1
   

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

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:12 pm
knnknn wrote:
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


Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 12:47 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.

It's not only rhetoric, because a military answer followed.

Please also note that there are international laws that clearly define the measures that you can take against terrorism, and war is OF COURSE not part it. Otherwise you could bomb Germany, just because one of the terrosists was a German (just an example).

If 9/11 would have been terrorism then it would have been treated as an attack on some New Yorker buildings and some police/intelligence measures would follow. Obviously 9/11 was not terrorism. It was titled as "Act of war" and an "Attack on America". Al-Qaeda declared war, looks like war, is titled war, is flared back as war.

Which leads us back to the topic. Still a definition is missing that embraces the 9/11 pilots as soldiers in this war. What is the difference between soldiers, CIA assasins and terrorists?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:09 pm
Knnknn,

Just wanted to congratualte on the appropriateness of your icon.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:18 pm
Quote:
Just wanted to congratualte on the appropriateness of your icon.

Uff, another guy with the same comment and no argument.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:31 pm
knnknn wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.

It's not only rhetoric, because a military answer followed.

Please also note that there are international laws that clearly define the measures that you can take against terrorism, and war is OF COURSE not part it. Otherwise you could bomb Germany, just because one of the terrosists was a German (just an example).

If 9/11 would have been terrorism then it would have been treated as an attack on some New Yorker buildings and some police/intelligence measures would follow. Obviously 9/11 was not terrorism. It was titled as "Act of war" and an "Attack on America". Al-Qaeda declared war, looks like war, is titled war, is flared back as war.

Which leads us back to the topic. Still a definition is missing that embraces the 9/11 pilots as soldiers in this war. What is the difference between soldiers, CIA assasins and terrorists?


Knnknn, I disagree that military answer defines terrorism as war. You'll have to prove that it is something beyond opportunity for Bush to do what he damn-well pleased to do. You haven't proved anything except that your avatar is apt for your views, hon. Laughing
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 01:54 pm
Quote:
Knnknn, I disagree that military answer defines terrorism as war.

It's not only the military. It's also the talk "Act of war".

And so far the only difference between "acts of wars" and "acts of terrorism" pointed out in this thread is the "inner structure/procedures" of the parties.

War parties are organized as countries (meeting in official buildings) and terrorist parties are organized in small NGO groups meeting in private homes.

If that's the difference I accept it, but it merely means that wars are basically terrorism and terrorists are basically underfunded war parties (= if they had money, they would bomb the White House directly).

Actually another difference came into my mind: Terrorists haven't won yet, while countries have (in past wars).

As you may know Yetsin did a terroristic coup (with tanks etc), threw Gorbatshew out and gained control. If he had lost he would have been a terrorist. But he won, became the official leader and is now one of the richest guys of earth.

In other words: If USAma bin Laden would succeed, bomb the White House, atom bomb the Pentagon, kill every soldier and every disobedient US-American then he would be the new country leader of the US. If he loses he's a terrorist. If he wins he is king.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 02:05 pm
knnknn wrote:
Quote:
Knnknn, I disagree that military answer defines terrorism as war.

It's not only the military. It's also the talk "Act of war".

And so far the only difference between "acts of wars" and "acts of terrorism" pointed out in this thread is the "inner structure/procedures" of the parties.

War parties are organized as countries (meeting in official buildings) and terrorist parties are organized in small NGO groups meeting in private homes.

If that's the difference I accept it, but it merely means that wars are basically terrorism and terrorists are basically underfunded war parties (= if they had money, they would bomb the White House directly).

Actually another difference came into my mind: Terrorists haven't won yet, while countries have (in past wars).

As you may know Yetsin did a terroristic coup (with tanks etc), threw Gorbatshew out and gained control. If he had lost he would have been a terrorist. But he won, became the official leader and is now one of the richest guys of earth.

In other words: If USAma bin Laden would succeed, bomb the White House, atom bomb the Pentagon, kill every soldier and every disobedient US-American then he would be the new country leader of the US. If he loses he's a terrorist. If he wins he is king.


Ok, that's what you say, but can you prove that is so? Where are your sources? Without any source, you are only offering opinion... and what makes yours more right than mine or any other opinion opposing yours?
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 02:13 pm
princesspupule wrote:
Where are your sources?

Sources for what?
Yeltsin did a coup and became a VIP. Nazis lost and got prosecuted.

The proof is human's history. The winner doesn't get prosecuted. The winner writes the "true history"

If terrorists win (hey, French mob against the government) they become the new leaders. If the government loses (Moussolini) they get prosecuted.

Where is the "opinion" about that?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:13 pm
knnknn wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Then ask Bush to defend his statement, not me. I am not Bush's keeper and have no intentions of taking up the foolish task of defending his rhetoric.

It's not only rhetoric, because a military answer followed.


Your logic is flawed. This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy.

Basic logic lesson:

Whether or not a military response followed the statement says nothing about the veracity of the statement.

Its subsequence is also not indicative of a causative link.

Nor is there anything to ensure that military actions only will exist in response to military action.

Quote:
Please also note that there are international laws that clearly define the measures that you can take against terrorism, and war is OF COURSE not part it..


