Loading ...
snowy egretWhinny liberal columists for some worthless liberal news rag i mean its like after when a judge stikes...
ellisHii, pcd. Wrong is in the eyes of the beholder in this game. Good to see you.
RobertSusan Reimer sounds like a typical mentally-ill Liberal. She views everything that happens through a filter...
PCDEllis, You were disagreeable and often wrong. When cornered about your wrongness, you usually refused to...
RobertThis is a known and often-used tactic of the left. They lie, they smear with innuendo. If they don’t have...
PCDI wrote this spoiled elitist back. She’s mad because she can’t take what she dishes out. If I were an...
DOCJuneteenth is America’s 2nd Independence Day celebration. Americans of African descent were trapped in the...
RobertLemmy, Communism, Liberalism, and Socialism are all cousins. Ever heard the phrase “A Socialist is a...
RobertTrying posting something disagreeable on the Daily Pos…you’ll get banned.
ellisLemmy — I know what this site is about. Four years ago (I haven’t really posted much on a regular...
Rated-TVMALemmy - Would you care to enlighten us all on how a career politician who has been in Congress for...
Barack ObamaThe eyes are the windows to the soul.KarshofOttawaKarsh of Ottawa
PamRobert, I posted Obama record from Thomas- library of Congress Record in the poll Gods thread..It is the actual...
PamLemmy- define hardcore rightwing conservatives. Obama’s mentor is a marxist- he told us that, we...
RobertLemmy, yes,Marxist. Let’s start with redistribution of wealth… Thanks for the link. I will check it...
PamThanks for the heads up Rosemary..I will see if Lisa can add the trackback button back..
GinaIT’S TIME FOR AMERICA TO DENY OPRAH ACCESS TO OUR TELEVISION SETS. Oprah gives advice on relationships, but...
PamLemmy- Ellis and I talk like this..we have a history and this is our version of a debate..relax BTW, those same...
LemmyOh boy, Robert. There’s nothing “Marxist” about Obama. Not rhetoric, not policy, not ideas....
LemmyPam, If you’re honestly curious about Obama’s record of bipartisan legislation, this should get you...
The Gathering Of Eagles Get A Big Fat 0 To The Anti War Protestors 189|
|
|
RSS Feed
September 16, 2007 - 06:49 PM on September 16th, 2007
We all know the only reason these antiwar jerks are holding this stupid protest is they want attention from the as always sypathetic NEW YORK SLIMES and WASHINGTON COMPOST
September 17, 2007 - 05:53 AM on September 17th, 2007
I like the picture of the guy with the sign saying “Stand united America. Support Victory. One Nation under God”…
Sounds a little bit like “We are everybody’s darling. We hug you and are best friends and will never do any harm to you- AS LONG AS YOU DO THINGS OUR WAY!”… That’s the US conservative idea of peace & democracy.
September 17, 2007 - 06:31 AM on September 17th, 2007
This is more of what you are accustomed to.
September 17, 2007 - 06:32 AM on September 17th, 2007
“I like the picture of the guy with the sign saying “Stand united America. Support Victory. One Nation under God”…
Sounds a little bit like “We are everybody’s darling. We hug you and are best friends and will never do any harm to you- AS LONG AS YOU DO THINGS OUR WAY!”
I’m not sure what kind of parrallel you are trying to draw here but it doesn’t sound anything like that at all, really.
September 17, 2007 - 07:14 AM on September 17th, 2007
3, Mattias, I see you can’t stop bashing those you think won’t hurt you.
September 17, 2007 - 07:24 AM on September 17th, 2007
Great link Peejz and I took note of who was holding that sign.
September 17, 2007 - 07:28 AM on September 17th, 2007
What does “J.S.O.” mean?
September 17, 2007 - 07:40 AM on September 17th, 2007
5-
I don’t know what you mean by “parallel”…
I just find it find that somebody claims to represent all sides but in fact only speaking for one.
September 17, 2007 - 07:57 AM on September 17th, 2007
5.
http://www.dictionary.com
Try looking it up because your comment was nonsensical.
No where did anyone claim to represent all sides. Matter of fact, the contrast between the two sides were aptly drawn.
