Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do "terrorists" have a right to honour their...

Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Sep 2010, 5:02 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I've been accused of being a terrorist before, by Wal-Fart management no less. What morons they are.

You are threating us with parakeets invading the world, so you must be a terrorist.


Silence Earthling! Or you shall be a millet farmer for the Psittacorian Empire!! !



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

01 Sep 2010, 5:20 pm

JasonGone wrote:
just as one man's sh!t is another man's stuff... as my statement would apply to what was being discussed.


Yes, one man's defecation could easily be used as manure for growing plants. However, if there are any parasites in it, such as flatworm cysts, they persist.

BTW, I'm not arguing against the suicide bombers or the people who launch tens of thousands of rockets into residential areas having a funeral, however for that particular type of "freedom fighter" can only be a "hero" if the people who they murder are properly demonized. Oh wait, they already have the media demonizing Israel, nevermind. I'm sure the populations of most countries of the middle-east look with respect to their "noble martyrs". Good for them, what else do they have to do with life other than rejoice in intentionally killing civilians for the "glory" of their god.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

01 Sep 2010, 5:28 pm

JasonGone wrote:
perception is reality

Only mine.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

01 Sep 2010, 5:28 pm

Macbeth wrote:
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind - Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris.

I'm glad America didn't fly an unmanned plane into some building full of civilians in Afghanistan in response to 9/11.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

01 Sep 2010, 5:31 pm

curious doublepost. ignore.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Sep 2010, 5:33 pm

greenblue wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Define "terrorism" and "terrorist" please.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." - answers.com

"Unlawful" is the troublesome word there. Of course, if we removed "unlawful" then war (along, actually, with taxation, law enforcement, and most of the rest of what governments do) would be considered "terrorism" which is obviously ridiculous. But what makes something lawful or unlawful? That distinction is merely by decree of a government.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

01 Sep 2010, 5:39 pm

jc6chan wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind - Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris.

I'm glad America didn't fly an unmanned plane into some building full of civilians in Afghanistan in response to 9/11.


I suppose a bomb could be seen as a form of unmanned aircraft..

If a nation starts a global conflict, they should probably be circumspect about how much complaining they do when it comes back to bite them. Don't want to get bombed? Don't start WW2...


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 5:51 pm

greenblue wrote:
I'm not sure how justifiable is that within international law, given the Hague Convention. And the US warned Japan of "utter destruction", thus they very well knew the implications of droping the bombs, should they realise that with the results from tests prior the bombings.
.


One test. The Trinity Test of July 16, 1945. No one had any idea just how bad residual radiation would be. The initial concept was that the A-bomb would produce a big explosion and shock-wave (which it did). Radiation effects were not factored in. In fact there were plans to bomb the beaches of Kyushu prepatory to an Allied landing on the Southern Island of Japan. That shows just how little weight radiation effects had on planning.

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Sep 2010, 6:31 pm

Macbeth wrote:
I suppose a bomb could be seen as a form of unmanned aircraft..


Change the word "bomb" to "cruise missile" and the comparison is exact. Seeing as how Bill Clinton shot some cruise missiles at UBL and co back in the mid 90's during the Lewinsky scandal, one could carry the tit for tat theory to another iteration with 9/11 being the tat.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Sep 2010, 6:40 pm

visagrunt wrote:
The rubber hits the road on this question when it comes to the ANC.

They were most assuredly a terrorist organization, albeit one whose aims many of us supported.

Now, no one is going to credibly suggest that the ANC's martyrs in the struggle against apartheid were not heroes, worthy of respect as such.

Which just lends credence to the aphorism, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."


Another terrorist group that many Americans had mixed feelings about if they didn't outright support was the IRA. The Brits were pretty sore at us for a while because we had civilians procuring money and arms and shipping them back to the old country, most famously the Armalite rifles that got namechecked in a several pop songs, while I happen to know that at least one Barret .50 made it over. Between very common Irish ancestry and an identification/sympathy with their cause, Americans seemed to have a real nudge and wink sort of attitude towards the IRA, sure we'd call them terrorists but we weren't really serious about it. My personal feeling is that they were probably the most competent of all terrorist organizations, as well as among the most effective as far as actually achieving something for all their violence.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

01 Sep 2010, 6:53 pm

The is no such thing as international law. Who enforces it? It's merely an agreement amongst countries.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

01 Sep 2010, 6:53 pm

Dox47 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
The rubber hits the road on this question when it comes to the ANC.

They were most assuredly a terrorist organization, albeit one whose aims many of us supported.

Now, no one is going to credibly suggest that the ANC's martyrs in the struggle against apartheid were not heroes, worthy of respect as such.

Which just lends credence to the aphorism, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."


Another terrorist group that many Americans had mixed feelings about if they didn't outright support was the IRA. The Brits were pretty sore at us for a while because we had civilians procuring money and arms and shipping them back to the old country, most famously the Armalite rifles that got namechecked in a several pop songs, while I happen to know that at least one Barret .50 made it over. Between very common Irish ancestry and an identification/sympathy with their cause, Americans seemed to have a real nudge and wink sort of attitude towards the IRA, sure we'd call them terrorists but we weren't really serious about it. My personal feeling is that they were probably the most competent of all terrorist organizations, as well as among the most effective as far as actually achieving something for all their violence.


Ironic that the skills and experience the British army acquired during the Troubles were earned facing American supplied terrorists, and their advice was so readily ignored by the Americans in Iraq, advice which would have helped them no end. Sad really.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

01 Sep 2010, 8:10 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The is no such thing as international law. Who enforces it? It's merely an agreement amongst countries.

The most powerful countries get to choose when to enforce and when to ignore.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,659
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

02 Sep 2010, 4:11 pm

visagrunt wrote:
The rubber hits the road on this question when it comes to the ANC.

They were most assuredly a terrorist organization, albeit one whose aims many of us supported.

Now, no one is going to credibly suggest that the ANC's martyrs in the struggle against apartheid were not heroes, worthy of respect as such.

Which just lends credence to the aphorism, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."


The ANC for the most part, and so they claim, did not deliberately target civilians. Anyone who did, such as Robert McBride who was responsible for the Magoo Bar bombing, is still a murderer albeit one that was granted amnesty by the TRC.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Sep 2010, 6:21 pm

jc6chan wrote:
...war-dead?

I mean "terrorists" as in groups that are generally considered a terror organisation by the US or the international community. I don't see why not. Even though some of them have participated in attacks against civilians, not all of them do it, plus its not like the Allies during WW2 hasn't done "acts of terrorism". I mean acts such as the random bombing of German cities (no, they did not only target the miltary bases or weapons factories). Also, the A-bombs on Japan technically fits the definition of an "act of terrorism".


No, it does not. It was part of the war.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Sep 2010, 6:23 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The is no such thing as international law. Who enforces it? It's merely an agreement amongst countries.


Correct. International "Law" is really convention and protocol. There is no mechanism for enforcement.

ruveyn