1
   

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

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 11:00 pm
knnknn wrote:
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.


You clearly want to engage in moral relativism, and I do not. Now, if that causes you to recoil and become unhappy because you think I'm using a "God is with us" argument, so be it. I am what I am, and I believe what I believe. I do believe in God, and I believe in the difference between good and evil.

I'm not an apologist for islamic fundamentalist terrorism. I refuse to believe in the moral equivalency of the actions of a terrorist who flys a plane into a building, or blows up a truck bomb, with the intention of killing as many innocent people as he can, just because he thinks it will further his agenda, whatever it might be, with the actions of the US military in fighting the war in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:31 am
I haven't read all of this thread so my response might be redundant.

I think when we compare the difference between an assassin, a soldier, and a terrorist we have to consider the intended target. The target of an assassin is usually a small group or even just one person, usually a politician or military person. The target of a soldier is another soldier. The target of a terrorist is vague and non-discriminatory whether soldier or civilian, and the more the better.

When soldiers target non-combative civilians or civilians not directly involved in a war effort, the soldiers become terrorists. The carpet bombing, fire bombing, and bombing of cities with weapons of mass destruction during WWII were acts of terrorism; that was their aim, to terrorize the population. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and many German cities near the end of the war were the objects of terrorist bombings by the Allies. When you drop an atomic weapon on a city, it doesn't discrimminate between soldiers or civilians, women, babies, hospital patients, or dissidents.

If so-called terrorists target soldiers specifically, they are themselves soldiers.

What do you call the people who kidnap people and murder them, whether one by one or by the thousands as in German death camps? They don't fit into any of the aforementioned categories; they are sociopathic crimminals. They are not really motivated by political goals, though they may not be aware of that, but are acting out a personal pathology, i.e., they are serial killers.

When you invade a country can you really call the insurgents that attack you terrorists? The bombing of Iraqi civilians are acts of terror, but are the bombing of Iraqi military or police recruits terrorism? I don't know. There are many fuzzy areas, and it depends what side you're on. Even in Iraq there are many sides. It's very complex.

Colin Powell said that what you break, you fix. Bush found it very easy, even exhilarating to break, but it appears the administration had no plan whatsoever to fix it. But this is off the subject.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:33 am
Remember when "terrorists" were "freedom fighters"?
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:11 am
coluber2001 wrote:
The target of a terrorist is vague and non-discriminatory whether soldier or civilian, and the more the better.

Yes, but I believe this is due to lack of money. If they could buy rockets/atom bombs they would blow up the White House.

coluber2001 wrote:
If so-called terrorists target soldiers specifically, they are themselves soldiers.

This is disproven by the acts of the current US administration who tortures "enemy combatants" in Cuba right now and doesn't grant them rights of soldiers in captivity.

coluber2001 wrote:
The bombing of Iraqi civilians are acts of terror, but are the bombing of Iraqi military or police recruits terrorism? I don't know. There are many fuzzy areas, and it depends what side you're on. Even in Iraq there are many sides.

Exactly. Considering that the US media calls resistance fighters in Iraq "terrorists" although they only kill invading forces and aliens shows the typical black-white view.

Imagine the following: China invades US (preemptively because it feels threatened by the US). And some civilian US-Americans fight back by bombing Chineses tanks. They would be "brave heroes" not terrorists.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:18 am
Ticomaya wrote:
You clearly want to engage in moral relativism

And you clearly state that "God loves the US" is a valid argument then.

Ticomaya wrote:
I refuse to believe in the moral equivalency of the actions of a terrorist who flys a plane into a building...with the intention of killing as many innocent people as he can, just because he thinks it will further his agenda

You are talking about that US pilot that dropped the Hiroshima bomb right? Oh, wait no. God was on his side, too. The Japs were evil and they deserved it, isn't it so?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:28 am
knnknn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You clearly want to engage in moral relativism

And you clearly state that "God loves the US" is a valid argument then.