Please note that this is a falsehood. And in addition to ignorance of US government functions you've now added ignorance of international law to your exhibition.

International law, as it relates to military action, is something I have a keen interest in, and I would love to see you try to support your claim.

Quote:
Otherwise you could bomb Germany, just because one of the terrosists was a German (just an example).


An example of precisely what law knnknn? Laughing

Quote:
If 9/11 would have been terrorism then it would have been treated as an attack on some New Yorker buildings and some police/intelligence measures would follow.


Ex teacher pendantry alert: If 9/11 were terrorism it would have been....

This is a false claim based on your earlier false claim about international law. This highlights the importance of you attempting to substantiate your claim as you are now basing subsequent claims on your false claim.

Quote:
Obviously 9/11 was not terrorism.


Perhaps, but you have yet to make a coherent case for that, much less a logically sound or even convincing one.

Quote:
It was titled as "Act of war" and an "Attack on America". Al-Qaeda declared war, looks like war, is titled war, is flared back as war.


knnknn, are you familiar with the concept of mutual exclusivity? If not please look it up.

Now assuming you are, what basis do you have for treating war and terrorism as mutually exclusive?

Quote:
Which leads us back to the topic. Still a definition is missing that embraces the 9/11 pilots as soldiers in this war. What is the difference between soldiers, CIA assasins and terrorists?


Neat trick (how incoherent, false and logically inconsistent ranting somehow brings us full circle to your initial claim).

One such difference, as I have already stated, is the socially granted authority of soldiers vs the self-declared authority of terrorists.

It's becoming apparent that you just want to repeat your claims knnknn, you don't seem able or willing to substantiate them.

Quote:
Uff, another guy with the same comment and no argument.


I agree with you here. Your avatar, and any quips on it, have no bearing on the arguments you used.
0 Replies
 
knnknn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 04:54 pm
Quote:
One such difference, as I have already stated, is the socially granted authority of soldiers vs the self-declared authority of terrorists.

Yes I have accepted this already. However that makes the bombing of Hiroshima not "juster".

However I have still a problem with it, since war can be like terrorism in its end effects (= thousands of civilians dead on purpose). In other words: The definition does not define terrorism by its injustice. There could be a scenario where a great majority of the Arab world supports terrorists.

Quote:
Please note that this is a falsehood. And in addition to ignorance of US government functions you've now added ignorance of international law to your exhibition.

International law, as it relates to military action, is something I have a keen interest in, and I would love to see you try to support your claim.

"Military action" is not necessary "war". I talk about "war" you talk about "armed conflicts". AND STOP INSULTING ME in nearly every of your sentences.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh77.htm
Quote:
If the perpetrators were state agents sent by their government to carry out these attacks, then calling this an "act of war" and holding that government responsible for the attacks would not be particularly remarkable. However, as it appears that the acts were committed by non-state actors, novel legal issues arise
...
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (if not the Pentagon) on September 11, 2001 pose the legal dilemma of how to respond proportionally when the initial attack was itself unreasonable, excessive, and against civilians. Nonetheless, the suggested policy of holding entire nations accountable for the acts of a few would not appear to be lawful since collective punishment would, by definition, entail the unnecessary suffering of innocent populations.

However I must admit that since even professors disagree on some issues (and attacks such as 9/11 are a new type of "action") we better not argue about that further. What it shows is, that war and terrorism definitions melt together more and more.

Quote:
what basis do you have for treating war and terrorism as mutually exclusive?

None, as I said: War+Terror melt together.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:23 pm
knnknn wrote:
Quote:
One such difference, as I have already stated, is the socially granted authority of soldiers vs the self-declared authority of terrorists.

Yes I have accepted this already. However that makes the bombing of Hiroshima not "juster".


I have not, throughout the course of this exchange, ever claimed it makes it "juster".

I have merely disputed your claim that it was not different.

Quote:
However I have still a problem with it, since war can be like terrorism in its end effects (= thousands of civilians dead on purpose).


I can only hope that people "have a problem" with war.

Quote:
In other words: The definition does not define terrorism by its injustice. There could be a scenario where a great majority of the Arab world supports terrorists.


I have no idea what it is you attempted to say here.

Quote:
"Military action" is not necessary "war". I talk about "war" you talk about "armed conflicts".


This makes no difference, your legal claim is false no matter which of those terms are operative.

Feel free to attempt to substantiate your legal claim using any of those terms as the basis.

Quote:
AND STOP INSULTING ME in nearly every of your sentences.


I am not insulting you. I am demonstrating flaws in your arguments. I hold the arguments you have used herein in very low esteem because of their absurd, false and logically flawed nature.

If others holding your arguments in low esteem bothers you to the point that you can't differentiate between an opinion about an argument and an opinion about yourself, you might consider: a) making better arguments, b) avoiding debate, or even c) understanding that when your arguments are carped you have been presented with the opportunity to learn something.

In short, your sensitivity over how your arguments are treated should not be an impediment to them being called out for the absurdity that they are. This does not mean you are being insulted.

I mean no ill will towards you, but that can't translate into accepting your unacceptable arguments.