September 17, 2007 - 09:16 AM on September 17th, 2007
10-
I know what the word “parallel” means as it is the same word as in German and actually I know how to spell it right.
AND: Maybe US liberals see that different, but I don’t think that one has to support any kind of war to be a patriot.
Regarding the fact that democracy reflects the will of the majority of the people and right now the majority of Americans disapprove the presence of US military in Iraq, it looks like the war protesters rather represent America spirit than the war approvers!
September 17, 2007 - 09:29 AM on September 17th, 2007
11:
I will re-emphasize: No where did anyone claim to represent all sides.
I don’t know where the rest of what you said comes into play, and I will still maintain what I said in post #5: it sounds absolutrely nothing like that at all. How do you draw those conclusions?
September 17, 2007 - 09:31 AM on September 17th, 2007
11, Mattias, like all liberals, you think you are both the majority and the center of the known Universe. On both counts you are wrong. Also, like most liberals, you have a big mouth to abuse freedoms others have died for, but for which you are unwilling to sacrifice anything of yours for.
September 17, 2007 - 09:32 AM on September 17th, 2007
11-Take a look at those polls, they don’t match your contention. People don’t need to support a war to be a patriot, but to go out of your way to support the enemy during war is un-American.
September 17, 2007 - 09:35 AM on September 17th, 2007
Matthias: one other small issue in an another (probably failed) attempt to curb your ignorance. America is not a democracy, but we are a federal republic.
September 17, 2007 - 09:53 AM on September 17th, 2007
12 - A sign saying “Stand united America. Support Victory. One Nation under God”… ?!?
14- “go out of your way to support the enemy during war is un-American”
Don’t get me wrong, I support your soldiers to clean up the crap they bought there until it’s gone! But I am not sure, how far the pacifist’s view to get out of Iraq in order protect American lives and American taxes from further waste is really anti-American…
The guy with the sign speaks a very clear language: it does not say “peaceful democracy for Iraq”- it says “Support victory”! This is a story about US conservative pride that might get a scratch…
September 17, 2007 - 09:58 AM on September 17th, 2007
16, Mattias, you are an idiot, plain and simple. We didn’t bring crap to Iraq. The Sunni-Shia-Kurd factional strife was always there. The world doesn’t need Iran and so-called muslim charities buying arms and explosives to fuel the radicals who kill rather than pursuade. Only fools like you can’t see that and condemn it without prompting.
The world is better off with the Hussein family dead.
September 17, 2007 - 09:58 AM on September 17th, 2007
12.
Okay- that in no way claims to represent all sides. It is a call for unification of America, just like in the Pledge of Allegiance. I think your limited comprehension of the language is at issue here. If you think otherwise, please clarify how it says what you claim it says.
September 17, 2007 - 10:18 AM on September 17th, 2007
16- I concur with BonBon! You are being obtuse because you really have no where to go with your arguement, or lack of one I should say. Iraqis know we are fighting AQ, hell even the elected Dems know that, but not Matthias. He is perfectly happy to wallow in stupidity. Newsflash dumbass, your rebellion didn’t stop anything. Your country, as well as most of Europe, has come to the conclusion that turning the other cheeck is notan option.
September 17, 2007 - 01:04 PM on September 17th, 2007
Matthias, after reading through the last ten or so posts on this thread, and some posts you have made that I responded to recently, I gotta wonder if you are for real.
The things you post, the argumentive tactics you use. Obfuscation; failing to stick with the point and throwing in tangential arguments. Things that just don’t make sense.
I wonder if one or more of the following are true:
1. You are just pulling our legs. You like to provide stimulus and watch (predict?) the reaction.
2. You are mentally ill, well-meaning but incapable of coherent thought.
3. You are a paid Democite/moveon.org activist, playing the role of a bumbling poster to annoy other posters on Conservative websites.
4. You are a real person, not working for anyone politically, who really believes what he is posting and is just very uninformed.
Which is it?
September 18, 2007 - 05:01 AM on September 18th, 2007
20-
Honestly, if I was one of option 1 - 3, I either wouldn’t want to tell you or in the insanity case I couldn’t tell you, so you somehow have to believe me if I tell that I am real. (If you don’t, I can’t help it anyway)
I think, the major problem of all of you people is that you are not able to look beyond your own perspective. You swallow everything that some authority representatives tell you and together with your pathetic omnipresent “America’s Best”-spirit, you don’t even want to know, why other people see things differently or why they act differently. It is like a games of chess, where you only take your own moves into account while creating a strategy…
And real horrible thing is that your conservative government KNOWS how you are. They play you like a well tuned violin! I could play you like an orchestra:
-PCD is the bass drum. Whenever I write ANYthing- I get brute noise without any pitch/content.
-Peejz is the broad background melody. Constantly and continously pumping his news on “what crap Rosie O’Donnell did this time”, “muslims displayed this kind of radical behavior” and alternating tremoli of “Hillary did this” and “Obama did that”
-Snowy Egret is responsible for the aggressive guitar or cello soli, based rather upon stakkato & volume than melody
-Robert, Bonbon and Ted bring in the melody more or less sophisticated…
The equivalent to rasing the conductor’s baton (in order to increase the volume) would be to doubt the actions of your government. If I wanted to get it somewhat louder I just had to bring in some Nazi-comparisons and for the big bang, I just had to say sth. that you perceive as mocking victims (of course just your own). For some light flute solo from anyone, somebody has just to bring in some buzzwords like “God bless America”, etc.
September 18, 2007 - 05:21 AM on September 18th, 2007
This will be my last response to you Matthias. You are simply not worth any more of my time. When you refused to stop name calling on the 9/11 memorable post you lost all credibility with me.
I will not denounce my country in any way. That’s not what we do here and those that do are called on it. You have consistently put down the US, Christians, etc. and never once criticized Germany or muslims.
So like I said before……f _ _ k off.
September 18, 2007 - 05:56 AM on September 18th, 2007
21, To the piece of crap formerly known as Mattias, you are too stupid and to mentally ill for even a shrink like Freud to help.
You demand we denounce our country and to be as mentally ill as you are. Well, there aren’t the words to tell you what to do, where to go or communicate the feelings I have for you. BonBon’s comment is mild in comparison to what I’m thinking.
Your entire post of 21 is a psychotic projection of your own short comings. You are the one who mindlessly repeats the crap your authority spews to you. You can’t handle reality or reason. You can only attack those somewhat friendly to you, but given a real enemy, you are silent and cowering under your bed.
To goddamn Hell with you and your apostate wife.
September 18, 2007 - 06:29 AM on September 18th, 2007
21- You jest! We don’t look beyond our own perspective? Please. You acknowledge nothing about terrorism. You live in some kumba ya fantasy land that there was no terrorism and there is no AQ in Iraq. You seem to be under the assumption that we live in a state much like China or North Korea. But it is you that lives in the state of denial.
Terrorism is real Matthias. It didn’t start or end on 9/11 and it isn’t the fault of George Bush. We are dealing with an enemy that lives in the middle ages. A cowardly enemy that depends on small children and women killing themselves, in order to further their cause. CONVERT or DIE is the mantra.
If you brought an arguement rather than stupidity to this forum, maybe someone would take you seriously. You dodn’t want us to bring up the daily happenings of that wonderful religion of peace. This isn’t because you would actually acknowledge the evil..No sir, it’s just that you need to justify your own ignorance and hypocricy.
Nazi comparisons? You really have no concept of what the Nazis did and why they killed the Jews. For no other reason that the fact that you continue with this ridiculous propaganda line. Hitler and Goebels were the news, the people had no other legal form of information. In Nazi Germany, one was executed for passing information deemed not in line with your uncle Adolf’s message. Nein Kempf is the name and your nazi family bought into it, hookline and sinker…Oh, that’s right, they had no choice. The Jews had everything didn’t they Matthias? So take what’s theirs and round them up and kill them. The apple didn’t fall far for the tree in your ancestory did it?