God loves all his children. Even apologists for terrorism.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 11:16 am
Ticomaya wrote:
God loves all his children. Even apologists for terrorism.

Especially his child Satan, as can be deducted by the state of earth.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:25 pm
Discounting the difference between the protocols required for a nation to go to war versus the impulsive terrorist is to discount a significant difference between the method through which violence is vetted.

It is also to discount the difference between socially granted authority and vigilanteism.

It is tantamount to equating the use of force by the cop and by the robber.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 01:24 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Discounting the difference between the protocols required for a nation to go to war

This is only theoretical (e.g. North-Korea could suddenly attack) as do CIA assassins.

Craven de Kere wrote:
It is also to discount the difference between socially granted authority and vigilanteism.

Yes that is somewhat true. But it's bitter to see that the "socially granted authority" is achieved by lying (Gulf war, Vietnam war, Iraq war).

100% of Egyptians dislike US-Americans (a recent poll shown mentioned on NBC): Do Egyptian terrorists now have a socially granted authority?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 03:40 pm
knnknn wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Discounting the difference between the protocols required for a nation to go to war

This is only theoretical (e.g. North-Korea could suddenly attack) as do CIA assassins.


No, it is not merely theoretical.

Whether or not North Korea can "attack suddenly" does nothing to descredit the procedural difference between having a state and declaring yourself a terrorist.

They have more at stake, have a larger quorum and more checks and balances.

My point was not the speed with which one can attack (there is little difference in this regard) but rather the procedural differences of establishment and use of force.

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It is also to discount the difference between socially granted authority and vigilanteism.

Yes that is somewhat true. But it's bitter to see that the "socially granted authority" is achieved by lying (Gulf war, Vietnam war, Iraq war).


I do not make the case that state war is a pretty thing, just that the notion that it is equal to terrorism is absurd. It can share similarities but you can't make a marginally reasonable case that they are equal.

Quote:
100% of Egyptians dislike US-Americans (a recent poll shown mentioned on NBC): Do Egyptian terrorists now have a socially granted authority?


Your citation is bull. 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot. This is the case here.

But assuming that you had used intellectual integrity and cited an accurate statistic showing that a plurality of a nation disliked another you err in assuming that said plurality is equitable to a mandate for terrorists.

To wit:

Me not liking someone doesn't mean I'd want them to die. Nor would it mean I think it justified for others to invoke my feeling to justify their violence.

Furthermore, social contract goes beyond popular opinion.

To wit:

Even if the majority of Americans wanted to prevent blacks from voting there are structural impediments to this in our social contract (e.g. our constitution).

I strongly recommend a basic understanding of social contracts and sociology in general before you proceed with this argument.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:10 pm
Quote:
I do not make the case that state war is a pretty thing, just that the notion that it is equal to terrorism is absurd. It can share similarities but you can't make a marginally reasonable case that they are equal.

But this is again an assumption that throwing an atom bomb onto Hiroshima is morally better because there are some checks and balances. If terrorism is bad because of the crimes, than war is bad because of the same crimes.

Quote:
Your citation is bull.

Where's your anger from? It was stated by a member of the 9/11 commission on Meet The Press (you can still view it online). Even if it's only 95% or 90%, it doesn't matter.

Quote:
99% of all statistics are made up on the spot. This is the case here.

Wow! 99%! Very Happy

Quote:
Furthermore, social contract goes beyond popular opinion.

Theoretically. Practically it's pretty much the same, since most rulers are chosen democratically. That's why democracies never had any wars with each other.

Quote:
Even if the majority of Americans wanted to prevent blacks from voting there are structural impediments to this in our social contract (e.g. our constitution).

If 80% of US-Americans wanted to reinstate slavery, then just wait until the next election. They WILL get slavery back.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:12 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Your citation is bull. 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


Laughing

Craven de Kere wrote:
This is the case here.


Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 04:36 pm
knnknn wrote:
Quote:
I do not make the case that state war is a pretty thing, just that the notion that it is equal to terrorism is absurd. It can share similarities but you can't make a marginally reasonable case that they are equal.

But this is again an assumption that throwing an atom bomb onto Hiroshima is morally better because there are some checks and balances.


No, it is not. I said nothing of the sort.

Quote:
If terrorism is bad because of the crimes, than war is bad because of the same crimes.


I have made no comment herein on this judgement. I have only spoken about the absurdity of your equation of the two.

Quote:
Quote:
Your citation is bull.

Where's your anger from? It was stated by a member of the 9/11 commission on Meet The Press (you can still view it online). Even if it's only 95% or 90%, it doesn't matter.


I assure you that I am not angry. I am merely pointing out intellectual dishonesty. It does matter.

But I understood your point and addressed it despite your apochryphal citation.

Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, social contract goes beyond popular opinion.

Theoretically. Practically it's pretty much the same, since most rulers are chosen democratically. That's why democracies never had any wars with each other.


Your first point is false. Beyond elections democracies have structures beyond popular opinion that form the basis of a social contract.

Your second point is false. Democracies have had wars with each other.

I'll repeat, intellectual honesty is important. Similarly "facts" should be factual.

Quote:
Quote:
Even if the majority of Americans wanted to prevent blacks from voting there are structural impediments to this in our social contract (e.g. our constitution).

If 80% of US-Americans wanted to reinstate slavery, then just wait until the next election. They WILL get slavery back.


1) This is equivocation. I spoke of a majority. You equivocate to a substantial plurality.

2) This is not a given and this makes your statement a falsehood. I don't think you understand the structure of US government very well.

An "election" can't institute slavery.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 11:59 am
Ticomaya wrote:
knnknn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You clearly want to engage in moral relativism

And you clearly state that "God loves the US" is a valid argument then.



God loves all his children. Even apologists for terrorism.


If knnknn ever make a valid point let me know.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:35 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
knnknn wrote:
Quote:
I do not make the case that state war is a pretty thing, just that the notion that it is equal to terrorism is absurd. It can share similarities but you can't make a marginally reasonable case that they are equal.

But this is again an assumption that throwing an atom bomb onto Hiroshima is morally better because there are some checks and balances.

No, it is not. I said nothing of the sort.

OK, let me repeat again:
9/11 was an act of war. Hiroshima was an act of war.
The only difference so far is that the Hiroshima bombing had an democratically elected president behind it.

Yet you state that war <> terrorism and your only argument is that there are COUNTRIES behind the action (war) and NGOs behind terrorism.

That is a valid difference, yet the effect is pretty much the same.

Quote:
Quote:
If terrorism is bad because of the crimes, than war is bad because of the same crimes.

I have made no comment herein on this judgement. I have only spoken about the absurdity of your equation of the two.

Yet you fail to disprove what you call absurdity. Calling it absurd doesn't make it valid.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your citation is bull.

Where's your anger from? It was stated by a member of the 9/11 commission on Meet The Press (you can still view it online). Even if it's only 95% or 90%, it doesn't matter.

I assure you that I am not angry.

Then please stop to sound so. ("Absudity", "bull", "if you had used intellectual integrity", "I strongly recommend a basic understanding of social contracts", "intellectual dishonesty", "apochryphal citation", "intellectual honesty", "I don't think you understand"). Wow. Just 2 of your posts.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, social contract goes beyond popular opinion.

Theoretically. Practically it's pretty much the same, since most rulers are chosen democratically. That's why democracies never had any wars with each other.
Your first point is false. Beyond elections democracies have structures beyond popular opinion that form the basis of a social contract.

That has nothing to do with "Demo-cracy". You can have a "Kingdom" or a "Theocracy" with the same good qualities.

Quote:
Your second point is false. Democracies have had wars with each other.

Name them please.

Quote:
I don't think you understand the structure of US government very well.

Quote:
An "election" can't institute slavery.

There are 200+ countries. What's this fixation on the US? If Iraq turns democratic and 95% elect a warmonger and a slavery lover (because they love wars and slavery) you will get wars and slavery, no matter what the constitution says. The laws will be changed.

Thus it's pretty much the same whether "the population supports the terorrist" in a non-democracy (Saudi-Arabia, Egypt) or "the population elects the president to win against Japan" and he mass kills Japanese civilians.

You still failed to deliver a significant difference.
If "war is done by countries" and "terrorism is done by groups" is the only difference you have then I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS. (Although it's a shame that this is the only difference then.)

Beyond insulting me you had no other argument.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:51 am
cannistershot wrote:
If knnknn ever make a valid point let me know.

Uff, another one without arguments.... Are you a Bush supporter?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 08:52 am
knnknn wrote:

Yet you state that war <> terrorism and your only argument is that there are COUNTRIES behind the action (war) and NGOs behind terrorism.

That is a valid difference, yet the effect is pretty much the same.


Whether or not the effect is the same (I won't go into this as there's little profit in this debate) does nothing to your false claim that war is equal to terrorism.

Your claim was not that the effects were equal. Should you wish to revise your position and move your goalposts that's fine, but this is not what you had repeatedly claimed.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If terrorism is bad because of the crimes, than war is bad because of the same crimes.

I have made no comment herein on this judgement. I have only spoken about the absurdity of your equation of the two.

Yet you fail to disprove what you call absurdity. Calling it absurd doesn't make it valid.


Incorrect. I have demonstrated that your absurd notion that war and terrorism are equal is false.

Furthermore, I would have you know about burden of proof. You have not met burden of proof for your claim.

Quote:
Quote:

I assure you that I am not angry.

Then please stop to sound so.


I don't sound so. You simply have a problem with having your shoddy arguments carped.

Quote:
Quote:
Beyond elections democracies have structures beyond popular opinion that form the basis of a social contract.

That has nothing to do with "Demo-cracy". You can have a "Kingdom" or a "Theocracy" with the same good qualities.


That other governmental systems can demonstrate the same quality is not indicative of said qualities having nothing to do with democracy, you are not making any sense.

Quote:
Quote:
Your second point is false. Democracies have had wars with each other.

Name them please.


Sure. This is an infamously foolish claim that has been rehashed numerous times on the internet. So I can provide you with not only some wars, but a summary of the post naming quibbling for you.

