think that you can label the US as a terrorist in this situation for aforementioned reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:You could just as eailly define a terrorist as someone who achieves there ends by violent means, terrorism most obvously. Most so called freedom fighters don't deserve to be called that in the company of Martin Luther King jnr. and Ghandi.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail.
That definition excludes Al-Qaeda as they are quite intent on remaking the system. I'd also contend that no group would ever choose to make a statement if they did not also intend to remake the system, even if their designs for it were selfish.
Personally, I think the term can be defined very easily insofar as we aren't afraid of what it will apply to. For example, my preferred definition is: Those who utilize terror in order to complete an objective. The downside of this approach is that it includes every military in the history of mankind. The upside is that it allows for accurate technical classification.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Rebel/Freedom Fighter: A group or individual who does not indiscriminately attack all elements of society for the simple and selfish reason of making a statement or blackmail. This group or individual has a vested interest in creating a completely new system of laws or governance that has the support of the people behind it.
I honestly can't think of one group in the history of the world that attacked people in a truly indiscriminate fashion. Even suicide bombers tend to choose their targets by dint of geography.
whatwhat wrote:You could just as eailly define a terrorist as someone who achieves there ends by violent means, terrorism most obvously. Most so called freedom fighters don't deserve to be called that in the company of Martin Luther King jnr. and Ghandi.
Hear Hear!
Hear, Hear!
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail.
That definition excludes Al-Qaeda as they are quite intent on remaking the system. I'd also contend that no group would ever choose to make a statement if they did not also intend to remake the system, even if their designs for it were selfish.
Personally, I think the term can be defined very easily insofar as we aren't afraid of what it will apply to. For example, my preferred definition is: Those who utilize terror in order to complete an objective. The downside of this approach is that it includes every military in the history of mankind. The upside is that it allows for accurate technical classification.
Terrorists deliberately attack civilian targets in order to spread terror for political means.
Freedom fighters attack military targets in order to weaken the enemy's will, if not defeat them militarily, however as they are not members of a legitimate armed force constituted by the government they are easily stigmatised with the label terrorist even if they avoid collateral damage or attacks on civilians.
The War On Terror starting in 2001 was licence for repressive regimes to crack down on arguably justifiable armed resistance.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail.
That definition excludes Al-Qaeda as they are quite intent on remaking the system. I'd also contend that no group would ever choose to make a statement if they did not also intend to remake the system, even if their designs for it were selfish.
Personally, I think the term can be defined very easily insofar as we aren't afraid of what it will apply to. For example, my preferred definition is: Those who utilize terror in order to complete an objective. The downside of this approach is that it includes every military in the history of mankind. The upside is that it allows for accurate technical classification.
But they fight for a cause which is largely NOT supported by the people at large. Ex: the change in situation in Anbar. I defined this support as essential to remain out of the terrorist category, although I should have stuck it in both quotes. As I said, even I find my own definitions to be lacking, that is why I hoped we could expand them. And Al-Qaeda definitely seeks to recreate a system that is centuries dead and does not have the support of the people of the Middle East. You also cannot seriously mean that something like the OKC bombing was meant to be the remaking of the US, can you? That is how I am applying your statement btw. Both of the bombers used the episode as a statement of their hate for the federal government, and there was no people's support for a change in society, therefore: terrorist.
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Rebel/Freedom Fighter: A group or individual who does not indiscriminately attack all elements of society for the simple and selfish reason of making a statement or blackmail. This group or individual has a vested interest in creating a completely new system of laws or governance that has the support of the people behind it.
I honestly can't think of one group in the history of the world that attacked people in a truly indiscriminate fashion. Even suicide bombers tend to choose their targets by dint of geography.
And the suicide bombers who bomb malls in Israel and bazaars in Iraq? Or trains in Spain? Or buses in London? Geography is no excuse for attacking sites that are completely unrelated to military efforts.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Also, the whole 'What I think is more important than what you think' is hardly a viable argument. Or even relavent to the discussion.
You missed the point again. What I think isn't objectively more important than what anyone else thinks, but it is subjectively more important to me.
If you don't think that's not a viable argument its only because you've never been forced to act on the beliefs which you hold.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Read the OP. So far I can not tell if you have answered the question. The question is not whether different views matter, it is whether there will always be different views. (And I'm trying to ignore the terrorist/Fu Fighter himself)
If that's the question, then its a silly question. Of course there will always be different views, thoughts change with time and its unlikely that any one person will have the same perspective on life that they do right now.
The point of Ahtman's answer, which I'm now defending (because it was a good answer), is that there isn't any intrinsic need to consider what other people believe in the event that you accept all moral judgments are relative. For example, it doesn't matter that group X believes killing is wrong if you believe its right. After all, your opinion is exactly as correct as theirs.
Kilkrazy wrote:Terrorists deliberately attack civilian targets in order to spread terror for political means.
Freedom fighters attack military targets in order to weaken the enemy's will, if not defeat them militarily, however as they are not members of a legitimate armed force constituted by the government they are easily stigmatised with the label terrorist even if they avoid collateral damage or attacks on civilians.
The War On Terror starting in 2001 was licence for repressive regimes to crack down on arguably justifiable armed resistance.
If you are trying to label the attacks on 9/11, which sparked the War on Terror, as an "arguably justifiable armed resistance" I will say only this: I am appalled and speechless...But if you are saying that it has given the governments across the globe who support this campaign a free license to unleash cruelty on real terrorists than I will simply disagree. I will agree that unfortunately the Western World largely sees terrorism only in the form of the Middle East, almost completely ignoring the genocide of Africa, and the genocides in South America.
Pretty sure HE, not his WIFE was the one leading a guerilla warfare campaign blowing up many civilian targets such as post offices and power stations. Many civilians died as a result.
Nah, that's wrong. While commanding MK Mandela targeted governmant facilities, but only when they were empty. No-one was killed while MK was controlled by him. In the 1980s, some 20 years after his arrest MK upped their activities and killed civilians, but he can't really be held responsible for that.
Mandela certainly isn't the shining beacon of light people assume nowadays, and there is an interesting question about the extent to which you support resistance movements with laudable goals (it was certainly possible that people could have been killed in operations he planned). But you've gone way to far when you claim many people were killed in operations he undertook, because no-one was killed.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Also, the whole 'What I think is more important than what you think' is hardly a viable argument. Or even relavent to the discussion.
You missed the point again. What I think isn't objectively more important than what anyone else thinks, but it is subjectively more important to me.
If you don't think that's not a viable argument its only because you've never been forced to act on the beliefs which you hold.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Read the OP. So far I can not tell if you have answered the question. The question is not whether different views matter, it is whether there will always be different views. (And I'm trying to ignore the terrorist/Fu Fighter himself)
If that's the question, then its a silly question. Of course there will always be different views, thoughts change with time and its unlikely that any one person will have the same perspective on life that they do right now.
The point of Ahtman's answer, which I'm now defending (because it was a good answer), is that there isn't any intrinsic need to consider what other people believe in the event that you accept all moral judgments are relative. For example, it doesn't matter that group X believes killing is wrong if you believe its right. After all, your opinion is exactly as correct as theirs.
And this is why I firmly believe why moral relativism is wrong. With this mindset anything is justifiable. Agreeably though, I do believe in a moral code that most do not....
It was clearly a terrorist attack on a defenceless civilian target.
By arguably justified armed resistance I had in mind movements such as the Tamil Tigers (though they also did suicide bombings) and historical examples like the Francs Tireurs and the Spanish guerillas.
It was clearly a terrorist attack on a defenceless civilian target.
By arguably justified armed resistance I had in mind movements such as the Tamil Tigers (though they also did suicide bombings) and historical examples like the Francs Tireurs and the Spanish guerillas.
Thank you for the clarification. You had me scared there for a second. I would just ask then that you look at the situation of these groups and apply the criteria that I set forth for rebels/FF. I know for the Francs and Spanish that yes they did have the support of the people and yes they were committed to a cause that would end the current regime by replacing it with a new one. I don't know enough about the TT to comment, sorry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Okay, a list of military groups that are either,
a) obviously terrorist
b) obviously freedom fighters.
We just need some example to work with.
Easy:
A: Al-Qaeda. I really hope that no one considers them Freedom Fighters. My uncle told me that when he did a tour in Fallujah, the people there told him that they hated Al-Qaeda even more then they hated Amerian presence. Their reason: Al-Qaeda (largely made of foreigners, not Iraqis) was turning Iraq into their own personal battlefield. None of them like the American presence, but they knew that the Americans weren't there to fight indiscriminately.
B: The French Resistance. They really do meet the criteria of FF's on every level.
Pretty sure HE, not his WIFE was the one leading a guerilla warfare campaign blowing up many civilian targets such as post offices and power stations. Many civilians died as a result.
Nah, that's wrong. While commanding MK Mandela targeted governmant facilities, but only when they were empty. No-one was killed while MK was controlled by him. In the 1980s, some 20 years after his arrest MK upped their activities and killed civilians, but he can't really be held responsible for that.
Mandela certainly isn't the shining beacon of light people assume nowadays, and there is an interesting question about the extent to which you support resistance movements with laudable goals (it was certainly possible that people could have been killed in operations he planned). But you've gone way to far when you claim many people were killed in operations he undertook, because no-one was killed.
You're right, the targets were empty. However MK was under mandellas control when they started guerilla activities, in which civilians were killed, as it was his own plan to turn to guerilla warfare if his other aporaches failed. He himslef stated that a non violent aproach wouldnt work.
He can actually be held very responsible when you consider he even sourced money to fund paramilitary training for Mk.
JEB_Stuart wrote:But they fight for a cause which is largely NOT supported by the people at large. Ex: the change in situation in Anbar.
Who are the people at large? Do Americans count? Where do you draw the line of relevance? And how do you account for the vagaries of success versus failure? How many people do you think would have claimed to support an independent America in the event that the revolution failed?
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I defined this support as essential to remain out of the terrorist category, although I should have stuck it in both quotes. As I said, even I find my own definitions to be lacking, that is why I hoped we could expand them.
Personally, I'm not a fan of extended definitions. I'd much rather use a series of words with simple meanings, than one with a highly complex account. Its the analyst in me.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
And Al-Qaeda definitely seeks to recreate a system that is centuries dead and does not have the support of the people of the Middle East.
It has the support of some people. If it didn't, then Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist. It is a multinational network that attracts members by appealing to a deeply entrenched cultural identity that spans multiple nations (anti-imperialist/anti-Western Islam).
JEB_Stuart wrote:
You also cannot seriously mean that something like the OKC bombing was meant to be the remaking of the US, can you? That is how I am applying your statement btw. Both of the bombers used the episode as a statement of their hate for the federal government, and there was no people's support for a change in society, therefore: terrorist.
They simply hated the government, and wanted to strikeout at it. They had no plan for change, simply an expression of discontent. That fact has nothing at all to do with popular support.
Someone who uses tactics based upon the creation of terror is a terrorist, its that simple. Yes, that means our military is comparable, in some degree, to organizations like Al-Qaeda. However, just because two things are comparable it does not follow that they are identical. Indeed, I would argue that while our military is technically a terrorist organization it is inappropriate to refer to it as such because the majority of their tactics do not revolve around the creation of terror. Despite what the great Hermes Conrad once said, technical correctness is not the best kind of correctness.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
And the suicide bombers who bomb malls in Israel and bazaars in Iraq? Or trains in Spain? Or buses in London? Geography is no excuse for attacking sites that are completely unrelated to military efforts.
Sure it is. They wanted to attack civilians in a specific location in order to produce a specific response. Moral absolution does not necessarily follow from discrimination with respect to target choice. The firebombing of Dresden was discriminating in that it was intended to sow terror amongst the civilian population.
Keep in mind, I'm simply trying to help in the process of creating a definition. I'm a minimalist when it comes to words, so my first instinct is always to cut away what I view as excess.
JEB_Stuart wrote:So, here goes my quick definitions to help give us an understanding of both labels.
Terrorist: A group or individual who pursues morally perverse methods, such as, but not limited to, the slaughter of innocent civilians, the destruction of non-relevant collateral, etc., for their own selfish gains or reasons. This group or individual has no vested interest in truly re-making the system, but is rather pursuing said methods in order to make a statement, or as a means of blackmail.
Rebel/Freedom Fighter: A group or individual who does not indiscriminately attack all elements of society for the simple and selfish reason of making a statement or blackmail. This group or individual has a vested interest in creating a completely new system of laws or governance that has the support of the people behind it.
Like Dogma pointed out, I'd drop the bit about interest in remaking the system. Terrorist groups have political aims, even if they're poorly defined and impractical like AQ's. But that's a minor quibble.
For the most part I agree with the accuracy of your definition, but I doubt its usefulness. Definition should be able to help us classify groups when the answer isn't obvious. For instance, its hard to place the Tamil Tigers in either group, because they had support among their own population and mostly attacked Sri Lankan military units... however they invented the suicide bomb, machine gunned bus stations and blew up trains. It's hard to know where to place the Tigers, and that's where definitions should help.
I'm not saying I could do any better, because I can't. I think at the end of the day most irregular fighting units have the elements of freedom fighters and terrorists to some extent.
It might just be one of those things people have to accept, if you support irregulars taking up arms for a cause, sooner or later they're going to stray from acceptable violence into atrocity.
JEB_Stuart wrote:And this is why I firmly believe why moral relativism is wrong. With this mindset anything is justifiable. Agreeably though, I do believe in a moral code that most do not....
Moral absolutism is just as bad. It hinges on the notion that anything you decide to come up with is the universal moral code of the entire planet. So, if you're Hitler, you'll believe you're right; which is just as good as actually being right when it comes to matters of action.
Morality is a very complicated beast. That's why ethics tends to be the class that determines whether you'll be a philosophy major, or a philosophy minor.
whatwhat wrote:You're right, the targets were empty. However MK was under mandellas control when they started guerilla activities, in which civilians were killed, as it was his own plan to turn to guerilla warfare if his other aporaches failed. He himslef stated that a non violent aproach wouldnt work.
He can actually be held very responsible when you consider he even sourced money to fund paramilitary training for Mk.
Yeah, he prepped them for eventual violent resistance, but he never made that call.
There's a big difference between preparing an organisation for violence and actually ordering it to kill people.
whatwhat wrote:You're right, the targets were empty. However MK was under mandellas control when they started guerilla activities, in which civilians were killed, as it was his own plan to turn to guerilla warfare if his other aporaches failed. He himslef stated that a non violent aproach wouldnt work.
He can actually be held very responsible when you consider he even sourced money to fund paramilitary training for Mk.
Yeah, he prepped them for eventual violent resistance, but he never made that call.
There's a big difference between preparing an organisation for violence and actually ordering it to kill people.
From what i've read it seems fairly clear he fully intended for them to do that. In fact his intention to do so, the training/planning, was among his charges on imprissonment.
In any case I said he caused it, I didn't say he ordered it. And it's all beside my original point.
JEB_Stuart wrote:But they fight for a cause which is largely NOT supported by the people at large. Ex: the change in situation in Anbar.
Who are the people at large? Do Americans count? Where do you draw the line of relevance? And how do you account for the vagaries of success versus failure? How many people do you think would have claimed to support an independent America in the event that the revolution failed?
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I defined this support as essential to remain out of the terrorist category, although I should have stuck it in both quotes. As I said, even I find my own definitions to be lacking, that is why I hoped we could expand them.
Personally, I'm not a fan of extended definitions. I'd much rather use a series of words with simple meanings, than one with a highly complex account. Its the analyst in me.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
And Al-Qaeda definitely seeks to recreate a system that is centuries dead and does not have the support of the people of the Middle East.
It has the support of some people. If it didn't, then Al-Qaeda wouldn't exist. It is a multinational network that attracts members by appealing to a deeply entrenched cultural identity that spans multiple nations (anti-imperialist/anti-Western Islam).
JEB_Stuart wrote:
You also cannot seriously mean that something like the OKC bombing was meant to be the remaking of the US, can you? That is how I am applying your statement btw. Both of the bombers used the episode as a statement of their hate for the federal government, and there was no people's support for a change in society, therefore: terrorist.
They simply hated the government, and wanted to strikeout at it. They had no plan for change, simply an expression of discontent. That fact has nothing at all to do with popular support.
Someone who uses tactics based upon the creation of terror is a terrorist, its that simple. Yes, that means our military is comparable, in some degree, to organizations like Al-Qaeda. However, just because two things are comparable it does not follow that they are identical. Indeed, I would argue that while our military is technically a terrorist organization it is inappropriate to refer to it as such because the majority of their tactics do not revolve around the creation of terror. Despite what the great Hermes Conrad once said, technical correctness is not the best kind of correctness.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
And the suicide bombers who bomb malls in Israel and bazaars in Iraq? Or trains in Spain? Or buses in London? Geography is no excuse for attacking sites that are completely unrelated to military efforts.
Sure it is. They wanted to attack civilians in a specific location in order to produce a specific response. Moral absolution does not necessarily follow from discrimination with respect to target choice. The firebombing of Dresden was discriminating in that it was intended to sow terror amongst the civilian population.
Keep in mind, I'm simply trying to help in the process of creating a definition. I'm a minimalist when it comes to words, so my first instinct is always to cut away what I view as excess.
I can appreciate the minimalist effort, I really can, but I don't always think it should apply. Al-Qaeda's efforts to recreate the Caliphate does not have the support of most people in the ME. It has the support of some of the wealthier elite, hence funding, and the support of the very few hard-bitten, traditionalists. Most more modern countries, ie: Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Iran etc. do not support a Caliphate. This is why Al-Qaeda must be labeled as a terrorist group. Their indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the grand scope of their efforts alone justifies them being labeled as such. Dresden was an attrocity committed during, lets be honest a "real" war, but that makes it no less atrocious. But, it was also a mistake and you cannot compare the efforts of the Allies as terrorism when you look at the grand scheme of things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:And this is why I firmly believe why moral relativism is wrong. With this mindset anything is justifiable. Agreeably though, I do believe in a moral code that most do not....
Moral absolutism is just as bad. It hinges on the notion that anything you decide to come up with is the universal moral code of the entire planet. So, if you're Hitler, you'll believe you're right; which is just as good as actually being right when it comes to matters of action.
Morality is a very complicated beast. That's why ethics tends to be the class that determines whether you'll be a philosophy major, or a philosophy minor.
QFT, thats why I was a history major! Yay no moral deliberation...uh wait, NOOOO! Philosophy is everywhere!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Like Dogma pointed out, I'd drop the bit about interest in remaking the system. Terrorist groups have political aims, even if they're poorly defined and impractical like AQ's. But that's a minor quibble.
For the most part I agree with the accuracy of your definition, but I doubt its usefulness. Definition should be able to help us classify groups when the answer isn't obvious. For instance, its hard to place the Tamil Tigers in either group, because they had support among their own population and mostly attacked Sri Lankan military units... however they invented the suicide bomb, machine gunned bus stations and blew up trains. It's hard to know where to place the Tigers, and that's where definitions should help.
I'm not saying I could do any better, because I can't. I think at the end of the day most irregular fighting units have the elements of freedom fighters and terrorists to some extent.
It might just be one of those things people have to accept, if you support irregulars taking up arms for a cause, sooner or later they're going to stray from acceptable violence into atrocity.
To be honest that is the section that I had the most trouble with. I had a notion to tie down the concept of nations and nationalities in there, but to be honest I just don't have the energy. I am up to late, been watching FMA for like 5 hours, and I was more concerned about thinking up semi-humorous responses, like the comment concerning the French. Oh Lord, I had to work that in there somehow!
It may be interesting to look at this issue a different way.
After WW2 a number of independence movements sprang up in British colonies or mandates including the following:
Palestine
Malaya
Kenya
I don't think anyone would call the British a tyrannical regime, however these movements arose out of dissatisfaction with British rule. They included incidents of terrorism, armed resistance and civil disobedience. The British response included the use of troops, internment and some questionable practices.
Great Britain was committed to a policy of independence for the colonies under the Atlantic Charter.
Isn't 'terrorist' just the freedom fighters name given to him by those he fights?
And isn't 'freedom fighter' just the name given to the terrorist by those who support him?
Cheese Elemental wrote:Of course that's right. While to the U.S. some of the militants/militia in the Middle-East are terrorists, they genuinely believe that they're doing what's right. It might not be right in our eyes, but it is for them. It's why it's very hard to define good and evil.
I dont see a difference and have buried them both.
I hardly see how that's something to be proud of.
Or you could learn to look deeper in what someone is saying and realize that im saying that their isnt a difference between the two.
No matter what, nobody is going to agree on who is who. The only thing you can look at is some fighters have ethics, and others dont. Some try to avoid civilian casualties, while others drive a car lined with 155 shells into a childrens school during school hours.
If it will make you feel better you can pray for me Cheese.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I can appreciate the minimalist effort, I really can, but I don't always think it should apply. Al-Qaeda's efforts to recreate the Caliphate does not have the support of most people in the ME. It has the support of some of the wealthier elite, hence funding, and the support of the very few hard-bitten, traditionalists. Most more modern countries, ie: Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Iran etc. do not support a Caliphate. This is why Al-Qaeda must be labeled as a terrorist group.
First of all, I think you're massively underestimating the appeal of Al-Qaeda (that's not a huge deal, as its an endemic issue for anyone that doesn't actively study the region's politics), but that's a conversation for another post.
Second, I don't understand why you believe the support of the people (which is a horribly ambiguous notion) should apply to the definition at all. Are you trying to claim that someone who views terror as a military objective is not a terrorist if the majority of people support their decision? That seems an awful lot like morality by consensus.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Their indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the grand scope of their efforts alone justifies them being labeled as such.
Attacks on civilians aren't indiscriminate. They might be morally reprehensible, but they aren't indiscriminate.
Also, I'm not attempting to absolve Al-Qaeda of terrorism, they are terrorist. I'm using that organization as an example to point out a hole in your definition.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Dresden was an attrocity committed during, lets be honest a "real" war, but that makes it no less atrocious. But, it was also a mistake and you cannot compare the efforts of the Allies as terrorism when you look at the grand scheme of things.
Are you trying to create a category in which to place people we don't like, or develop a literal definition of terrorism? The Allies employed terror tactics during the war, this technically makes them terrorists. However, they were also a lot of other things which makes the terrorism considerably less important than the same characteristic in the IRA, or Al-Qaeda.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Is 'carpet bombing' an indiscriminate tactic to use agianst civilians? (it sure sounds like it)
It depends on what you're carpet bombing, but generally no.
Como que no? At what point does the killing of civilians stop being terrorism and start being acceptable losses? When a state does it? When the majority of people authorise it? When your state does it? I'm sorry but the idea of 'terrorism' as some definable act that equates to a crime is ridiculous. A politically motivated act cannot be weighed by another system. The whole problem is that differing systems are trying to impose their values upon each other, then trying to give moral weight to their own point of view. War is terrorism, any conflict is.
Of course one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, and the only way you could prevent it would be to make everyone agree with you, which will not and could not ever happen.
endless wrote:
Como que no? At what point does the killing of civilians stop being terrorism and start being acceptable losses?
I didn't say it wasn't terrorism, I said it wasn't generally indiscriminate. It can be, but it isn't always.
endless wrote:
When a state does it? When the majority of people authorise it? When your state does it?
Whenever you believe it does. You're asking a moral question which will never have a singular, objectively satisfactory answer.
endless wrote:
I'm sorry but the idea of 'terrorism' as some definable act that equates to a crime is ridiculous.
It isn't really ridiculous, simply inconvenient.
endless wrote:
A politically motivated act cannot be weighed by another system.
Uh, yes it can. In fact, any politically motivated act must be weighed by another system. If that weren't the case, then the act wouldn't be motivated by politics.
endless wrote:
The whole problem is that differing systems are trying to impose their values upon each other, then trying to give moral weight to their own point of view. War is terrorism, any conflict is.
No, that's wrong. Terrorism is frequently a component of warfare, but warfare isn't necessarily terrorism. You're obviously trying to equivocate the two in order to impose your moral values through the process you yourself have recognized.
I didn't say it wasn't terrorism, I said it wasn't generally indiscriminate. It can be, but it isn't always.
It's called carpet bombing, how is it not indiscriminate?
Uh, yes it can. In fact, any politically motivated act must be weighed by another system. If that weren't the case, then the act wouldn't be motivated by politics.
Why must? Surely a political act exists within its' own system and doesn't need another to justify or judge it. It is not necessary to have an opposition for a political belief to exist. Or does it, is it possible to have one without the other? What do you think?
No, that's wrong. Terrorism is frequently a component of warfare, but warfare isn't necessarily terrorism. You're obviously trying to equivocate the two in order to impose your moral values through the process you yourself have recognized.
I think I disagree, both are the imposition of a point of view using force and fear. How would you distinguish them?
endless wrote:
It's called carpet bombing, how is it not indiscriminate?
You can carpet bomb an airfield, or you can carpet bomb a city. Tactics are not indiscriminate by nature, though they can be employed indiscriminately.
Another way of approaching this: Is a precision air strike on a particular building indiscriminate because you don't care who is inside the building when you strike it?
endless wrote:
Why must? Surely a political act exists within its' own system and doesn't need another to justify or judge it. It is not necessary to have an opposition for a political belief to exist. Or does it, is it possible to have one without the other? What do you think?
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. It assumes the existence of opposing perspectives simply by dealing with groups. Whether we're discussing groups of people, or groups of nations, the process is largely the same.
endless wrote:
I think I disagree, both are the imposition of a point of view using force and fear. How would you distinguish them?
I know, just questions, but I am interested.
Terrorism is a specific tactical approach, war is a strategic action which can be inclusive of that tactical approach, but is not necessarily so. One can also employ terrorist tactics without going to war.
Terrorism is a form of warfare. But not all warfare is terrorism. I would say that terrorism/freedom fighting is pretty much synonomous with guerilla warfare.
When states use such brutal tactics that result in the killing of innocent civilians I don't know what to call it.
I once read a good quote from a book that was cynical on poloticians. It went something like this:
"Of course, as the wars went on and our enemies learnt that they couldn't face us in a fiar fight they resorted to desperate guerilla tactics. But we called it 'terrorism' so that our people knew it was a bad thing."
Emperors Faithful wrote:When states use such brutal tactics that result in the killing of innocent civilians I don't know what to call it.
Strategery!
Really the idea of rules in War between opponents is really quite silly. Even when they were put into place could be broken at any time for a strategic advantage. The British Officers weren't big fans of our snipers and skirmishers picking off their officers in the Revolutionary War but we did it anyway ( ). The whole idea of civilian and military being separate entities is a total mind job. We say it to make ourselves feel safer in some capacity but the one doesn't exist without the other. You can have a civilian population with no army but the opposite is not true. The civilian side supplies, funds, and feeds a military. Using civilians has long been a strategy because it is a viable. In the Vietnam conflict the NVA/VC knew that if they destroyed support at home in the US we would pull out. Or you can just bomb civilian targets. A military can only get so far with no bread and no oil and the civilian side supplies those things. Those rules only last as long as things are not going downhill. If one's country or family is under attack and the situation is dire people are not going to pay head to them. I think it is good that we try to come up with these artificial rules as they can help to minimize deaths and destruction in some ways, but in others they are just another example of arrogant Western mindset. At least that is what Kid Kyoto told me.
You're right about it not being possible to feild an army without a population, but I don't think the VC purposefully did much to destroy support for the war in America.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
You're right about it not being possible to feild an army without a population, but I don't think the VC purposefully did much to destroy support for the war in America.
They did openly refuse any attempt at serious negotiation, and not because they felt as though their military was somehow superior to that of the US.
It was terrible, and it did incite terror among the civilians, but it was decidedly not an act of terrorists or a form of terrorism. I find it interesting that this situation keeps being brought up...
JEB_Stuart wrote:It was terrible, and it did incite terror among the civilians, but it was decidedly not an act of terrorists or a form of terrorism. I find it interesting that this situation keeps being brought up...
Yes because we figured , since USA is so powerful that instead of petty tactics they can openly
blow Japan to oblivion and suddenly they are free of the terrorist label.
Joy.
dogma wrote:I would actually call it a pretty good example of terrorism.
I think the attempt to keep it out of the 'terrorist' category is motivated by nothing more than the desire to find a new 'evil' category to oppose.
Im very impressed , an American that isnt biased for their war decisions . I would add you to my friends list .
dogma wrote:I would actually call it a pretty good example of terrorism.
I think the attempt to keep it out of the 'terrorist' category is motivated by nothing more than the desire to find a new 'evil' category to oppose.
Actually the desire to not label it as terrorist does not come from a desire to find a way to justify it or oppose some other evil. Trust me when I say that I am not eager to embrace the memory of the atomic bombs and what they did to Japan, far from it. I would think that you and Luna, who have both seen my argument concerning this on another thread, should also realize that this is not driven by a jingoistic, arrogant need for justification. I simply weigh it as the much lesser of two evils. It was a horrible thing, and that unfortunately is the way of war. The great general Robert E. Lee declared that it was good that war was so horrible, in order that men would not grow to love it. The main reason I do not declare it to be an act of terrorism is this: the truly terrorist act would have been to sacrifice, unnecessarily, the millions of Allied and Japanese lives that would have been lost if Operation: Downfall had commenced. Why do people refuse to see the logic and the simple truth of this choice. There was simply no other way to stop the needless conflict. I have spent much of the past week, since that thread became so incendiary, pouring over my books and other books on the subject, and I am forced to reach that conclusion, despite my desire to find otherwise. I simply refuse to believe that this, which in such a drastic way produced at least some good, is comparable to a terrorist attack. I do find it interesting though Dogma, that you are not instantly repulsed by the idea of a terrorist attack. I will admit that it intrigues me and that I haven't pondered much over the moral and ethical quandary of the results of terrorism. Please share with me your ideas, you just might make a convert outta me. That is only because I trust you enough to not simply allow emotion to flaw your argument.
I think the bombing of Japan to end WW2 was nessicarry. How many soliders would we have lost in an invasion, probaly more then how many civilans were killed by the bomb.
EDIT: Defintion of terrorism is: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Actually the desire to not label it as terrorist does not come from a desire to find a way to justify it or oppose some other evil.
I should have been more specific. The desire I spoke of wasn't meant to relate to a different evil, but to the 'evil' of terrorism. Its difficult to call something evil while believing that one's forefathers engaged in that thing.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Trust me when I say that I am not eager to embrace the memory of the atomic bombs and what they did to Japan, far from it. I would think that you and Luna, who have both seen my argument concerning this on another thread, should also realize that this is not driven by a jingoistic, arrogant need for justification.
I wasn't necessarily speaking to you, but a general desire.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I simply weigh it as the much lesser of two evils. It was a horrible thing, and that unfortunately is the way of war. The great general Robert E. Lee declared that it was good that war was so horrible, in order that men would not grow to love it.
Terrorism is still terrorism, even if its the lesser of two evils.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
The main reason I do not declare it to be an act of terrorism is this: the truly terrorist act would have been to sacrifice, unnecessarily, the millions of Allied and Japanese lives that would have been lost if Operation: Downfall had commenced.
This makes it seem like you want to define terrorism as a generic 'bad'.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Why do people refuse to see the logic and the simple truth of this choice. There was simply no other way to stop the needless conflict.
You're correct, but it was still terrorism. Remember, I don't see terrorism as necessarily evil.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I have spent much of the past week, since that thread became so incendiary, pouring over my books and other books on the subject, and I am forced to reach that conclusion, despite my desire to find otherwise. I simply refuse to believe that this, which in such a drastic way produced at least some good, is comparable to a terrorist attack.
Because you believe that terrorist attacks cannot produce any modicum of 'good'.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I do find it interesting though Dogma, that you are not instantly repulsed by the idea of a terrorist attack. I will admit that it intrigues me and that I haven't pondered much over the moral and ethical quandary of the results of terrorism. Please share with me your ideas, you just might make a convert outta me. That is only because I trust you enough to not simply allow emotion to flaw your argument.
Honestly, it isn't all that complex of a position (though it is based on some fairly esoteric ethical reasoning). To summarize:
Most violence produces terror. Any intelligent person will realize this fact, and utilize it to his advantage. Placing the onus of one's in intent on the production of terror is not especially distinct from placing said onus on another facet of violence, and accepting the production of terror. Ergo, terrorism is no worse than any other form of violence. In fact, you could claim that its superior (should you believe that quality of life has no bearing on morality).
That is without a doubt the first time I have heard any reasonable argument to justify terrorism in any form. I will think over your statement for the next few days, and run it by some of my friends for their opinions, (one of them is easily the most brilliant guy I have ever met, he is starting his Doctoral program at Fordham this semester. Naturally, it is in philosophy.) I am a hard man to convince on anything, but it can be done. After all, I am an American who has very willingly and wholeheartedly embraced the political philosophy of Constitutional Monarchy over any other form of government. Thanks for the simple, yet effective argument. And that is why I do actually respect your opinion.
Yes because we figured , since USA is so powerful that instead of petty tactics they can openly
blow Japan to oblivion and suddenly they are free of the terrorist label.
Yea, thats what happens when you launch a surprise attack in the month of X-mas against thousands of unsuspecting people aka Pearl Harbor. Not to mention kamikazes, using chemical and biological weapons, raping and pillaging Korea/China/neighbors, etc.
It also unfortunately put Japanese-Americans into interment camps; an example of how relatively easy for one's rights to vanish and hopefully won't be repeated.
I'm assuming that you are a 'Yes' in the above poll?
If so then two thing,
1) I'm in the same boat
2) I must wonder when it simply crosses the line and no amount of justification can cover it. I would say the use of child soldier, not 16, 15 or even 14 year-olds, I mean 8 year-olds and the like. Dabbling in child prostitution is also despicable, regardless of whther it works or not. (I'm reffering to the situation in ?West? Africa.
Emperors Faithful wrote:committed mabye, but they certainly didn't go for it full-heartedly.
Anyway, who here is disputing that 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'? Any solids No's on this?
The short answer is "Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". That seems to be what you're going for, for one reason or another.
But the a longer answer is ''Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's only because it's a pretty crappy statement that basically says 'people have different opinions on stuff'. The only reason the observation is perpetuated is because it's a sneaky way of drawing equivalence between organisations that people can't honestly draw equivalence between. I mean, yes there are people out there that believe in the cause of AQ, and yes more respectable organisations sometimes do things that are really messed up, but is anyone honestly drawing a parallel between AQ and say, the US government? Because if you are, you're being very silly."
Emperors Faithful wrote:How so?
Why is the devastation be wreaked in the middle east any less important than the devastation wreaked by 9/11?
By pure body count the violence done in the middle east is around 3,000 times more important than 9/11. But who said anything about it being less important?
But only looking at violence committed is deceptive, because it ignores everything else the organisation stands for and achieves. Yes, governments do crappy things and sometimes undertake pointless wars that get a load of people killed, but they also do a hell of a lot of good. On the other hand AQ blows up civilians somehow* hoping to achieve to worldwide dominance.
But to just to clarify, are you actually arguing that AQ is no worse than, say, the US government? Because frankly that's ridiculous, and I'm certain that's not really the point you're trying to make.
*Somehow... AQ seem to have a serious case of underpants gnome logic.
Step 1) Kill innocent people.
Step 2) ????
Step 3) Caliphate!
Well, sebster, AQ were certainly not called terrorists when they resisted the russians invading.
As for the logic, how do we know which people want a caliphate and which don't? Certainly not those in power or polotics, as they would be the first to go, but would the farmhands or street merchants mind a return to the old ways?
I certainly don't trust the intentions of the AQ or Taliban, but I can sympathise with the anger they feel towards America.
(Watch Charlie Wilsons Private War, not the MOST accurate but still intriguing.)
And remember simply by being a government, does not make it any better than a terrorist. Nazi germany was a government, as was Soviet Russia.
To quote Bill Maher from his previous show politically incorrect:
"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".
I agree with what he said there. Some of these attacks do kill civilians. Where as we call it collateral damage, the people we affect will call us terrorists. Not to defend what the religious extremists have done as they too have done some despicable things.
thehod wrote:"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".
Hmmmm.... someone needs a cheeseburger check...
Okay then, imagine using a trebuchet being called cowardly (more likely to be called totally mad) nowadays, maybe if you were fighting goats or something, never mind that though.... welcome to the future . Warbots have already arrived.
Emperors Faithful, you aren't following what I'm saying. Just... read a little more carefully please.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, sebster, AQ were certainly not called terrorists when they resisted the russians invading.
First up, that would be the Taliban, not AQ.
Second up, with a change of names your statement is true, but it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I'm not saying the statement 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' is incorrect, so you pointing out a situation where an organisation was once considered freedom fighters but then considered terrorists doesn't establish anything.
Instead, I'm saying the claim is inane. It places some kind of equivalency between forces that operate with wholly different methods and wholly different aims on the same level of morality. While it is important to recognise the failings of modern Western militaries, it is plainly ludicrous to pretend they are no better or worse than a group like the Taliban.
As for the logic, how do we know which people want a caliphate and which don't? Certainly not those in power or polotics, as they would be the first to go, but would the farmhands or street merchants mind a return to the old ways?
What are you talking about? I said AQ wanted a caliphate, that is an explicit stated aim. Support for such a thing among the general population has nothing to do with it being an aim of AQ, and nothing to do with it being a stupidly impossible thing for AQ to ever achieve.
I certainly don't trust the intentions of the AQ or Taliban, but I can sympathise with the anger they feel towards America.
(Watch Charlie Wilsons Private War, not the MOST accurate but still intriguing.)
Charlie Wilson's War is an excellent movie, but if you want a more complete story, and more detail on the extent of American failure to rebuild in Afghanisan, you need to read the book. It also does a better job of showing the horrors of the Soviet occupation, and in doing so showed how odd it was for so many of the US involved to treat the operation as a playing piece in the greater Cold War.
And yes, I understand how parts of the world might be angry at the Americans, but that doesn't make terrorism acceptable. And it also assumes that dubious US foreign policy is the primary cause of resentment. If poor treatment of Muslims was the primary cause, why didn't the planes fly into Moscow? Russian operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya make the Americans look like saints.
No, AQ and its objectives must be seen first and foremost in the context of the Islamic world, not the Western world. The US is the primary target not because of their foreign policy, but because they represent such a threat to the ultra-conservative segments of Islam. The people leaving Islamic countries to live in the secular West and adopting more liberal views are the real threat. The US is hated not because of what it has done wrong, but because of what it has done right.
And remember simply by being a government, does not make it any better than a terrorist. Nazi germany was a government, as was Soviet Russia.
Yes, but it means it is disingenuous to judge it on it's military alone. Whereas the AQ can be seen as a purely terrorist organisation and summed up by its terrorist acts, it would make no sense to judge the US government by its military operations alone. To use your own example, Soviet Russia, judged purely on its military could be called a tactically inefficient, strategically ultra-efficient, brutal organisation. But you would miss the impractical enforcement of ideology, the political repression, the purges and paranoia, the immense bureaucracy and about 90% of the factors that made Soviet Russia what it was.
Your post is very well put sebster. I found myself agreeing with practically all of it. Very well done, but I would have said that regardless of my feelings towards it.
sebster wrote:
First up, that would be the Taliban, not AQ.
Its actually neither. Both the Taliban and AQ have their roots in the various bands of Mujaheddin that opposed the Soviet Union, but neither of those groups existed at the time.
thehod wrote:To quote Bill Maher from his previous show politically incorrect:
"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".
I agree with what he said there. Some of these attacks do kill civilians. Where as we call it collateral damage, the people we affect will call us terrorists. Not to defend what the religious extremists have done as they too have done some despicable things.
There's a lot of truth in Ghandi's statement 'What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?'
But there's a middle position, we don't have to accept equivalence between terrorist groups or the infallibility and moral purity of the West. We can recognise that we do screw up, we do get things wrong, and we do do immoral things, but that doesn't make us the same as groups who blow up civilian targets as a poorly defined step along a path to instituting an oppressive theocracy.
Well, the Taliban is a direct result of the Mujahideen, which was made up of Afghan citizens. Al Qaeda came from a different beast, it came out of the Maktab al-Khidamat, which aided the Mujahideen, but was decidedly made up of foreigners who came to fight Russians, just so they could fight Russians, versus Afghans who were defending their homeland.
dogma wrote:Its actually neither. Both the Taliban and AQ have their roots in the various bands of Mujaheddin that opposed the Soviet Union, but neither of those groups existed at the time.
That's splitting hairs to some extent isn't it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Your post is very well put sebster. I found myself agreeing with practically all of it. Very well done, but I would have said that regardless of my feelings towards it.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well, the Taliban is a direct result of the Mujahideen, which was made up of Afghan citizens. Al Qaeda came from a different beast, it came out of the Maktab al-Khidamat, which aided the Mujahideen, but was decidedly made up of foreigners who came to fight Russians, just so they could fight Russians, versus Afghans who were defending their homeland.
The term Mujahideen is not exclusive to Afghani natives. Its the plural form of Mujahid, which is a term that applies to anyone involved in a Jihad.
sebster wrote:
dogma wrote:Its actually neither. Both the Taliban and AQ have their roots in the various bands of Mujaheddin that opposed the Soviet Union, but neither of those groups existed at the time.
That's splitting hairs to some extent isn't it?
Maybe, but that's only way that you could claim that AQ didn't resist Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well, the Taliban is a direct result of the Mujahideen, which was made up of Afghan citizens. Al Qaeda came from a different beast, it came out of the Maktab al-Khidamat, which aided the Mujahideen, but was decidedly made up of foreigners who came to fight Russians, just so they could fight Russians, versus Afghans who were defending their homeland.
The term Mujahideen is not exclusive to Afghani natives. Its the plural form of Mujahid, which is a term that applies to anyone involved in a Jihad.
True it is not exclusive to Afhans, but nonetheless, the foreigners were the basis of Al Qaeda, not the Afghans, hence the Maktab al-Khidamat. Basically it came down to: "Yes, let us all go kill those infidel Russians in the name of Allah!" Years later, "No more Russians to kill...Let us now kill everyone who we don't like! And while we are at it, who wants a Caliphate?"
sebster wrote:Emperors Faithful, you aren't following what I'm saying. Just... read a little more carefully please.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, sebster, AQ were certainly not called terrorists when they resisted the russians invading.
First up, that would be the Taliban, not AQ.
Second up, with a change of names your statement is true, but it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I'm not saying the statement 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' is incorrect, so you pointing out a situation where an organisation was once considered freedom fighters but then considered terrorists doesn't establish anything.
Instead, I'm saying the claim is inane. It places some kind of equivalency between forces that operate with wholly different methods and wholly different aims on the same level of morality. While it is important to recognise the failings of modern Western militaries, it is plainly ludicrous to pretend they are no better or worse than a group like the Taliban.
As for the logic, how do we know which people want a caliphate and which don't? Certainly not those in power or polotics, as they would be the first to go, but would the farmhands or street merchants mind a return to the old ways?
What are you talking about? I said AQ wanted a caliphate, that is an explicit stated aim. Support for such a thing among the general population has nothing to do with it being an aim of AQ, and nothing to do with it being a stupidly impossible thing for AQ to ever achieve.
I certainly don't trust the intentions of the AQ or Taliban, but I can sympathise with the anger they feel towards America.
(Watch Charlie Wilsons Private War, not the MOST accurate but still intriguing.)
Charlie Wilson's War is an excellent movie, but if you want a more complete story, and more detail on the extent of American failure to rebuild in Afghanisan, you need to read the book. It also does a better job of showing the horrors of the Soviet occupation, and in doing so showed how odd it was for so many of the US involved to treat the operation as a playing piece in the greater Cold War.
And yes, I understand how parts of the world might be angry at the Americans, but that doesn't make terrorism acceptable. And it also assumes that dubious US foreign policy is the primary cause of resentment. If poor treatment of Muslims was the primary cause, why didn't the planes fly into Moscow? Russian operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya make the Americans look like saints.
No, AQ and its objectives must be seen first and foremost in the context of the Islamic world, not the Western world. The US is the primary target not because of their foreign policy, but because they represent such a threat to the ultra-conservative segments of Islam. The people leaving Islamic countries to live in the secular West and adopting more liberal views are the real threat. The US is hated not because of what it has done wrong, but because of what it has done right.
And remember simply by being a government, does not make it any better than a terrorist. Nazi germany was a government, as was Soviet Russia.
Yes, but it means it is disingenuous to judge it on it's military alone. Whereas the AQ can be seen as a purely terrorist organisation and summed up by its terrorist acts, it would make no sense to judge the US government by its military operations alone. To use your own example, Soviet Russia, judged purely on its military could be called a tactically inefficient, strategically ultra-efficient, brutal organisation. But you would miss the impractical enforcement of ideology, the political repression, the purges and paranoia, the immense bureaucracy and about 90% of the factors that made Soviet Russia what it was.
I understand what your argument sebster (ingennuous?), and I will be getting my hands on that book if I can, but just a few things.
1) I was asking as to what popular opinion is in regards to Sharia law and/or a Caliphate in the Middle East.
2) How is America no better or worse (different?) than the Taliban.
3) The planes didn't fly into Moscow becuase in thier eyes, Russia was beaten long ago. Honestly, it's not a threat at the moment. America is the problem. (to them)
From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated americans becuase of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppresed muslims for many years.
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterwards.
4) They are fearful of american pop culture seeping into thier society, corrupting thier youth and destroying thier society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see america as a debuached, wasteful soceity and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.
I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS thier view.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
If Korea have oil instead of kimchi lettuce , they would be destroyed / taken over years ago.
Freedom? human right? child exploitation ? If such a place need to be enforced , its China. Oh i forgot , not as easy as stealing candy from a baby this time...
This is why no one in the world supports american actions .
Because everyone else know USA only wages war against countries USA can benefit from. Which is alright , all human is like that
but they go extra mile claiming to be bringer of justice and peace.
To add salt on the wound , they claim terrorist attack because " they are jealous of US , our freedom " <-- The world is laughing , have been laughing.
I know i know , now Obama is here you all pushed it onto Bush . Scape Goat....
Well actually, britain was/is doing very well with a little place called Freetown. They could have just dumped the free slaves wherever, but they went to great efforts to ensure there was a sort of home for them. Not realy in it for the profit.
I agree with that statement about America though. Anyone watched Hotel Rwanda? Now...what ISN'T there in Rwanda? Oh, that's right...oil.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
True it is not exclusive to Afhans, but nonetheless, the foreigners were the basis of Al Qaeda, not the Afghans, hence the Maktab al-Khidamat. Basically it came down to: "Yes, let us all go kill those infidel Russians in the name of Allah!" Years later, "No more Russians to kill...Let us now kill everyone who we don't like! And while we are at it, who wants a Caliphate?"
I wasn't trying to claim AQ as an Afghan organization, just making the point that they grew out of the resistance (native or otherwise) in Afghanistan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated americans becuase of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppresed muslims for many years.
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterwards.
4) They are fearful of american pop culture seeping into thier society, corrupting thier youth and destroying thier society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see america as a debuached, wasteful soceity and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.
I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS thier view.
Don't forget the legacy of Imperialism (something which also feeds the hatred of Israel). For many people in the Middle East the problem isn't America, the problem is the West. America just so happens to be the most powerful Western nation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote: Anyone watched Hotel Rwanda? Now...what ISN'T there in Rwanda? Oh, that's right...oil.
A discernible reason to risk the lives of soldiers.
Note the fact that we haven't invaded Venezuela. There's more to our foreign policy than the security of crude.
Exactly, but from what I gathered 'America' and 'The West' are pretty much synonomous.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What's with the last bit?
Stopping genocide (which everyone refused to recognise it as) is not a good enough reason?
And i know there's more to forieng policy than just that, but it certainly is a BIG motivater. Why do you think Saddam burnt the oil fields?
Yeah, its kind of a 'here be dragons' approach to the world. Not shocking really, most people never acquire the education necessary to differentiate between groups of people on the other side of the world.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I understand what your argument sebster (ingennuous?), and I will be getting my hands on that book if I can, but just a few things.
1) I was asking as to what popular opinion is in regards to Sharia law and/or a Caliphate in the Middle East.
The support for Sharia law is far greater than it is for a Caliphate, although it is not as strong as many Westerners think. I have some friends from the Middle East, mostly Egypt and Turkey, and they are decidedly against both. Support for both Sharia law and a Caliphate is very weak in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Israel (Which is a ME country), and Jordan, and there is still some debate as to how strong the support is for these two in Lebanon, but it is impossible to tell in its current state. Support for Sharia law is at least somewhat popular in most of the rest of the ME countries, but the Caliphate idea is still widely disdained. The reason for that is the evolution of modern nation states and the sharp divisions between Sunni, Shiite, Suffi, etc. The Caliphate would have to unite all the divisions in Islam and erase all national identity, which it would not be able to do.
Emperors Faithful wrote:2) How is America no better or worse (different?) than the Taliban.
Well for one, the US contributes more charity than any nation in the world, and that is only federal aid. The EU as a whole does top our number, but what is even greater is the private charity that is given away every year. The US is incredibly generous and it continually gives massive amounts of money and aid to the poor all over the world...although this doesn't mean we can't do more. http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
Emperors Faithful wrote:3) The planes didn't fly into Moscow becuase in thier eyes, Russia was beaten long ago. Honestly, it's not a threat at the moment. America is the problem. (to them)
While there is some truth to that, it isn't entirely true. It wasn't so much the issue of America being the threat, because it really hadn't been. There were no active deployments of our military, and the only military installations it had in the ME were in agreement with those countries. I think that the main reason behind the attacks on the US, instead of Russia for example, was because our image. Peter Jennings put it best, "There has been a lot of talk lately as to why members of Al Qaeda and other terrorists hate us. Some say because of our military, others say our religion, and still others say our prosperity. I think that in reality it is the image we present them. They are generally religious extremists who value a strict moral code and devotion to their god above all else. What do they see when they see America? Partially nude women on our beaches, sexual immorality in film, divorce, drugs, the list goes on and on. I don't think we should conform to their standards, but we should probably look at something closer to home as a sore point for these people, and not try to blame it on something else."
Emperors Faithful wrote:From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated Americans because of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppressed Muslims for many years.
We do support Israel quite a bit, but so does the UK, Germany, France, etc. This started out, for the US anyway, as a guilty support because of the Holocaust, but Zionism has firmly ingrained itself in the belief system of the Evangelical movement in the US. This has had no small impact on our Israeli policy...
Emperors Faithful wrote:2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from their oil and goods, before leaving them the scraps. They do not believe America has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
Well if we don't buy it someone else will....
Emperors Faithful wrote:3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterward.
Not a bad point. The US government did this to many nations in the post-Soviet world. That doesn't mean they should start bombing us....
Emperors Faithful wrote:4) They are fearful of American pop culture seeping into their society, corrupting their youth and destroying their society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see America as a debauched, wasteful society and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.
I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS their view.
Fixed all your spelling problems BTW. America is just as debauched as any other Western nation. If they don't want it in their country they don't have to import our media. America is indeed wasteful, which I truly hate, and it does corrupt people. But they ultimately have to ask themselves, "Whose fault is it really?" It all comes down to personal responsibility in my book. There is always peer pressure to do this an that, but it really comes down to what you decide to do or not do....unless they have a gun to your head....
Emperors Faithful wrote:
What's with the last bit?
Stopping genocide (which everyone refused to recognise it as) is not a good enough reason?
No. We're not a global police force.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
And i know there's more to forieng policy than just that, but it certainly is a BIG motivater. Why do you think Saddam burnt the oil fields?
Its not nearly as important as you would believe. Oil is key to the internal policy choices of any state which possesses a large amount of it, and the price of crude can become a matter of contention between major producers (as it did with Iraq and Kuwait), but as a resource for acquisition it isn't overly crucial; especially for a nation with the reach of the United States. There's more than one oil field in the world.
Saddam burned the oil fields in order to drive up global oil prices (which Kuwait had been driving down through over-production), not to deny the US a strategic resource.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated americans becuase of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppresed muslims for many years.
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterwards.
4) They are fearful of american pop culture seeping into thier society, corrupting thier youth and destroying thier society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see america as a debuached, wasteful soceity and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.
I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS thier view.
Don't forget the legacy of Imperialism (something which also feeds the hatred of Israel). For many people in the Middle East the problem isn't America, the problem is the West. America just so happens to be the most powerful Western nation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote: Anyone watched Hotel Rwanda? Now...what ISN'T there in Rwanda? Oh, that's right...oil.
A discernible reason to risk the lives of soldiers.
Note the fact that we haven't invaded Venezuela. There's more to our foreign policy than the security of crude.
Emperors Faithful wrote:'here be dragons'? Please...elaborate. (EF prepares himself for onslaught of fire-breathing beasts)
Here's the Wikipedia entry. Its a comment on the tendency of people to simplify, and dramatize information as the distance between them and the original source increases.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
And i know there's more to forieng policy than just that, but it certainly is a BIG motivater. Why do you think Saddam burnt the oil fields?
Its not nearly as important as you would believe. Oil is key to the internal policy choices of any state which possesses a large amount of it, and the price of crude can become a matter of contention between major producers (as it did with Iraq and Kuwait), but as a resource for acquisition it isn't overly crucial; especially for a nation with the reach of the United States. There's more than one oil field in the world.
Saddam burned the oil fields in order to drive up global oil prices (which Kuwait had been driving down through over-production), not to deny the US a strategic resource.
Most of the world also fails to realize that there is much more oil in and around the US and Canada than is actually admitted. A friend of mine's Dad is a scientist for Boeing and also does work for NASA, and he was telling me that the oil we have all along our coasts, in the northern Midwest and especially Alaska is mind boggling. He wasn't sure, since he is more involved in the rocket science (He is quite literally a rocket scientist), but he had heard from co-workers that the estimates by both governments puts the US and Canada as having the largest amounts of proven oil reserves of any nation or region on the planet.
1) about the Caliphate, thanks for claryfiying that, but what about the less educated, the more rural areas? Surely they would be more inclined to go with Sharia Law and the like?
2) I know, I wasn't actually arguing that America was worse. It just didn't seem that sebsters argument was clear.
3) ...it sounds like you're...agreeing with me?
As for the reasons:
1) USA is the 'da boss'. Everyone (moat) in ME sees America at the top. So that's where they instantly think their problem s stem from.
2) Not helpful to be honest.
3) Give 'em guns and no schools...what didya expect? That you could just forget about them?
4) They are afraid of the future generation being corrupted and gradually accepting it. There is personal responsibility, but not ENTIRELY. It won't help if billboards with naked women and broadcasting channels talknig trash keep sprouting up.
JEB_Stuart wrote:...but the Caliphate idea is still widely disdained. The reason for that is the evolution of modern nation states and the sharp divisions between Sunni, Shiite, Suffi, etc. The Caliphate would have to unite all the divisions in Islam and erase all national identity, which it would not be able to do.
It also doesn't help that the last surviving Caliphate was banned in its country of origin.
Though it wouldn't necessarily need to erase all national identity. Not even the Ottomans did that.
JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is some truth to that, it isn't entirely true. It wasn't so much the issue of America being the threat, because it really hadn't been. There were no active deployments of our military, and the only military installations it had in the ME were in agreement with those countries.
Their governments, anyway. The presence of military bases on the Arabian Peninsula has always been a touchy matter there.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
We do support Israel quite a bit, but so does the UK, Germany, France, etc. This started out, for the US anyway, as a guilty support because of the Holocaust, but Zionism has firmly ingrained itself in the belief system of the Evangelical movement in the US. This has had no small impact on our Israeli policy...
It was also a convenient way to oppose Soviet influence in the region during the Cold War; an association that has long coattails. Though any rashness regarding Iran is likely to shorten them quite a bit.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Not a bad point. The US government did this to many nations in the post-Soviet world. That doesn't mean they should start bombing us....
Wars have been started for lesser reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote: A friend of mine's Dad is a scientist for Boeing and also does work for NASA, and he was telling me that the oil we have all along our coasts, in the northern Midwest and especially Alaska is mind boggling. He wasn't sure, since he is more involved in the rocket science (He is quite literally a rocket scientist), but he had heard from co-workers that the estimates by both governments puts the US and Canada as having the largest amounts of proven oil reserves of any nation or region on the planet.
Canada is has the 2nd largest accumulation of oil in the world, right behind Saudi Arabia. The US is 12th. Though I don't think our proven reserves are in excess of those in the ME. His co-workers may have been including unconventional oil resources, which don't fit into the proven category as they aren't generally thought of as fir for extraction (though that's changing).
Emperors Faithful wrote:
But we ARE ready to pounce on anything that will make us richer? Regardless of the human tragedy?
Richer, more secure, or more influential. Same reasoning used by every other nation-state in the world. Though we do like to dress it all up in Wilsonian rhetoric.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
But we ARE ready to pounce on anything that will make us richer? Regardless of the human tragedy?
Richer, more secure, or more influential. Same reasoning used by every other nation-state in the world. Though we do like to dress it all up in Wilsonian rhetoric.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
But we ARE ready to pounce on anything that will make us richer? Regardless of the human tragedy?
Richer, more secure, or more influential. Same reasoning used by every other nation-state in the world. Though we do like to dress it all up in Wilsonian rhetoric.
Yay for neocons?
Wilsonian Rhetoric =/= neocon
I don't think Neocon existed at that time either. I have it in my notes somewhere...
Yeah they didn't exist during the time of Wilson, but they have adopted many of his ideas, ie Make World Safe For Democracy, Everyone Should Love Democracy, Everyone Should Be Democracy, We Should Make Everyone a Democracy, etc.
Oh man, don't get me started on neoconservatism. About the only positive component of the ideology is its acceptance of the welfare state.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Yeah they didn't exist during the time of Wilson, but they have adopted many of his ideas, ie Make World Safe For Democracy, Everyone Should Love Democracy, Everyone Should Be Democracy, We Should Make Everyone a Democracy, etc.
However, they have considerably less respect for the rule of law, and international organizations.
Its an unholy union of Realpolitik, and Idealism. They treat ideological pronouncements as tools, rather than truth.
Oh man, don't get me started on neoconservatism. About the only positive component of the ideology is its acceptance of the welfare state.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Yeah they didn't exist during the time of Wilson, but they have adopted many of his ideas, ie Make World Safe For Democracy, Everyone Should Love Democracy, Everyone Should Be Democracy, We Should Make Everyone a Democracy, etc.
However, they have considerably less respect for the rule of law, and international organizations.
Its an unholy union of Realpolitik, and Idealism. They treat ideological pronouncements as tools, rather than truth.
) anyway, the major issue here is the vagueness of the labels terrorist and freedom fighter. For example: the American Founding Fathers were not labeled terrorists by the British, but instead as rebels, mostly because the word was non-existent. So were the Confederates, even though the word terrorist had indeed been invented by the time. We must first establish the idea that the definition of a terrorist is solely based on a Western perspective and adopted across the planet. What many Westerners would consider to be a terrorist is generally largely accepted around the globe, except for by the supposed "terrorists" benefactors. Indeed, I find this basis of definition to be the most troubling aspect of this whole debate. Here is how I have come to see it, and I think that this may be very helpful in our pursuance of this discussion. 
I think that we can all come up with an effective definition for the discussion, and at the same time further the debate on this poll.
). The whole idea of civilian and military being separate entities is a total mind job. We say it to make ourselves feel safer in some capacity but the one doesn't exist without the other. You can have a civilian population with no army but the opposite is not true. The civilian side supplies, funds, and feeds a military. Using civilians has long been a strategy because it is a viable. In the Vietnam conflict the NVA/
Thanks for the simple, yet effective argument. And that is why I do actually respect your opinion.