Have you not heard of cable, internet and newspapers? It’s a neat little tool that we here in America use to gather information. People of all political parties are doing it. We listen to all sides and decide what is best for us…too bad those crazy Nazi’s didn’t allow that! And guess what? Tatooing is all the rage here. It is up to the individual to decide what they want and where to place it on their bodies, if at all. It isn’t government sponsored, and they don’t go for a ride in a cattle car to get it. Boy nothing was better than having the Mickels to dinner of a warm day and seeing the lovely work those Germans did to them when they were small children. Oh the memories they shared with my family at those dinners..like how they were gathered up as a family and put into these big overcrowded cars and taken to camp! Sounds like fun huh? Family camp?!? And how they got those cool tatoos that were just a series of numbers..Then for fun, the Germans split the families up and killed their parents. Sounds like anonder day America doesn’t it Matthias? Oh well, the Jews had everything and the Germans were starving, right? Your family had no choice, right? Keep telling yourself that. Take your Nazi comparisons and shove them up your ass.
It’s how you justify terrorism. It can’t possibly be how you don’t want it to be so therefore it won’t be in your mind.
September 18, 2007 - 06:34 AM on September 18th, 2007
24, time to treat Mattias as you treated Shiloh.
September 18, 2007 - 07:41 AM on September 18th, 2007
22- “This will be my last response to you Matthias.”
a) Hey, what do YOU complain? You still got away quite well in my evaluation, didn’t you?
b) I wish, I heard that one from PCD…
“You have consistently put down the US, Christians, etc. and never once criticized Germany or muslims.”
That comes by the nature of this site to post a lot of half-true propaganda crap. If you start complaining about all that is done wrong by muslims guys like SFL or me are the ones to tell you that some christians don’t do things better.
And talking about the junk that German politicians do, I might just tell you about our looney interior minister and the defense minister who currently have the fantastic cruel idea to allow airforce pilots to shoot down kidnapped civil airplanes to prevent 9/11 disasters in Germany… but as I know your self-centered attitude, you wouldn’t probably be very intested…
September 18, 2007 - 07:44 AM on September 18th, 2007
27, can we get the Luftwaffe to shoot you down? That would be a great contribution to world peace.
September 18, 2007 - 07:45 AM on September 18th, 2007
Shooting down kidnapped aircraft is not a new idea..well to the rest of us anyway.
September 18, 2007 - 07:54 AM on September 18th, 2007
24- “We are dealing with an enemy that lives in the middle ages.”
Is there some UN directive that prohibits this? I’m not sure if wrestling, dragster races and “American Idol” represent a higher cultural level…
“A cowardly enemy that depends on small children and women killing themselves, in order to further their cause.”
As far as I know, stuff like that (->children as bombers) only happened in Vietnam…
Brave Palestinian Terrorists use children as human shields
Terrorists use children as shields
Salaries For Suicide Bombers, Iraq Pays $25000 To Families Of …
Female suicide bomber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSome militant organizations have used women to carry out suicide bombings because they draw less suspicion than men and go through less rigorous security …
Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict …Occupied Territories: Stop Use of Children in Suicide Bombings. … Carpenter, Charli R. (2006): Innocent Women And Children: Gender, Norms and the …
Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions …Children as young as six are being used by the Taliban in increasingly desperate suicide missions, coalition forces in Afghanistan claimed yesterday. …
Palestinian Women Martyrs against the Israeli OccupationThe second suicide bombing operation by a Palestinian woman freedom fighter …. mostly women and children, in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. …
Female Suicide Bombers: Dying to KillAs a spate of suicide bombings around the world in recent years has shown, … Here, Ling shares her insights into why these women are dying to kill. …
The Suicide Bombers - The New York Review of BooksIn the Middle East, suicide bombing was first used by the Hezbollah in Lebanon. … especially the blood of the women, of the elderly, and of the children, …
World: Islamic Clerics Condemn Use Of Children In Suicide Bombings …Muhammad Sodiq Muhammad Yusuf, a prominent religious scholar in Tashkent, said suicide bombings by civilians — including women and children — are …
“CONVERT or DIE is the mantra.”
Who demands this? The mulim animal’s or you?
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Pakistan Christians demand helpPriest Pram Samuel shows the letter ordering Christians to convert to Islam. The warning has terrorised Christians in Charsadda …
Reuters AlertNet - IRAQ: Baghdad Christians flee as violence …Forced to convert. According to the local Christian Peace Association (CPA), … said that Christians can only stay in their homes if they convert to Islam. …
PAKISTAN Christians threatened with death over 3 month period …We will only leave you alone if you will follow our demand otherwise you will be … Christians threatened: convert to Islam or die. 01/10/2007 INDIA …
Dhimmi Watch: Pakistani Christians told to convert or dieThis organization helps oppressed Christians throughout the Islamic world. …. To Convert or to accept Dhimmi status is to die a slow death at the hands of …
Romans 15:4 Project: Convert Or Die – Islamic NecromongersChristian Today. Posted: May 15, 2007. I could site many other specific incidences of this type of “convert or die” Islamic activity. …
Radical Muslims: ‘Convert or Die’Western nations, hoping to prevent radical Islamic violence in their homelands, …. however, may not relish their comrades’ ultimate goal — convert or die! …
Radical Muslims: ‘Convert or Die’In this day of radical Islam, one man’s multiculturalism is another man’s …. however, may not relish their comrades’ ultimate goal — convert or die! …
FrontPage MagazineIf they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on …… of Christians (Albanians, Greeks, Slavs) were forced to convert to Islam. …
Muslim animals
September 18, 2007 - 07:59 AM on September 18th, 2007
30, piece of crap, why is it you are so stupid. I posted a link about Hamas recruiting children to be suicide bombers on “missions” in Israel. I believe that children and women have been used as cover in car bombs in checkpoints in Iraq. None of these are perpetrated by Christians, only the slime you cover for who claim “the Religion of Peace of the grave through Violence upon the Innocent”.
September 18, 2007 - 08:20 AM on September 18th, 2007
PCD, I found his post to be inciteful..
September 18, 2007 - 08:38 AM on September 18th, 2007
30- Okay, so I have to correct myself and admit that children were used for terror assaults… But did you actually read some the articles completely?
This one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2109574,00.html
for example mentions:
“The claim came only hours after the second report this week that civilians had been killed in Nato military operations.
Nine women, three babies and the mullah of a local mosque died alongside 20 suspected Taliban militants after an air strike, Helmand’s police chief, Mohammad Hussein Andiwal, said.
The air strike had been launched in response to an attack on Nato troops by militants near the town of Gereshk. An estimated 120 people have been killed in recent weeks, including seven schoolboys who died in a US air strike on Sunday.”
Responding to reports that women and children had been killed in the latest airstrike, a spokesman, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, said: “If civilians had been identified in the area the air strike would not have gone ahead.”
He added: “ISAF has demonstrated this restraint on a number of occasions and goes to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties.”
So? Does a uniform make the difference between terror and justified military action?
September 18, 2007 - 08:42 AM on September 18th, 2007
Matthias,
All of the inane commentary to this point aside, let’s get down to bare facts.
I have a very serious, direct question that I would like you to answer please.
What is the definition or terrorism?
September 18, 2007 - 08:47 AM on September 18th, 2007
33, so the piece of crap cannot condemn the Terrorists from the Religion of Peace for using a cleric, women, and children as human shields for their cowardly asses. How low is the piece of crap from Germany.
September 18, 2007 - 09:01 AM on September 18th, 2007
33, using the piece of crap’s logic, if I go to Germany, grab a bunch of women and children, I can kill as many pieces of crap as I feel like and because I have the innocent human shields, the Polzei and Luftwaffe can not do anything lest they be blamed for killing the human shields.
Is that how you believe, piece of crap??
September 18, 2007 - 10:08 AM on September 18th, 2007
34- Finally somebody comes with a good question!
Answer:
Terrorism is the application of terror in order to reach a political goal. Military theorists also associate terrorism as a kind of asymmetric warfare, which means roughly a military conflicts between opponents that are very different in terms of men or material…
Ted: What was Clausewitz’ primary definition of War?
September 18, 2007 - 10:20 AM on September 18th, 2007
34.
