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

knnknn wrote:

And since when does CIA declare war?

Who said they did declare war? Confused

Certainly not I? Confused

And "Taliban" is a thing, not a person.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

Who said they did declare war? Certainly not I?

No you didn't but the topic is about the differences between terrorists and CIA assassins and soldiers.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

princesspupule wrote:
Who said they did declare war? Certainly not I?

No you didn't but the topic is about the differences between terrorists and CIA assassins and soldiers.

What is it you are unclear about? The differences between war and terroristic acts? Let's see, "war" implies two internationally defined states, breakage of international laws, the ability of these laws to be judged if needed after the war is over(think Nuremberg)... The "war on terrorism" is something of a misnomer... It's more like a fight against organized criminals... I'm not sure why you think only the CIA has assassins... I would describe any group set about killing others as committing assassination, therefore assassins... I don't think we were at war until we entered another country and began fighting for return to common decency as recognized by an international body... our problem now is that there was no breakage of the international laws because there were no weapons of mass destruction found and no evidence that they were in the making either, just a thought in the head of a madman believed by another leader of another nation, who chose to act upon the vaguest of information to begin a war which should not have been begun. Crying or Very sad

But if you have something specific you want to know, I'll gladly share my opinions with you. I got a million of 'em! :wink:

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

cannistershot wrote:
And you think that sending millions of soldiers to their deaths during an invasion was a better option?

+ killed thousands of Japanese civilians by cutting their throats

Like the Japanese did in China?
What are you trying to get at?

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

The differences between war and terroristic acts? Let's see, "war" implies two internationally defined states, breakage of international laws, the ability of these laws to be judged if needed after the war is over(think Nuremberg)...

Forget Nuremberg. That was just a single case and the US have since stopped any effort to repeat something like that to not have any US president prosecuted for any kind of war crimes.

princesspupule wrote:

The "war on terrorism" is something of a misnomer... It's more like a fight against organized crime...

It's definitely not. No buildings in other countries get bombed by coalition forces to catch a drug dealer. It's a war.

princesspupule wrote:

I don't think we were at war until we entered another country and began fighting for return to common decency as recognized by an international body... our problem now is that there was no breakage of the international laws

So that makes Bush and Blair top-terrorists since they blew up buildings as did the 9/11 pilots, yes?

Imagine Usama bin Laden having enough money to buy rockets etc. He would shoot directly into the White House wouldn't he?

So what is the difference between Bush (= fireing into Saddams HQs) and Bin Laden (= firing into the White House). Just the money?

0 Replies

cannistershot wrote:

Like the Japanese did in China?
What are you trying to get at?

Yes, like they did. Are the Japanese then any different than murdering terrorists?

I am trying to find out the difference. Because so far there is none.

It cannot be that the only difference is "We kill by pushing a button" (= Hiroshima bomb) and "The terrorist kill by explosives in a belt".

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

So what is the difference between Bush (= fireing into Saddams HQs) and Bin Laden (= firing into the White House). Just the money?

What country is bin Laden leader of, knnknn? Not Afghanistan, isn't that Karzai? Without a representing a country, you are merely a terrorist, no matter how atrocious your crimes may be... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

What country is bin Laden leader of, knnknn?

Hey, good one.

But on the other hand: THAT is the difference? They represent a country and the others not?

Doesn't make a difference for the Japanese in Hiroshima....

So "war = country terrorism" and "terrorism = war without a country"

And before you continue, I must state again: 9/11 = Act of war.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

And before you continue, I must state again: 9/11 = Act of war.

Prove it's war or we reach an impasse. If Bush said they declared war on us by an act of terror, he was mistaken.

0 Replies

princesspupule wrote:

knnknn wrote:
And before you continue, I must state again: 9/11 = Act of war.

Prove it's war or we reach an impasse. If Bush said they declared war on us by an act of terror, he was mistaken.

Huh? Bush restates this all of the time "Act of war", "Act of war".

For example here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. "

"Act of war" against "our country".
You cannot state it clearer. If it's terrorism, then it's an "Act of terror" against some New Yorkers.

AND HE EVEN CONTINUES to compare it with previous wars: "Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning."

Wow, it's totally clear that it's not terrorism.

Moreover it's proven that's a war by the fact that Bush sent soldiers and calls himself "War president".

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

princesspupule wrote:
knnknn wrote:
And before you continue, I must state again: 9/11 = Act of war.

Prove it's war or we reach an impasse. If Bush said they declared war on us by an act of terror, he was mistaken.

Huh? Bush restates this all of the time "Act of war", "Act of war".

For example here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. "

"Act of war" against "our country".

You cannot state it clearer. If it's terrorism, then it's an "Act of terror" against some New Yorkers.

I'm suggesting to you that Bush is misusing the term. Haven't you heard him misuse terms before? Find a link which describes 9/11 as being an official and recognized act of war by international standards or else I'll just have to go "noocular," if Dubya is yer only source. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm suggesting to you that Bush is misusing the term

Actually that doesn't change much for the topic.

Imagine Pakistan was training and supporting the 9/11 pilots.

Would that be then a clear act of war?

If yes, then the only difference is
- NOT the act
- NOT the dead civilians
- NOT the goals
- NOT the laws

Nothing, except an ILLUSION that a war is better than terrorism, because a war has a "country leader" behind it.

Well, what about cases then, where secret services kill others and keeps it secret? There is no known country behind the assassinations then.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

princesspupule wrote:
What country is bin Laden leader of, knnknn?

Hey, good one.

But on the other hand: THAT is the difference? They represent a country and the others not?

Doesn't make a difference for the Japanese in Hiroshima....

So "war = country terrorism" and "terrorism = war without a country"

And before you continue, I must state again: 9/11 = Act of war.

What are you looking for? Your reaction to the distinction offered that one represents a country and the other does not, is to state that the distinction is lost on the people who died at Hiroshima?

Let me apply your thinking to the following question: What's the difference between a robber who shoots his victim, and a police officer who shoots the robber? Now, I could provide you with a distinction, but it appears you'd just tell me the distinction doesn't make a difference to the victim or the robber, both of whom are dead.

knnknn wrote:

princesspuple wrote:
The differences between war and terroristic acts? Let's see, "war" implies two internationally defined states, breakage of international laws, the ability of these laws to be judged if needed after the war is over(think Nuremberg)...

Forget Nuremberg. That was just a single case and the US have since stopped any effort to repeat something like that to not have any US president prosecuted for any kind of war crimes.

Okay. Then forget Hiroshima. It was just a single case (well, along with Nagasaki), and it has yet to be repeated.

But I think you won't. Let's say for the sake of argument only, that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meet the definition of terrorism. What's your point? Or are you just trying to engage in a scholarly discussion without trying to push an agenda? I'm doubtful that is the case. So I ask again: What's your point?

0 Replies

Quote:

What are you looking for? Your reaction to the distinction offered that one represents a country and the other does not, is to state that the distinction is lost on the people who died at Hiroshima?

Actually I agreed that the differentiation (soldiers have a country behind them and terrorists not) is a good argument.

HOWEVER that makes the whole thing really sad. Because not their actions set them apart but solely the construct "country".

Quote:

Okay. Then forget Hiroshima. It was just a single case (well, along with Nagasaki), and it has yet to be repeated.

It is repeated all over the time. The whole Iraq war is a repetition, but without atom bombs.

Quote:

Let me apply your thinking to the following question: What's the difference between a robber who shoots his victim, and a police officer who shoots the robber?

Well, because the policeman PROTECTS civilians from crime. But Hiroshima was punishment for civilians.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Quote:
Okay. Then forget Hiroshima. It was just a single case (well, along with Nagasaki), and it has yet to be repeated.

It is repeated all over the time. The whole Iraq war is a repetition, but without atom bombs.

How so? The Iraq War was to remove Saddam from power. Are you calling that terrorism? And if so, under what definition of "terrorism" are you working? Please clarify if I'm misconstruing your point.

knnknn wrote:

Quote:
Let me apply your thinking to the following question: What's the difference between a robber who shoots his victim, and a police officer who shoots the robber?

Well, because the policeman PROTECTS civilians from crime. But Hiroshima was punishment for civilians.

You didn't answer the question as to the difference between a robber who kills his victim, and the cop who kills the robber. You identified that the policeman shot the robber in order to protect the citizenry. Now, I tend to agree that is an important distinction, but I want to make sure you see it.

Are you identifying a distinction based on the intent of the shooter? And if so, what is the distinction you are trying to parse?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

knnknn wrote:

Quote:
Okay. Then forget Hiroshima. It was just a single case (well, along with Nagasaki), and it has yet to be repeated.

It is repeated all over the time. The whole Iraq war is a repetition, but without atom bombs.

How so? The Iraq War was to remove Saddam from power. Are you calling that terrorism? And if so, under what definition of "terrorism" are you working? Please clarify if I'm misconstruing your point.

Aznar (the Spanish Iraq-coalition leader) was charged with war crimes, because his troops 42 times bombed pure civilian places.

