Why terrorists will ultimately fail...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 00:13
VIEWED: 9344
PAGE 11 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Oh and the only person who's done any obvious insultin' here would be you, I'm not full of shit, I await your apology for the unsolicited personal insult.
Never said you were full of shit. Learn to read please.
"So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool."
I was asking a question. I take it your answer would be No, then.
Quote:
I didn't define anything, you're having that conversation with SignyM,
Hey, that's right. SignyM and I were discussing the definition of terrorism. Are you Signym?
Quote:
do try to keep up please. I said the situations of WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and hell the first Gulf War bear no relation to the current situation in Iraq.
Neither did I. So?
Quote:
But since you want to drag me in too the "Is Bush a terrorist?" argument, for whatever reason I don't know:
Seems to me I was discussing it with SignyM, and you butted in, but whatever.
Quote:
A terrorist is someone who specifically TARGETS civilians in order to produce fear in a civilian population to bring pressure to that populations governing body, in order to satisfy a political end.
Pretty good. Similar to what I came up with in another post here. I think they both need a bit of work still, though.
Quote:
Simply put Bush doesn't need to be a terrorist. If the IRA or Al qaeda had the resources of the American Military they wouldn't be Terrorists either.
Yet various totalitarian governments who had massive armies have waged campaigns of terror, sometimes against their own citizens. I'm not sure availability of means is as important as intention in the definition.
Quote:
Is Bush a Terrorist? I don't think so, for a start he lacks the subtlety (yes it requires a degree of subtlety) and intelligence to operate a terrorist network. Secondly the coalition forces aren't specifically targeting civilians, though that having been said the coalition forces have attacked civilians, whether this is a case of mistaken identity or actual targeting of civilians, or whether that puts the coalition in the realm of 'terrorists' is something I'll leave to the reader to decide.
Well, at least we agree that Bush is not a terrorist. Champagne all round!
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And of course our mass bombings and support of a regime that put people in tiger cages and threw lye on them was better!
Having seen firsthand what the Viet Cong did to innocent civilians on a daily basis, I agree, there is no way to justify what they did.
So here we go again with the same old argument: They did it too, so that makes us better.
I wonder, just on sheers numbers of civilians killed- who killed more? "Them" or "us"?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Fletch- I gotta get to work. But your scenarios are pretty limited. I brought up several more that you didn't discuss that I think would have a good chance of working, altho it would take a few more years than invasion. (Altho at the rate that Iraq is going and seeming to draw in the nations aruond it, it may be decades before the area stabilizes post-invasion.)
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, or one who supports, directly or indirectly with full knowledge, such a person or organization, to achieve an end.
I'd go with this.
Chrisisall
Funny. That seems to have changed from what I originally typed. Maybe a virus?
But seriously, I'd prefer to limit "terrorist" to the person or organization taking the action. The "...or one who supports, directly or indirectly with full knowledge, such a person or organization," gets us on a real slippery slope. Does a country's recognition of the Hamas-led Palastinian government make that country terrorist? If they send humanitarian aid to the earthquake victims in Pakistan, quite aware that some of it may be diverted to Taliban fighters, are they terrorists? If you have a way around this, please feel free.
So I'll stick with this one for now, although I know it needs work.
Terrorist - A person who uses violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, to achieve an end.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And of course our mass bombings and support of a regime that put people in tiger cages and threw lye on them was better!
So here we go again with the same old argument: They did it too, so that makes us better.
I wonder, just on sheers numbers of civilians killed- who killed more? "Them" or "us"?
...as SignyM once again puts words in my mouth. Not better, just not worse.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Never said you were full of shit. Learn to read please.
"So if I were to say "You're full of sh*t, Citizen." You would just take it as "I respectfully disagree" and not consider it personal? Cool."
I was asking a question. I take it your answer would be No, then.
That was an insult directed at me as much as anything I've said here was an insult directed at you. What's the matter, don't you like it when someone else uses the "waaa! stop insulting me card"? I take it you now accept the fact that nothing I said was actually an insult and you made the whole insult thing up.
Quote:
Hey, that's right. SignyM and I were discussing the definition of terrorism. Are you Signym?
Nope, but I'm beginning to think you can't quite manage that fact. You started talking to me about defining terrorism, you were having that conversation with Signym not me. You're the one having trouble telling the difference, it would seem.