I am wondering where did you source your answer, please?
September 18, 2007 - 10:28 AM on September 18th, 2007
at wiki Ted…see here
September 18, 2007 - 11:16 AM on September 18th, 2007
Peejz,
Thanks, but I would like matthias to source his own answer.
Matthias, please answer the question- where did you sourse you definition from?
September 19, 2007 - 06:14 AM on September 19th, 2007
40- There is some thing on top of my neck called “head”. It may pick up informations, think about those and also communicate thoughts.
Why are you asking? Was my definition for terrorism in your eyes very smart or very stupid?
Peejz, I did not look at it yet, but I guess the Wiki entry on terrorism is probably much longer.
My problem [here] is that once I give a longer explanation or descrition of terrorism, folks like PCD perceive it rather as an excuse or a biased justification than a neutral description. But I have learned to investigate things dialectically, which means to regard them from ALL sides.
September 19, 2007 - 06:16 AM on September 19th, 2007
41, Mattias, on you that is a ripe pimple that needs to be popped.
September 19, 2007 - 06:28 AM on September 19th, 2007
“Why are you asking? Was my definition for terrorism in your eyes very smart or very stupid?”
Neither- but I am contending that it is inaccurate. Unless we can agree on the definition, then no further discussion is possible on the topic.
The definition of terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilian objectives by a group with violence or the threat of violence in order to achieve a political or social objectives by intimidation or coercion.
Is this an acceptable definition to you?
September 19, 2007 - 06:32 AM on September 19th, 2007
Matthias,
Two other things.
1) Thank you for conitinuing the discusion as I requersted.
2) To be fair, I will answer your previous question: Clausewitz’ aside, the definition of war is legalized murder.
September 19, 2007 - 08:32 AM on September 19th, 2007
43- “Is this an acceptable definition to you?”
Terror in the sense of terrorism is also applied to military targets.
I tend to believe that terrorism is the larger scale version of figthing children and the smaller/weaker one starts scratching, spitting and pulling hair, because it sees no other way to fight/defend. The Bin Ladens in the world of terror would also like to throw laser guided bombs on their enemies or have regular uniformed armies, but as they don’t have their equivalent to that is to have fewer people doing much more horrible things. Terror works primarilly on a mental level, than a broad physical harm of the enemy.
44-
I didn’t know that quote by Clausewitz yet…
I was rather referring to “War is a continuation of politics by other means.”
So taking this definition for war and our common asumption that terrorism is also done as a (pervert) way to reach political goals, there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror…
It is in the end only the political motivation which makes the difference between “good” and “evil”- if these terms are today still 100% applicable, which I doubt.
September 19, 2007 - 09:06 AM on September 19th, 2007
“Terror in the sense of terrorism is also applied to military targets.”
No it doesn’t, and every other expert on terrorism would agree (FBI, CIA, DoD, MI6, etc, etc). An act is not one of terrorism unless the target is a civilian one. A few lay out that military target are acceptable to the definition, but only in non-military situations (when the military are technically private individuals if this is possible, such as the bombing of the USS Cole). The vast majority state specifically that civilians are the target though.
Here are the various definitions laid out for you:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Terrorism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
“I didn’t know that quote by Clausewitz yet…”
I said “Clausewitz aside”.
“So taking this definition for war and our common asumption that terrorism is also done as a (pervert) way to reach political goals, there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror…”
You are jumping ahead- we have to agree on the definition of terrorism first.
That said, I completed disagree with “there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror…”.
September 24, 2007 - 08:58 AM on September 24th, 2007
46- “No it doesn’t, and every other expert on terrorism would agree (FBI, CIA, DoD, MI6, etc, etc).”
Well, I can’t speak for other people, but if in Iraq a suicide bomber blows himself up in the proximity of regular soldiers with the intention to kill them, to me personally that’s also terrorism. But why do you actually ask for such a (in my opinion rather nitpicking) detail?
—
“That said, I completed disagree with “there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror…”.”
Where do you disagree?
That a civilian who is intentionally or unintentionally severely hit by a military action won’t perceive it as some form of terror?
