Accept it: Terrorists Will Strike Again.

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.

Your defense of these events is that Iraq is a war zone. How's that for chuzpah?

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

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".

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Of course the Blackwater conduct fits the definition, ...

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

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

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.

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.

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.