Quote:
Greek Wars, 5th and 4th Centuries BCE
Democracies: City-states such as Athens, Syracuse et. al.
Rebuttal: Citizenship was limited to an elite minority which excluded women, slaves, foreigners, etc.
Counter-rebuttal: Among the citizenry, all voices were equal.
Quote: From The Wars of the Ancient Greeks by V. D. Hanson: "[D]emocratic practices abroad meant nothing at home when it was a question of Athenian self-interest -- the Assembly might ...readily fight to exterminate democracies like Syracuse (415-413).... Athenians ... fought for two years against [Syracuse,] the only other large democracy in the Greek World."
Punic Wars, 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE
Democracies: Rome vs. Carthage.
Rebuttal, Counter-rebuttal: Same as for the Greek democracies.
American Revolution, 1775-1783
Democracies: United States vs. Great Britain
Rebuttal: On the one hand, Great Britain was more liberal than most monarchies and it had a reasonably independent parliament, but on the the other hand, the franchise was quite restricted until the Reform Bill of 1832. Also, the United States was run by a provisional coalition during the war, and the country did not become a working democracy until after independence.
Counter-rebuttal: One of the most frequently stated goals of the American rebels was that they were entitled to enjoy all the civil rights quaranteed to native-born Englishmen (e.g. parliamentary representation, due process of law), but denied to the colonists. This certainly sounds like the Americans themselves recognized England as a model for their own democratic hopes.
American Indian Wars, 1776-1890
Democracies: United States vs. various Native American Indian tribes.
Rebuttal: The tribes did not have enough formal structure to be considered real democracies.
Counter-rebuttal: Well, just for starters, the Iroqouian Confederation was rather complex.
French Revolutionary Wars, 1793-1799
Democracies: France vs. Great Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands
Rebuttal: For Britain, see the comments for 1775. Also, France at this time was lurching left and right, with bloody purges each time, so it hardly qualifies as a stable democracy.
Franco-American Naval War, 1797-1799
Democracies: United States vs. France
Rebuttal: It was a Quasi War, for God's sake; even historians call it that. It was little more than a trade war with sporadic ritualized broadsides.
Counter-rebuttal: According to official Navy statistics (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm), the US lost 20 sailors and marines in the Quasi War. Relative to the numbers involved, it was bloodier than the Gulf War.
Anglo-American War, 1812-1815
Democracies: United States vs. Great Britain
Rebuttal: For Britain, use the same two hands as with the 1st Anglo-American War of 1775.
Franco-Roman War, 1849
Democracies: France vs. the Roman Republic.
Rebuttal: Both democratic regimes were less than a year old, and therefore don't count as stable democracies.
Counter-rebuttal: C'mon, that's just cheating. You're redefining your terms in order to exclude an awkward exception.
American Civil War, 1861-65
Democracies: United States vs. Confederate States
Rebuttal: The Confederacy was a slave-holding nation and therefore definitely not a democracy -- and while we're at it, the same could be said for the Union as well. Also, "[t]he South was not a sovereign democracy at that time... President Jefferson Davis was not elected, but appointed by representatives selected by confederate states. There was an election in 1861, but it was not competitive." [Rummel]
Counterrebuttal: Both nations used almost identical Constitutions, which were easily the most democratic in the world at the time. Both nations conducted state and congressional elections on schedule, despite the difficulties of wartime. They both allowed substantial dissent within their Congresses, even if the opposition in the South never quite formalized into a two party sytem. Every major policy decision in both nations was enacted and approved by elected officials. (And since when is being "appointed by representatives selected by [individual] states" undemocratic? Technically, that's how every American president has been chosen.)
Spanish-American War, 1898
Democracies: United States vs. Spain
Rebuttal: In Spain, "the two major political parties alternated in power, not by election but by arrangement preceding elections." [Rummel]
Counterrebuttal: That's how Switzerland does it, even today.
Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1901
Democracies: Great Britain vs. Transvaal and the Orange Free State
Rebuttal: The franchise in the Boer Republics was limited to the white male elite.
First World War, 1914-18
Democracies: France, Belgium, Great Britain, the USA, et. al. vs. Germany.
Rebuttal: Well, yes, the Imperial Reichtag was democratically elected by universal manhood suffrage, but it was a largely powerless body, like the UN. The real power in the German federation was in the hands of the Emperor who appointed the Chancellor and commanded the Army, and in the hands of the Junkers running the undemocratic parliament of the Kingdom of Prussia, which made up around half the federation.
Counterrebuttal: Sure, there were aristocratic privileges and traditions that were inconsistent with one-man-one-vote and full equality under the law, but Germany was every bit as democratic as the United Kingdom (cf. the House of Lords and English dominance over the indigenous peoples of Scotland, Ireland and Wales.) And the Reichtag controlled the budget, which is not exactly "powerless".
Occupation of the Ruhr, 1923
Democracies: France vs. Germany.
Rebuttal: The Germans didn't fight back.
Counterrebuttal: Well, to get technical, Germany didn't fight back. Individual Germans did, and some were killed for it.
Second World War, 1940-45
Democracies: Great Britain, United States, et al. vs. Finland.
Rebuttal: Finland fought on the same side as the Nazis against the Soviet Union, not against the democratic Allies.
Counterrebuttal: Well, the British bombed Finland; that sounds like being at war. Also, every Finnish soldier fighting the USSR meant that one German soldier could be sent west to fight the Allies. Every Russian soldier killed by the Finns weakened the Allied war effort.
First Indo-Pak War, 1947-49
Democracies: India vs. Pakistan.
Rebuttal: These regimes hadn't been around long enough to qualify as a stable democracies.
Iran, Guatemala and Chile, 1953, 1954 and 1973 respectively.
Democracies: United-States-backed coups in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.
Rebuttals: It's not certain how deeply the CIA was involved in overthrowing these democratically elected governments, but even if it was in up to its neck, these were coups and not wars. Covert operations by shadowy, bureaucratic elites are not democratic. They are not publicly debated and approved beforehand by the citizenry.
Counter-rebuttal: Technically, every military operation in the modern world is enacted by secretive bureacracies without public debate. (Was D-Day put to a vote?) If using the CIA is undemocratic, then so is using the Army; and if using the Army is undemocratic, then democracies can't fight wars, period. QED.
Cod Wars, 1958-61, 1973, 1975-6
Democracies: Iceland vs. United Kingdom.
Rebuttal: No blood = no war.
Lebanese Civil War, 1978, 1982
Democracies: Israel vs. Lebanon.
Rebuttal: Lebanon hardly counts as a stable democracy.
Croatian War of Independence, 1991-92
Democracies: Croatia vs. Yugoslavia.
Rebuttal: These regimes hadn't been around long enough to qualify as a stable democracies.
Counter-rebuttal: Even so, both nations had government that had been put in place through free elections. Even Weart admits that.
Border War, 1995
Democracies: Ecuador vs. Peru.
Rebuttal: You call that a war?
Counter-rebuttal: Soldiers got killed. Yep, that's a war.
Counter-Counterrebuttal: Also, President Fujimori of Peru had suspended the constitution in 1992, making himself a virtual dictator.
Counter-Countercounterrebuttal: Just as virtual reality isn't reality, so a virtual dictator isn't a dictator. It is usually considered legal for a democratic leader to exercize emergency powers in an emergency, isn't it?
Kosovo War, 1999
Democracies: The countries of NATO vs. Yugoslavia.
Rebuttal: Milosovic was a dictator.
Counter-rebuttal: In the legislative elections of Nov. 1996, Milosovic's supporters won a mere 64 out of 138 seats in parliament, and control of government probably would have gone to the opposition had not infighting and internal divisions prevented them from claiming their place at the helm. In 1997, Milosovic was re-elected president by a plausible margin of 59% to 38% [n.1] which suggests that these elections were not entirely rigged either. In October 2000, a soundly beaten Milosovic actually conceded defeat after an apparently free presidential election. Sure it took a week or so of prodding to get him to vacate the presidential palace, but a concession is a concession nonetheless. (and he gave in quicker than Al Gore.)
Fourth Indo-Pak War (Kargil War) 1999
Democracies: India vs. Pakistan.
Rebuttal: Those weren't Pakistanis. They were independent, volunteer guerrilla forces operating out of Pakistan, not regular troops.
Counter-Rebuttal: A technicality, at best. A cover story at worst. According to CNN [n.2], the insurgents were stiffened by Pakistani regulars, and supported by Pakistani artillery firing over the border into the neighboring democracy of India. The nations' air forces raided back and forth regularly.
Bad Rebuttal: And Pakistan wasn't even a democracy anyway. I seem to recall that they had a military coup sometime around then
Counter-Rebuttal in the form of a brief summary of a rather obscure war: That came later. The Pakis were driven back to the de facto international border on 17 July after two months of war. The civilian Prime Minister was deposed in October. The 2-month death toll was 1100, according to CNN.