Quote:

Are you identifying a distinction based on the intent of the shooter? And if so, what is the distinction you are trying to parse?

Yes, that's the difference: The robber robs a victim as a criminal. The victim is innocent. The policeman does something good.

Hiroshima was NOT to "protect a victim from a robber". The US bombed Hiroshima to kill innocent people ON PURPOSE, just like the robber does.

So where is the difference between US and terrorists? Just that the US president can hide behind "a country"?

0 Replies

Quote:

Aznar (the Spanish Iraq-coalition leader) was charged with war crimes, because his troops 42 times bombed pure civilian places.

And .... ?

Quote:

Yes, that's the difference: The robber robs a victim as a criminal. The victim is innocent. The policeman does something good.

Agreed. It appears neither you nor I equate the two. But if we've established that there is a distinction between the two actions based on the intentions of the actors, how do we next reconcile your prior point that none of this matters much to either dead person. We must conclude, I believe, that it is not the fact of their death that is instrumental in this analysis, but the intent of the actors involved.

Therefore, bringing our analysis back to the Iraq War, and your prior statement of the similarity between Hiroshima and the Iraq War. You posited that Hiroshima was an act of terrorism. But perhaps we should get caught up in figuring out what the intention of the US was in dropping the bomb. The purpose of dropping the bomb(s) was to end the war with Japan. How many American lives were saved by dropping the bomb(s)? The negative effect (sorry to sound so crass) on the lives of the victims of the bomb notwithstanding, if we are focused on the intent of the US in dropping the bomb, the intent was a good one: end the war. Save countless American lives.

Okay. If we accept that for the purposes of this analysis, then that carries over to the Iraq War. Yes, innocent civilians have died -- they have been called "collateral damage." This is because they are not the primary targets of the US military. Sure, there have been mistakes, as there always will be in war, and innocents have been the target. But I don't believe for a second that the US military has intentionally targeted civilians. If you believe otherwise, we are diametrically opposed in our faith in and support of the US military. What is the purpose of the Iraq War? Remove Saddam and his totalitarian regime. In doing so, we eliminated a regime that supported terrorism, used WMD on its own people as well as its enemies

Now, this necessarily presumes that the removal of Saddam and his regime is a good thing. In calling the attacks of 9/11 (and similar terroristic attacks) a bad thing, we are identifying it as evil. Thus, we are making a judgment between good and evil. There is a difference, and it is not relative. We know what is good, and what is evil.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

Aznar (the Spanish Iraq-coalition leader) was charged with war crimes, because his troops 42 times bombed pure civilian places.

And .... ?

Whether it's an atom bomb or a conventional bomb makes no difference.

Quote:

But perhaps we should get caught up in figuring out what the intention of the US was in dropping the bomb. The purpose of dropping the bomb(s) was to end the war with Japan.

Exactly. But that's the whole point. Usama's intention (as he stated in his video messages) is to end the war with the US.

You know all the actual beheadings right? What do the victims beg for? "Bring the US troops out of Iraq" (= end of the war).

Thus I see no real difference to Hiroshima, except that the US had more money and could affect millions of Japanese while terrorists in Iraq have little money thus must behead one after one.

Quote:

Yes, innocent civilians have died -- they have been called "collateral damage."

No. The accusation is that they died on purpose. Spain bombed the population only.

Quote:

But I don't believe for a second that the US military has intentionally targeted civilians.

Please take the focus off the US military. This is a soldier vs. secret service assassin vs terrorist topic. Has nothing to do with the US.

Quote:

Remove Saddam and his totalitarian regime.

Says who? The same Bush that said that 9/11 was war?

Quote:

In doing so, we eliminated a regime that supported terrorism

The definition of terrorism is part of this thread so I won't answer to that.

Quote:

used WMD on its own people as well as its enemies

That is an unproved allegation. But let's concentrate on the topic please.

Quote:

There is a difference, and it is not relative. We know what is good, and what is evil.

No, we don't know. Since you juggle with these religious terms, let me add this offtopic statement: Satan was created by god. Thus there must be some good in evil.

And I can't believe that you start to argue, that terrorist are evil, because for them the US is evil. This is pure opinion and I'd like NOT to argue on this low level.

What's next? The US is no terrorist because god is on our side? Gimme-a-break.

0 Replies

Well, you know where I stand, and now I see where you are coming from.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

now I see where you are coming from.

How is that? I didn't state any big opinion so far. I am just unhappy that you get out this "God with us" argument. The terrorists do this too.

Judging by the good points you made I hoped you would not argue like in Europe 200 years ago. "Let's kill'em, they insulted Jesus", or nonsense like that.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know