September 24, 2007 - 09:35 AM on September 24th, 2007
“Well, I can’t speak for other people, but if in Iraq a suicide bomber blows himself up in the proximity of regular soldiers with the intention to kill them, to me personally that’s also terrorism.”
No they aren’t nesessarily. If so, then all of those civlian insurgents that are legimately fighting for a cause
(even if we disagree) openly are also terrorist. They are not. There is a difference between an insurh=gent and a terrorist.
Per the Geneva Accords, a civilian militia who are open about their being armed that targets an occuping force that is an organized militia are not terrorist. They are targeting an organized military
“But why do you actually ask for such a (in my opinion rather nitpicking) detail?”
Because trhe target is the most important(but not the only) parameter to define terrorism.
“That a civilian who is intentionally or unintentionally severely hit by a military action won’t perceive it as some form of terror?”
Correct.
If a civilian is unintentionally hit by a military action is not the victim of terrorism. As I said the target is the most important(but not the only) parameter to define terrorism. it must be intentionally targeted.
September 25, 2007 - 03:24 AM on September 25th, 2007
48- I have to confess, that I am a little bit surprised to see a US conservative minimize the set of elements/incidents which can be categorized as terrorism…
So, if the fighting individuals in Iraq attack civilians they are “terrorists” and if they attack regular soldiers they are “organized militia”? Especially with the term “armed militia” (which reminds a little bit of that term in the Bill of Rights), I wonder why US patriots can’t see more (I wouldn’t call it “understanding”)… parallels to their own history.
Apart from the people, which I would perceive as real terrorists like Al Quaeda and agitators from Iran, there are probably various groups of interest who are only fighting for the interests of the majority of their people in “their” region”- folks who could be seen as organized militia.
September 25, 2007 - 07:23 AM on September 25th, 2007
“I have to confess, that I am a little bit surprised to see a US conservative minimize the set of elements/incidents which can be categorized as terrorism…”
I am not a US Conservative- that is only your perception. I deal with facts Matthias, and have done quite a bit of research on this topic.
“So, if the fighting individuals in Iraq attack civilians they are “terrorists” and if they attack regular soldiers they are “organized militia”?”
Not particularly, no. There are other parameters that make up an organized militia but we aren;t dealing with that definition now. We are dealing with the definitiuon of “terrorist”. That definition must include the intentional targeting of civilian objectives.
“Especially with the term “armed militia” (which reminds a little bit of that term in the Bill of Rights), I wonder why US patriots can’t see more (I wouldn’t call it “understanding”)… parallels to their own history.”
The situation in Iraq is complex. There are some 400+ organizations there that involve some sort of reistance; legal, terrorist or otherwise. To place a one size fits all label on these people ais a mistake- one that I see most everyone doing.
Before we continue tho- do you recognize the definition of terrorism that I gave you and supported with various experts via the links above? here is a refresher:
The definition of terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilian objectives by a group with violence or the threat of violence in order to achieve a political or social objectives by intimidation or coercion.
September 25, 2007 - 08:27 AM on September 25th, 2007
50- “Before we continue tho- do you recognize the definition of terrorism that I gave you and supported with various experts via the links above?”
I personally would (as I said) also see soldiers as victims of terror assaults, but if it makes you happy: I can live with your definition.
So what are you heading for?
September 26, 2007 - 04:39 PM on September 26th, 2007
Okay- I will concede that soldiers can be victims of terrorist assault, and that is accurtae by Geneva Accords.
What I am getting at her is this statement:
“there is a certain similarity between somebody who wears a uniform and fights a war as a soldier and some terrorist that commits acts of terror…”.”
Given our agreed upon defintion, what is the similarity you are referring to? Please give specifics.
September 27, 2007 - 04:18 AM on September 27th, 2007
52- As an example of a similarity I would give the bombing of the cities in WWII in Europe.
On both sides its only purpose was to demoralize the enemy population. It was done by regular soldiers, it was done intentionally and the targets were primarily civilians.
From my POV “Terror” is something which is not defined by the persons who do it, but rather by the nature of its effect. As I mentioned earlier on, the psychological component is the primary factor.