See here: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

Note, if you want to argue this you will have to find someone else with whom to do so. Wars simply have been fought between democracies. If you want to quibble about the caliber of Democracy involved you'd have to find another net debator who doesn't have his sea legs.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think you understand the structure of US government very well.

Quote:
An "election" can't institute slavery.

There are 200+ countries. What's this fixation on the US?


Laughing You spoke of the US. Now that your claim is demonstrated to be absurd you have the gall to try to paint your inaccuracy as a fixation of mine.

Here is your claim in case your have forgotten it.

knnknn wrote:
If 80% of US-Americans wanted to reinstate slavery, then just wait until the next election. They WILL get slavery back.


It still demonstrates precious little understanding of US government.

Quote:
If Iraq turns democratic and 95% elect a warmonger and a slavery lover (because they love wars and slavery) you will get wars and slavery, no matter what the constitution says. The laws will be changed.


Moving the goalposts again? Look, your initial statement was debunked. I won't follow you as you move goalposts as there is no profit in myopic debate.

Quote:
Thus it's pretty much the same whether "the population supports the terorrist" in a non-democracy (Saudi-Arabia, Egypt) or "the population elects the president to win against Japan" and he mass kills Japanese civilians.


No, it is not. But we've beeen over this before.

Quote:
You still failed to deliver a significant difference.


Incorrect, I have done so. You simply are obdurate enough to press your point no matter what the cost (even if your points have to morph).

I may have failed to convince you, but I'm certainly fine with that. :-)

Quote:
If "war is done by countries" and "terrorism is done by groups" is the only difference you have then I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS. (Although it's a shame that this is the only difference then.)


It's not the only difference. Thing is, in your absurd claim that they are equal only one difference is needed to debunk it.

Quote:
Beyond insulting me you had no other argument.


I have not insulted you once. I have merely been rough with your foolish arguments. See, your arguments are sophomoric and I have no qualm in saying so. It is not an insult to you , you simply dislike having your arguments carped so easily.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:29 am
1) Thanks for the "wars between democracies" link. Good one.

2) Why are you so upset? I have started this thread because I wanted to have clear arguments between war and terrorism. But you act as if I stated that soldiers are murderers. Tell me, are you an US-American? Did you lose a family member on 11th September?

3) This quoting-within-quoting is tiresome, thus I won't reply to this democracy thing.

4) Please explain why 9/11 is an "Act of war" and not an "Act of terrorism" if your arguments are valid.

Quote:
I have not insulted you once
Please scroll up and reread your posts :-D What has this forum done to you? I simply can't imagine you on TV if you don't cool down a bit :-D
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:48 am
knnknn wrote:
1) Thanks for the "wars between democracies" link. Good one.


You are welcome.

Quote:
2) Why are you so upset?


I ahve already told you that I am not upset in the slightest. <shrugs>

Quote:
I have started this thread because I wanted to have clear arguments between war and terrorism.


Then you should be pleased.

Quote:
But you act as if I stated that soldiers are murderers.


I have no idea what acting like that constitutes.

Quote:
Tell me, are you an US-American? Did you lose a family member on 11th September?


These questions are wholly irrelevant to the arguments, and would only serve the purpose of creating ad hominem fallacies.

Quote:
3) This quoting-within-quoting is tiresome, thus I won't reply to this democracy thing.


Fine with me.

Quote:
4) Please explain why 9/11 is an "Act of war" and not an "Act of terrorism" if your arguments are valid.


I never made this claim. Are you familiar with the straw man fallacy?

Quote:
Quote:
I have not insulted you once
Please scroll up and reread your posts :-D What has this forum done to you? I simply can't imagine you on TV if you don't cool down a bit :-D


You are making no sense. TV? You are the only one making comments about individuals here, as opposed to addressing arguments.

It's understandable given the quality of the arguments you have put forth but it makes this kind of claim risible.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:11 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
4) Please explain why 9/11 is an "Act of war" and not an "Act of terrorism" if your arguments are valid.

I never made this claim.
No, but Bush has stated it. And he bombed a country to fight this war.

If your arguments are correct then 9/11 was terrorism, but Bush clearly stated that it's war: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=980404#980404
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2024 at 06:07:35