Who is a terrorist?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Note that I said a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians as the primary intended target. There is a moral difference between attacking combatants and trying to minimize civilian casualties, vs. strapping a nail bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up in a discotheque. I define only the latter effort as being terrorism.

I thought the prime target of bin Laden was to end military presence of the US in the Middle East? So he's no terrorist, following your definition?

They would say that we attacked first.

We can play this game all day

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

Note that I said a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians as the primary intended target. There is a moral difference between attacking combatants and trying to minimize civilian casualties, vs. strapping a nail bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up in a discotheque. I define only the latter effort as being terrorism.

I thought the prime target of bin Laden was to end military presence of the US in the Middle East? So he's no terrorist, following your definition?

Brandon

Quote:

Note that I said a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians as the primary intended target. There is a moral difference between attacking combatants and trying to minimize civilian casualties, vs. strapping a nail bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up in a discotheque. I define only the latter effort as being terrorism.

Immaterial. THe people who are dead are just as dead no matter what moral justification you put on it.

It doesn't matter who your primary target is, you kill civilians, you are a murderer the same as a terrorist is.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

Our enemies do support war and killing so if you are to be realisitic, you must realize that in defending our selves, our country and our way of life we must use measures that sometimes inflict harm on the innocent as well as the guilty. Especially when the guilty hide amongst the innocent.

Funny. And I thought you would support war and killing....

Wait, let me have a look at what Brandon said not so long ago:

Brandon9000 wrote:

In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die in order to prevent millions of innocent from dying later is worth it,

Hmmm... sounds like a holy war. "I don't give a damn if thousands of innocent people die, because I believe we have the right to do it." And McG, "you must realize that in defending our selves, our country and our way of life we must use measures that sometimes inflict harm on the innocent as well as the guilty" sounds exactly like something bin Laden could have said.

You are no better than those you are pretending to fight.

Brandon

Quote:

Note that I said a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians as the primary intended target. There is a moral difference between attacking combatants and trying to minimize civilian casualties, vs. strapping a nail bomb to your waist and blowing yourself up in a discotheque. I define only the latter effort as being terrorism.

Immaterial. THe people who are dead are just as dead no matter what moral justification you put on it.

It doesn't matter who your primary target is, you kill civilians, you are a murderer the same as a terrorist is.

Cycloptichorn

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Let me remind of one fact before you start that old "You're no better than they are" crap. "They" attacked first. "They" decided to wage war against the US.

They torture. They use weapons of mass destruction. They kill thousands of innocent civilians. But they did it first (?), so now we are allowed to do it, too.

Nice try. They started a war against the US. We will win that war. I don't particularly care how you, Cycloptichorn, or any other anti-war person feels about that fact.

So, what do you believe? That if we left the terrorists alone they would suddenly stop killing people? The only way to stop them is to kill them, kill their suppliers and defuse the reasons they have for being terrorists. Make being a terrorist the worse thing possible. Show the children that being a terrorist is a one way street to death and eternal damnation.

Brandon

You hide behind your false moral lines. They do not exist, they are merely a hollow justification so that you can continue to support people who kill innocents without feeling bad about it.

The basis for all moral arguments against killing (not practical arguments, but moral ones) stems from 'thou shalt not kill.' It doesn't qualify that at all. Killing during wartime is a sin, it doesn't matter what your intentions are, it doesn't matter if it is habitual or once that you kill civilians, the person is dead all the same. You cannot change this fact; it is the one certainty in this whole argument.....Cycloptichorn

Thanks for your opinion that all killing is equivalent. I draw a distinction between the WW2 liberation of Paris and a serial killer who offs people for fun.

"They" attacked first. "They" decided to wage war against the US.

The basis for all moral arguments against killing (not practical arguments, but moral ones) stems from 'thou shalt not kill.' It doesn't qualify that at all. Killing during wartime is a sin, it doesn't matter what your intentions are, it doesn't matter if it is habitual or once that you kill civilians, the person is dead all the same. You cannot change this fact; it is the one certainty in this whole argument.

McGentrix wrote:

"They" attacked first. "They" decided to wage war against the US.

The war began and is currently taking place in Iraq.
Correct?

When did "they" (meaning the Iraqis), under the control or advise of Saddam Hussein, attack "you"?

As I recall, al Qaeda bombed NYC, and the US immediately sought to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
The fact of the matter McG, is that Iraq did not attack you, hence the fact that it was called a "premptive strike".

Alqaedia doesn't exist.

W isn't, in fact, from Texas.

Cycloptichorn