1
   

A soldier, a terrorist, an assassin - do they differ?

 
 
knnknn
 
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 03:47 pm
I know it may seem a strange question, but does anyone know the diference between a
+soldier
+CIA assassin
+terrorist

I know at first glance this is obvious but if you scrutinize it there isn't much left.

Edit (link Removed): Do not attempt to spam through the use of Google Results

All of them kill, all of them have a political goal, civilians die because all of them.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,748 • Replies: 79
No top replies

 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:00 pm
I wanted also to add, that 9/11 was NOT terrorism, as stated by Bush himself. It was an "Act of war". Thus the 9/11 pilots were not terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:03 pm
No, it was terrorism. Calling it an "Act of War" signifies a changing of tactics in response to said terrorism - no longer treating it as an isolated criminal act, but using a military response instead.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:07 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
No, it was terrorism. Calling it an "Act of War" signifies a changing of tactics in response to said terrorism - no longer treating it as an isolated criminal act, but using a military response instead.

Exactly. Bush was advised to call it "Act of War" to be able to bomb Afghanistan.

Thus it's not terrorism. You cannot have both: Terrorists committing an act of war is NOT possible. Otherwise soldiers would commit an act of terror.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:08 pm
So are you saying that an American soldier who has fought and died so that we have the freedoms that we have is no better than a terrorist? Maybe you should search in a different way that isn't so self serving to the point that you are trying to make?
Soldier- one who serves in an army
Terrorist- one that engages in acts of terrorism
Assassin-one who murders by surprise attack
Dictionary.com
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:11 pm
Dictionary.com is of very limited use with their 1 sentence definitions.

The 9/11 pilots were "serving" in Al-Qaeda. They, too, had their ranks (Atta was the leader and Usama bin Laden was the head)

Oh, and by "assassin" I mean "CIA assassin".
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:13 pm
knnknn wrote:
Dictionary.com is of very limited use with their 1 sentence definitions.

The 9/11 pilots were "serving" in Al-Qaeda.

Oh, and by "assassin" I mean "CIA assassin".


Google is very limited in their searches depending on how you word it.
Again are you saying that an American soldier is no better than a terrorists?
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:14 pm
Please also consider 1 thing: Hiroshima

The US military killed ON PURPOSE hundreds of thousands of civilians to break the will of the population.

How does that differ from terrorism?
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:14 pm
terrorism http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
Quote:
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
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.


soldier http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldier
Quote:
sol·dier ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sljr)
n.
One who serves in an army.
An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.


assassin http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assassin
Quote:
as·sas·sin ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ssn)
n.
One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.
Assassin A member of a secret order of Muslims who terrorized and killed Christian Crusaders and others.


I would say that based upon the dictionary definitions, soldiers aren't terrorists, but can be assassins; assassins can be either terrorists or soldiers; and terrorists aren't real soldiers because they are unlawfully using violence and force, and soldiers are generally following legal protocol when using violence and force... At the times they are behaving unlawfully, they can be terrorists.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:18 pm
These dictionary definitions are nonsense. Terrorism = Unlawful. As if the Iraq war was lawful in Iraq.

Soldier = Serving in army. That merely pushes the difference to "army" vs. "terroristic groups"

Assassin, again, I must apoligize, I meant a secret service assassin (= those folks who try to assassinate Fidel Castro etc)
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:18 pm
knnknn wrote:
Please also consider 1 thing: Hiroshima

The US military killed ON PURPOSE hundreds of thousands of civilians to break their will.

How does that differ from terrorism?

And you think that sending millions of soldiers to their deaths during an invasion was a better option? Do you realize that America has not made a single new purple heart since ww2? We are still using the ones that we made for a possible invasion of Japan. Did any of your family fight in WW2? Would you even be here if we had of invaded instead of bombing?
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:20 pm
princesspupule wrote:
terrorism http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
Quote:
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
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.


soldier http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldier
Quote:
sol·dier ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sljr)
n.
One who serves in an army.
An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.


assassin http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assassin
Quote:
as·sas·sin ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ssn)
n.
One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.
Assassin A member of a secret order of Muslims who terrorized and killed Christian Crusaders and others.


I would say that based upon the dictionary definitions, soldiers aren't terrorists, but can be assassins; assassins can be either terrorists or soldiers; and terrorists aren't real soldiers because they are unlawfully using violence and force, and soldiers are generally following legal protocol when using violence and force... At the times they are behaving unlawfully, they can be terrorists.



Thank you for a well thought out post!
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:20 pm
cannistershot wrote:
Again are you saying that an American soldier is no better than a terrorists?

Since we haven't found a clear difference yet, I would even say that the position of a soldier is even WORSE, since they are FORCED to kill and die UNVOLUNTARILY.

Where is the difference in sending a soldier to drop a bomb over Hiroshima, or sending a terrorist to bomb a train?

Same thing so far....
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:22 pm
knnknn wrote:
cannistershot wrote:
Again are you saying that an American soldier is no better than a terrorists?

Since we haven't found a clear difference yet, I would even say that the position of a soldier is even WORSE, since they are FORCED to kill and die UNVOLUNTARILY.

Where is the difference in sending a soldier to drop a bomb over Hiroshima, or sending a terrorist to bomb a train?

Same thing do far....



I guess the difference is you have to decide who is right and who is wrong.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:23 pm
cannistershot wrote:
knnknn wrote:
Please also consider 1 thing: Hiroshima

The US military killed ON PURPOSE hundreds of thousands of civilians to break their will.

How does that differ from terrorism?

And you think that sending millions of soldiers to their deaths during an invasion was a better option? Do you realize that America has not made a single new purple heart since ww2? We are still using the ones that we made for a possible invasion of Japan. Did any of your family fight in WW2? Would you even be here if we had of invaded instead of bombing?
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:25 pm
cannistershot wrote:
And you think that sending millions of soldiers to their deaths during an invasion was a better option?

If soldiers
+ invaded Hiroshima
+ killed thousands of Japanese civilians by cutting their throats
+ killed thousands of Japanese civilians by suddenly bombing civilian trains
would they be terorrists?

Because this is actually what happened in Hiroshima: Thousand civilians died.

I am still looking for a difference
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:27 pm
cannistershot wrote:
I guess the difference is you have to decide who is right and who is wrong.

Now if THAT's the difference then hell breaks lose.

"I am right thus I can kill 1 million of your civilians"

That never ever can be the difference.

Moreover it pushes this topic to the question, what is "wrong" and what is "right". Impossible to answer, especially since Bush invades Islamic countries because GOD told him to do so.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:49 pm
Another thing: Before you mention laws like the Geneva convention (as a proof that soldiers abide by laws) then consider 2 things:

1) Guantanamo (= soldiers torturing) would make them terorrists

2) All soldiers prior to the ratification of a law would be terrorists. The Geneva convention itself is only 50 years old. Thus soldiers 100 years ago would be terrorists.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:52 pm
knnknn wrote:
I wanted also to add, that 9/11 was NOT terrorism, as stated by Bush himself. It was an "Act of war". Thus the 9/11 pilots were not terrorists.


Confused Why wouldn't they be terrorists? Had Bin Laden officially declared war against the U.S.? What country was declaring war upon us? You need to be a country in order to declare war, don't you? But not to be declared war on...

Bush had it wrong if he said otherwise. Consider Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html

Quote:
Section 8.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


I'm pretty sure Jefferson declared war on the Barbary pirates, but they didn't declare war on the U.S. That's the only case of historical precedence I can think of... Where are the more scholarly members of A2K today???
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:58 pm
princesspupule wrote:
Had Bin Laden officially declared war against the U.S.?

Yes, he did, as reported by the 9/11 commission

princesspupule wrote:
You need to be a country in order to declare war, don't you?

Taliban was the ruler of Afghanistan.

And, NO, you don't have to declare war. Since WW2 no country has declared war.

That was used for example by Reagan: "Because Vietnam was not a declared war, the veterans are not even eligible for the G.I. Bill of Rights with respect to education or anything."

Take Aznar, who was sued because of Spanish war crimes in Iraq. His answer: "Spain never declared war on Iraq".

So who is the terrorist here?

And since when does CIA declare war?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A soldier, a terrorist, an assassin - do they differ?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/17/2024 at 12:31:10