Terror in my country :(

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

Does it make it any less of a terrorist act because the target was military?

Is it okay to attack anyone because they are military?

Are soldiers any less deserving to live than civilians?

So what makes a terrorist? if the millitary are not legitimate targets, then why is not terrorist and soldier interchangeable? Should all soldiers be taken away as terrorists? Should we demolish war memorials to stop the glorification of terrorism? If funding terrorism illegal, then should we all be arrested for paying taxes that get used on the military? Is hte USA the biggest terrorist nation, because it spends more on it's terrorists than any other nation? Are 1 in 8 Americans terrorists or ex terrorists?

Take your statement and reverse it.

Is it okay to attack anyone because they are terrorists?

Are terrorists any less deserving to live than civilians?


I can accept either stance, but the thing I demand is consistancy, if there are no legitimate targets, then that makes all soldiers terrorist criminals, even if they only defend thier nations against invading militarys.



Fact is, Terrorist means 'them on the other side', 'the enemy', 'the huns', 'the gooks', 'the ragheads', it's just another word to dehumanise the enemy, it's always 'them' who are the terrorist, never 'us'. Our fighters are the soldiers hte enemy's fighters are the terrorists. Our's are brave, the enemy's are cowards. When asked what's the difference, the reply is always, they kill civilians, they kill kids, we don't and if we do, it's by accident. But the real difference is, they fight against us, and our soldiers fight for us. Whoever the fuck us is.


So you tell me, what do you call a terrorist?

[sesame]

Originally Posted by ssAnna

Are terrorists any less deserving to live than civilians?

Yes, they have lesser rights to live as they live only to destroy the innocent. Terrorists who shed civilian blood deserve punishment.


Politicians of established nations, who arrange for civilians to be massacred also deserve the same punishment.

[Rachel]

[QUOTE=? Is hte USA the biggest terrorist nation, ? ?



Yeah you just holler for us again if the Germans come back Anna

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

So what makes a terrorist? if the millitary are not legitimate targets, then why is not terrorist and soldier interchangeable? ... So you tell me, what do you call a terrorist?

Fighting as a distinguished combatant or a legitimate soldier in defense of ones country is what seperates terrorists from soldiers.

1) Terrorists don't don military garb and engage the enemy as a proper military force; they blend in with the civilian population and try to draw enemy fire into the crowds with the purpose of trying to incite and inflame.

2) Terrorists operate by fear. They attack their own and other civilian populations to try and belittle them into not fighting or helping out any other forces other than their own; nor do they have any sense of what collateral damages are. We try to win hearts and minds; we've built up the infrastructure and brought decent medical care and things of the sort to the nations we invade. I don't hear Al-Quaeda doing that.

3) The Pentagon attack was not a legitimate military targat as they had not identified themselves as a legitimate force, and they did take hostages when they hijacked the plane. The USS Cole was also not a legitimate military target as the Cole was docked and refueling and was not engaged in hostile actions. Soldiers do not take hostages nor do they engage targets unless they are openly hostile.


Military are legitimate targets if they are openly hostile. If it is just a presence and there are no acts of violence towards the population, military or not, there is no cause or need for retaliatory violence. Same reason why we don't shoot EPW's(Enemy Prisoners of War) when they surrender.

[The Conquistador]

For the Hezbollah vs IDF crowd: A British Colonels account of Hezbollah fighters actions compared to IDF soldiers actions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8R ... r_embedded

[Jenae LaTorque]

It really doesn't matter which side you take, or how you define terrorism. They are all wrong and, they are all right. The facts are:

1. This last century has been the bloodiest in terms of humans killed by other humans in all of recorded history - well over 150 million dead from wars, genocides, ethnic cleansing, harsh regimes, etc.

First World War

(1914-18): 15 000 000

Russian Civil War

(1917-22): 9 000 000

Soviet Union

, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000

Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 000

Post-War Expulsion of Germans from East Europe

(1945-47): 2 100 000

Chinese Civil War (1945-49): 2 500 000

People's Republic of China

, Mao's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000

Tibet

(1950 et seq.): 600 000

Congo Free State

(1886-1908): 8 000 000
Mexican Revolution (1910-20): 1 000 000

Armenian Massacres

(1915-23): 1 500 000
China, Warlord Era (1917-28): 800 000
China, Nationalist Era (1928-37): 3 100 000
Korean War (1950-53): 2 800 000
Rwanda and Burundi (1959-95): 1 350 000
Second Indochina War (1960-75): 3 500 000
Ethiopia (1962-92): 1 400 000
Nigeria (1966-70): 1 000 000
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975-1978): 1 650 000
Mozambique (1975-1992): 1 000 000
Afghanistan(1979-2001): 1 800 000
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): 1 000 000
Sudan (1983 et seq.): 1 900 000
Kinshasa Congo (1998 et seq.): 3 800 000

2. There is no universally recognized rule book for the conduct of war. There has seldom been a war where atrocities were not comitted by one side or both sides. And ever mounting are the death tolls of non-combatants.

3. Warfare is NOT limited to actual battles between armies. It is rather naive to think it is. Any act to oppress or force an adversary in an unwilling direction is a type of warfare; whether it be armed force, nuclear threats, economic sanctions, etc. Terrorism is a form of warfare and may be the only form of resistance available to a group.

4. Reaction to oppression runs the whole spectrum from submission, to Ghandi's passive resistance, to covert sabotage, to terrorist acts, and so on....all the way up to outright full blown military war. Somewhere in there fall the normal and preferred political actions such as appeals to world opinion, the World Court, United Nations, "Big Bothers", etc.

5. The fact is also that those in power determine what goes into the history books that are used to teach in the schools. Witness our thread opener who seems to have a distorted picture of the Armenian genocide. When you add to this:slanted news stories in the press and very biased web sites; is it any wonder that we still have people who revere the likes of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pat Robertson, etc.

6. The biggest fact of all is that there are really very few of us that are knowledgable enough to really give judgement on most world issues. There are many differances from one culture to another, and it is very hard to understand the issues from the viewpoint of the other side. Many times it is hard just to separate out the right course from the viewpoints on our side. I usually try to understand the motivations of each adversary as a starting point and go from there.

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. The Boston Tea Party and Samuel Adams are golden icons in American History, but to the British it was an outrage and Samuel Adams deserved to be hung. Someday it is possible that the events of 9-11 will be considered as just actions by victims of US militarism and financial opression. You all did notice that is what the targets were didn't you? It's not like they bombed the SuperBowl or Madison Square Garden.

[smc]

One should always be wary of any nationalist denial of an historical act of genocide. The world's great historians are those who take what is fact -- that is, objective reality -- and help us interpret it. But the starting point is fact.

When a German claims there was no holocaust, be wary.

When a Japanese person denies the "rape of Nanking" in China, be wary.

So, when a Turk says there was no Armenian genocide, be wary.

When an American denies the wholesale extermination of native peoples as part of "manifest destiny," be wary.

When a Sudanese claims not to know of any atrocities in Darfur, be wary.

And so on ...