Quote:
Neither did I. So?
Err, yes you did. That was the point I was replying to and talking about in the first place.
Quote:
Seems to me I was discussing it with SignyM, and you butted in, but whatever.
Nope, I pulled you up on your attempt to draw a parrellel between the current situation in Iraq and WW2, I wasn't jumping into the terrorism thing at all, not until you started 'refuting' my 'definition' of terrorism that I never made in the first place. What are you on, and can you pass it over here please?
Quote:
Pretty good. Similar to what I came up with in another post here. I think they both need a bit of work still, though.
It's better than the standard one:
A terrorist is someone who attacks us.
Quote:
Yet various totalitarian governments who had massive armies have waged campaigns of terror, sometimes against their own citizens. I'm not sure availability of means is as important as intention in the definition.
It's dishonest of you too try and equat the two, but to coin a phrase, whatever.
Quote:
Well, at least we agree that Bush is not a terrorist. Champagne all round!
Yes, Bush isn't a terrorist, so everything he does is okay, he's a goody, everyone else are baddies, maybe we could get the A-Team or He-Man and the Masters of the Universe to take out the baddies
.Quote:
Does a country's recognition of the Hamas-led Palastinian government make that country terrorist?
If we define the Hamas-led government as Terrorists why can't we also define the Israelli government as such?
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:I mean, the Red Cross giving food to civilians is way different than the U.S. giving arms to Saddam...
Originally posted by Geezer:
But seriously, I'd prefer to limit "terrorist" to the person or organization taking the action. The "...or one who supports, directly or indirectly with full knowledge, such a person or organization," gets us on a real slippery slope.
If you have a way around this, please feel free.
just sayin' Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I mean, the Red Cross giving food to civilians is way different than the U.S. giving arms to Saddam...
Originally posted by Geezer:
But seriously, I'd prefer to limit "terrorist" to the person or organization taking the action. The "...or one who supports, directly or indirectly with full knowledge, such a person or organization," gets us on a real slippery slope.
If you have a way around this, please feel free.
Exactly. But the "or one who supports..." clause could be interpreted (with a little work) to include both situations. How about this?
Terrorist - A person who uses, or provides support for the use of, violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants, to achieve an end.
So now it's direct support of the use of terror, not the support of an organization which uses terror. A small but, to me, significant difference.
Still need to address that "...to achieve an end" part. Is there an end which justifies the means of "...violence, terror, and intimidation, primarily against non-combatants"? Tamil Tigers? Chechen separatists? Continental partisan groups burning Tory homes in the South during the Revolutionary War? Various indigenous groups vs. the government of Myanmar? Is one man's terrorist really another man's freedom fighter?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure I'd agree with the "primarily" part of the definition. Civilians don't generally expect to be targeted- they're not psychologically conditioned or trained- so taking out 3000 civilians may have a much more profound effect on mass psychology than taking out 10,000 soldiers.
As far as the March to the Sea
Quote:Isn't this where "war is hell" came from? I suppose this could be compared to the Gulf War bombing, which targeted infrastructure like water treatment plants, power generating stations, bridges etc. Is that terrorism? I don't know. It's borderline. Civilian (humans lives) aren't being taken, but civilian assets are being targeted.
Sherman's March to the Sea followed his successful Atlanta Campaign of May to September 1864. He and U.S. Army commander Ulysses S. Grant believed that the Civil War would end only if the Confederacy's strategic, economic, and psychological capacity for warfare were decisively broken. Sherman therefore applied the principles of scorched earth, ordering his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, consume supplies, and destroy civilian infrastructure along their path. This policy is often also referred to as total war.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK. Just to move things along, I apologize for any unintentional slight or insult you may have preceived in anything I have ever said.
I'll also skip over the you said/I said aout who is butting into who's post.
Now.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Does a country's recognition of the Hamas-led Palastinian government make that country terrorist?
If we define the Hamas-led government as Terrorists why can't we also define the Israelli government as such?
Because the Israeli government has that massive military force which you say disqualifies them as terrorists.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Simply put Bush doesn't need to be a terrorist. If the IRA or Al qaeda had the resources of the American Military they wouldn't be Terrorists either.
This is not to say that I consider the Israeli government's actions aganst the Palestinians acceptable by any means.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME