Why terrorists will ultimately fail...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 00:13
VIEWED: 9344
PAGE 9 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, WWII falls under the definition of "self defense". But Iraq didn't attack us and didn't pose to threat to us, yet we invaded.
But your definition of terrorist, "Scratch a terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes- and you will find either a true believer or a sociopath.", doesn't leave an out for self defense. Like I said, perhaps you need to refine your definition of "terrorist".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Self defense is generally not considered a "political purpose". Wow Geezer, I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you! But that's what makes you such a fun guy, I guess!
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you want to start down that road I'd say the pre-emptive strikes of Hitler against Russia are a far better parrellel for Iraq than the actions of the Allies.
Perhaps you need to open a history book and realise what drivel your spouting.
I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.
Even allowing her to add self-defense as an out, (Terrorist - a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense) that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.
Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?
BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Self defense is generally not considered a "political purpose". Wow Geezer, I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you! But that's what makes you such a fun guy, I guess!
I consider defending the existence of your political system the ultimate political purpose, but let's try these, then,
Being lazy this morning, I'll just cut and paste from another spot.
"I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.
Even allowing her to add self-defense as an out, (Terrorist - a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense) that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.
Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?"
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Political purposes- as I have pointed out before- does not equal self defense or even defense of others. I have more than once compared Iraq to a hostage situation. If you're getting shot at, you shoot back. If people are being killed, you rush in. If the situation is static, you try negotiation, subterfuge, sharp shooting. The aim is to save life. If you chose to rush in when the sitaution doesn't warrant it...
Terrorist- a person who will kill innocent civilians for political purposes, except for reasons of self-defense
Quote:Our involvement in Vietnam was a terible mistake that left us destroying villages in order to save them. We carpet-bombed Vietnam and neighboring countries, dumped tons of poisons on people that created lasting effects on civilians and soldiers alike (including ours) - possibly similar to the effects we will see from DU in the future. Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?
... that would put Jack Kennedy in the terrorist group for supporting South Vietnam against Uncle Ho & Co., which wasn't really a threat to the US. Or how about Truman and the Korean conflict? Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.
Absolutely.
Which is why you keep touching on the subject.
I can't answer about Korea because I don't know the history.
By the way, you might want to stop gratuitously misrepresentating me.
And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?
First, please define, clearly and unambiguously, "political purposes". You say it "does not equal self defense or even defense of others." but that still leaves a lot of grey.
Until then, I guess my answer is "It depends on what the "Political Purposes" are.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW I notice you're drifting into the SignyM/Rue mode of gratuitous insult. Please be sure to check with them before you start using any nicknames, though. Wouldn't want to get caught in a copyright infringement.
I didn't insult YOU at all. I said what you were saying was drivel and you need to open a history book if you think the actions of the Allies are synomonous with the actions of the coalition with respect to Iraq. I stand by that, the two are completely dissimilar, and it isn't an insult to say so.
In short I went after your point, not you.
Quote:
Even though he was supporting a UN Resolution, North Korea at that time was no threat to us.
Hmmm...supporting a UN Resolution...where else have I heard that?
As an excuse for the invasion of Iraq? Korea was a UN mandated and supported effort, where else have I NOT heard that?
It was also a reaction to an unsolicited aggressive attack on an allied nation, again nothing like the current situation in Iraq.
In fact both Vietnam and Korea were both attacked, remember that the Vietnam war was a war much like the Korean war, a conflict between North Vietnam and her allies (namely the PRC and USSR) and South Vietnam and her Allies, principally Australia, Korea and the USA.
Sorry but defending you allies is a whole lot different to 'pre-emptive' action undertaken on false evidence.
Quote:
I'm just trying to point out that if SignyM wants to tailor her definition of "terrorist" to fit a particular person, she should at least be careful not to throw too broad a loop.
It's a change to the normal definition:
A terrorist is someone who attacks US.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What if, in some fictional fantasy stroke of magic, we could waltz into Iraq and kill “Saddam and his top military people” without any collateral damage, which resulted, as it likely would, in a civil war in which thousands of innocent people died. Would that be okay? Or what if the US simply left sanctions in place and thousands of innocent people continued to die. What that be okay? Or what if we just increased trade with Iraq? And Saddam killed thousands of innocent people while we were doing nothing but fattening out economy on Iraqi trade? Would that be okay? These were all solutions YOU proposed. All of them would result in the death of thousands of innocent people, and considering that the war will eventually end and there is a good chance that Iraq will be left with a better government and a better life for its people afterward, while none of the other options provide that assurance, the war is quite possibly the better solution of many bad ones.
Originally posted by SignyM:
And you still haven't answered the question: Is it ok for Bush (or Saddam, or Stalin, or anyone) to kill civilians for political purposes?
The irony is that the administration’s strategy was actually a real world variant of your kill Saddam et al. solution. We could have bombed Iraq into the Stone Age before committing ground troops, which is what we did in the first Gulf War and what is considered standard military practice. However, we didn’t, because the interests of the US/UK/Aus (the major allied players) was to only kill “Saddam and his top military people,” without (if possible) killing anyone else. In fact the bulk of the reconstruction following the war was fixing infrastructure damage left by Saddam, not allied bombing. So effectively, you have no solution; all you’re doing is reciting things that have already been tried or proposed by people who would appear to have a much better grasp of the realities involved.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, let's build that definition of "poltical purposes", possibly by drawing from accepted examples: Stalin, Saddam, Hamas, al Qaida.
Stalin's purpose was to gain absolute control of the Soviet government. Saddam's purpose was to gain absolute control of the Iraqi government. Hama's charter calls for the destruction of Israel and any secular Palestinian organization and the formation of a relgious government based on Sharia. Al Qaida- pretty much same thing.
"Political purposes" probably has something to do government. Being able to create and enforce laws. So a terrorist is someone who kills non-combatants in order to be able to create and enforce laws.
How's that for a first cut?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Was Vietnam "terrorism" on our part?
Absolutely.
This is an absolute fact. No one on this board can justify what was done there, and if they could, I'd like to see them try.
(I like a good sh**storm, apparently
)Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME