10
   

Accept it: Terrorists Will Strike Again.

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:35 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Stand by for some grumbling about how we are blaming ourselves instead of who's really to blame.

Then there will be some statements full of faulty memories about things past.

Not to mention statements about why it is a bad idea to leave the national security of the United States in the hands of leftists.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:35 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Your defense of these events is that Iraq is a war zone. How's that for chuzpah?

It's weak. This is not my defense of these events, it's my explanation as to why the events do not constitute terrorism.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:38 am
I agree with Thomas' analysis - stating that Baghdad is/was a 'war zone' and therefore we are not responsible for civilian deaths is ludicrous. We made the place a war zone, and what more, we did it in offensive fashion - Iraq had not attacked the US in any way prior to our decision to turn these people's country into a war zone.

This insistence on the part of the right-wing that 'intent' makes any difference at all when it comes to civilian deaths is a joke. If it were your family who was killed by a bomb or a humvee-mounted machine gun, or a drone, you wouldn't give a **** whether the US was 'trying' to get a bad guy or not.

It's just another page in the 'deny responsibility' playbook that the modern Republican party operates under: pretend that Iraq was an inevitable invasion that had to happen, no matter the fact the pretenses turned out to be a total lie, and then deny that we were responsible for the decade of horror the country has been through since.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree with Thomas' analysis - stating that Baghdad is/was a 'war zone' and therefore we are not responsible for civilian deaths is ludicrous.

To be fair, Ticomaya did not claim that "we are not responsible for civilian deaths".
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:53 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I agree with Thomas' analysis - stating that Baghdad is/was a 'war zone' and therefore we are not responsible for civilian deaths is ludicrous.

To be fair, Ticomaya did not claim that "we are not responsible for civilian deaths".


Okay, I re-read his post, and you are correct; though the thrust of my post remains the same.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  5  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 11:00 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:
This is not my defense of these events, it's my explanation as to why the events do not constitute terrorism.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "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." The Blackwater's conduct in the 2007 case fits this definition. Your argument that Iraq is a war zone is no valid defense against the charge.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:41 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
This is not my defense of these events, it's my explanation as to why the events do not constitute terrorism.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "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." The Blackwater's conduct in the 2007 case fits this definition. Your argument that Iraq is a war zone is no valid defense against the charge.

It certainly does not appear to fit that definition. You might as well argue that when a police officer shoots an unarmed gunman, it's terrorism.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:44 pm
@Ticomaya,
Only if the police officer did so to 'coerce societies or governments,' which seems unlikely.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:53 pm
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
This is not my defense of these events, it's my explanation as to why the events do not constitute terrorism.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "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." The Blackwater's conduct in the 2007 case fits this definition. Your argument that Iraq is a war zone is no valid defense against the charge.

It certainly does not appear to fit that definition. You might as well argue that when a police officer shoots an unarmed gunman, it's terrorism.



You don't think shooting into a crowd wouldn't be intimidating and wasn't intended that way?
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 01:39 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
You don't think shooting into a crowd wouldn't be intimidating and wasn't intended that way?

I think they were defending themselve, Mame. The warning shots were, of course, an attempt to intimidate. Beyond that, I suspect their intent was either self-preservation or probably to kill those they were shooting at. Law enforcement types tend to be trained to shoot at center mass in order to kill, not stop.

But I do not think their intent was to intimidate the society or government, and certainly not for political or ideological reasons.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:57 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
This is not my defense of these events, it's my explanation as to why the events do not constitute terrorism.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "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." The Blackwater's conduct in the 2007 case fits this definition. Your argument that Iraq is a war zone is no valid defense against the charge.

Of course the Blackwater conduct fits the definition, but what you're saying in general is ludicrous. You are saying that if our policy dictates that we target only combatants but on rare occasions have a few bad people who violate our policy and commit murder, then we're just as bad as a group that constantly aims its attacks at civilians as a matter of policy.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:58 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
This is not my defense of these events, it's my explanation as to why the events do not constitute terrorism.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "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." The Blackwater's conduct in the 2007 case fits this definition. Your argument that Iraq is a war zone is no valid defense against the charge.

Of course the Blackwater conduct fits the definition, but what you're saying in general is ludicrous. You are saying that if we target only combatants and on rare occasions have a few bad people who violate our policy and commit murder, then we're just as bad as a group that constantly aims its attacks at civilians as a matter of policy.


Look at it objectively - we've killed as many people by mistake as they kill on purpose. Who is worse, us or them?

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 04:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
This is not my defense of these events, it's my explanation as to why the events do not constitute terrorism.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "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." The Blackwater's conduct in the 2007 case fits this definition. Your argument that Iraq is a war zone is no valid defense against the charge.

Of course the Blackwater conduct fits the definition, but what you're saying in general is ludicrous. You are saying that if we target only combatants and on rare occasions have a few bad people who violate our policy and commit murder, then we're just as bad as a group that constantly aims its attacks at civilians as a matter of policy.


Look at it objectively - we've killed as many people by mistake as they kill on purpose. Who is worse, us or them?

Cycloptichorn

First of all, I don't know if that statistic is correct, but assuming it is, the answer is "them" because they are trying to kill non-combatants and we are trying to spare non-combatants.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 04:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
First of all, I don't know if that statistic is correct, but assuming it is, the answer is "them" because they are trying to kill non-combatants and we are trying to spare non-combatants.


It seems to me that this is a mostly arbitrary distinction you have created. Objectively, the dead are still dead. If your actions lead to the deaths of civilians, your actions are generally not correct ones.

I think you and other right-wingers believe in this distinction in order to spare yourself from taking true responsibility for our actions. But there is no validity to it whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 04:33 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Of course the Blackwater conduct fits the definition, ...

No, it doesn't.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 09:03 pm
@Ticomaya,
Free fire zones, napalming villages, mercilessly killing retreating soldiers and civilians, then quickly burying everything with bulldozers, carpet bombing, phosphorus bombs, shooting an Iranian passenger jet out of the sky,

Quote:
In August 1988 Newsweek quoted the vice president George Bush as saying "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
,

My Lai & the Tiger Force [ just move them forward in time to Iraq and Afghanistan], bombing Afghan weddings, using depleted uranium, ...

Quote:
I can safely, and sadly, say that the "Tiger Force" atrocities are merely the tip of the iceberg in regard to U.S.-perpetrated war crimes in Vietnam.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/9579


If the US didn't always have the upper hand militarily, they would be committing war crimes on a numerous times daily basis, instead of their regular basis that they now follow. Level the playing field and thin veneer of morality that the brandon's and tico's cling to would evaporate.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 01:27 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "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." The Blackwater's conduct in the 2007 case fits this definition.


So does the invasion of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 06:20 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
First of all, I don't know if that statistic is correct, but assuming it is, the answer is "them" because they are trying to kill non-combatants and we are trying to spare non-combatants.


It seems to me that this is a mostly arbitrary distinction you have created. Objectively, the dead are still dead. If your actions lead to the deaths of civilians, your actions are generally not correct ones.

I think you and other right-wingers believe in this distinction in order to spare yourself from taking true responsibility for our actions. But there is no validity to it whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn

So, just to be really clear, verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries to spare non-combatants in combat zones, but occasionally kills them either because combat cannot be that precise or because one of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country or group that tries to kill a lot of civilians as its standard method of attack.
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 07:48 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
So, just to be really clear, verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries to spare non-combatants in combat zones, but occasionally kills them either because combat cannot be that precise or because one of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country or group that tries to kill a lot of civilians as its standard method of attack.

Yes, Brandon, that's exactly what they are saying. They believe the US is a terrorist state. They've been saying it for years.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 10:54 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
So, just to be really clear, verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries to spare non-combatants in combat zones, but occasionally kills them either because combat cannot be that precise or because one of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country or group that tries to kill a lot of civilians as its standard method of attack.


Ever hear the phrase 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions?'

Intent doesn't matter as much as actions. If you are continually killing civilians - which we have been, while prosecuting the so-called 'war on terror' in Iraq and the ME - then you are engaging in actions which are wrong. Period. This isn't some gray area, Brandon.

You are using the narrowest lens possible in order to avoid responsibility for the killings that WE have done, the murders that the US has engaged in, in the name of achieving our goals.

Tico, I don't claim that the US is a 'terrorist nation' at all, for two reasons:

1, We stand to gain nothing from sowing terror - it's a tactic that one uses when one doesn't have actual military might; and,
2, if we decided to engage in terrorism, there would be a lot more dead civilians.

The truth is that we are a careless nation, when it comes to the lives of innocents (who are in the way of our dubious strategic goals). Intentions differ, but the end result is similar.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Report: CIA foiled al-Qaida plot - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Happy New Year from Pakistan - Discussion by djjd62
ISIS or Daesh - Question by usmankhalid665
Nothing about Brussels? - Discussion by McGentrix
Flavors of terrorists - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 04:42:06