When you put up such BS, it should be called out as such. I can only hope that others will be so kind as to do so for me when I am wrong, as it is more important to learn than to salvage an ego.



This link does not support your legal claim in any way.

Quote:
However I must admit that since even professors disagree on some issues (and attacks such as 9/11 are a new type of "action") we better not argue about that further.


I'm fine with not arguing it, but will note that nothing there even attempts to substantiate your claim.

There is no mention whatsoever in international law about a proscription of warfare as a response to a terrorist attack.

Not a word. This isn't a matter of interpretation, what you claim exists and furthermore "clearly define(s)" what you claim exists simply does not exist at all.

Quote:
What it shows is, that war and terrorism definitions melt together more and more.


What what shows? The laws you imagined?

Quote:

Quote:
what basis do you have for treating war and terrorism as mutually exclusive?

None, as I said: War+Terror melt together.


You would do well to use more logically precise terms. There can be definitional overlap but as long as there are differentiating criteria they can't be called equal (i.e. "no difference").

If you want to move the goalposts to a more ambiguous "melt together" then make it clear as it redefines your position.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:28 pm
Just checking, still no point.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 06:04 pm
Re: A soldier, a terrorist, an assassin - do they differ?
knnknn wrote:
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.
Quote:
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.


This was the premise of your OP (opening post) knnknn, this is what you are supposed to prove to which we counter and disprove. Craven, Tico, and I have disproven your premise. What have you proven? Only that your avatar choice was/is apropros. How about quoting Thucydides, or Kissenger, or Chomsky, or the Geneva Convention to make a point? Any point. all I've seen you offer today is Yeltsin's terrorist coup, but what about it?

Quote:
Yeltsin did a coup and became a VIP. Nazis lost and got prosecuted.

The proof is human's history. The winner doesn't get prosecuted. The winner writes the "true history"

If terrorists win (hey, French mob against the government) they become the new leaders. If the government loses (Moussolini) they get prosecuted.

Where is the "opinion" about that?


What do you think it proves and why? Make a case for something, anything, and I'll gladly pin a real argument to the mat, but you have to make a decent argument for debate to take place. Otherwise, get yourself a coach to help you get the ball of debate back over the net to us. We can't debate if you can't at least do that much. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Quote:
Knnknn, I disagree that military answer defines terrorism as war.

It's not only the military. It's also the talk "Act of war".

And so far the only difference between "acts of wars" and "acts of terrorism" pointed out in this thread is the "inner structure/procedures" of the parties.

War parties are organized as countries (meeting in official buildings) and terrorist parties are organized in small NGO groups meeting in private homes.

If that's the difference I accept it, but it merely means that wars are basically terrorism and terrorists are basically underfunded war parties (= if they had money, they would bomb the White House directly).

Actually another difference came into my mind: Terrorists haven't won yet, while countries have (in past wars).

As you may know Yetsin did a terroristic coup (with tanks etc), threw Gorbatshew out and gained control. If he had lost he would have been a terrorist. But he won, became the official leader and is now one of the richest guys of earth.

In other words: If USAma bin Laden would succeed, bomb the White House, atom bomb the Pentagon, kill every soldier and every disobedient US-American then he would be the new country leader of the US. If he loses he's a terrorist. If he wins he is king.


Acts of war are often terrifying, knnknn, but not all terrifying events are acts of war... And it would be impossible for Osama bin laden to succeed, so he would be dead, not a king. Rolling Eyes He'd be another Tim McVeigh if he tried to do what you suggest.

And finally,
Quote:
war + terror melt together.
That is not true. Terror may be founded or unfounded: it is a feeling. War is not a feeling. War is an act.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:01 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.


The term "war criminal" springs to mind.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:09 pm
knnknn wrote:
Please also consider 1 thing: Hiroshima

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


Well, between 100,000 and 200,000 civilians (in addition to all the choice military targets destroyed).

Killing civilians was not the purpose though. We knew the civilian deaths would happen, but the goal was just to destroy entire cities to provide a shocking demonstration of the bombs' power.

And it was to break the will of the Japanese government, not so much the civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:16 pm
princesspupule wrote:
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...


They were part of the government of Afghanistan at the time of 9/11.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:20 pm
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.


Hiroshima was not punishment. It was an attempt to shock the Japanese government into accepting our terms of surrender, thus bringing their reign of terror to an end.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:26 pm
knnknn wrote:
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".


Sure it was. Japan was doing some bad things, and the point was to make them stop.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:46 pm
knnknn wrote:
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.


His intention was much like the Japanese intentions with Pearl Harbor. He hoped it would make us withdraw from the world and let him start his plan to conquer the Islamic world and exterminate any non-Muslims therein.



knnknn wrote:
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.


I wouldn't expect the accusations to go anywhere then.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:51 pm
knnknn wrote:
As you may know Yetsin did a terroristic coup (with tanks etc), threw Gorbatshew out and gained control.


I think you are confusing Yeltsen with the Communist hardliners who attempted such a coup and failed, shortly before the Soviet Union disintegrated and Yeltsen took control of Russia.
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 0.04 seconds on 06/21/2024 at 05:37:10