0
   

Terrorism gave birth to the US and Israel.

 
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 01:44 pm
CoastalRat wrote:

Mostly for sport. But it was not to make the indians starve. Any good history of the west would give you this info, but I am glad to provide it for free. :wink:


so, eliminating the main food supply for an entire population is not intended to cause any starvation if it's done in a sporting manner? do be so kind as to list a "good" history of the west where i can find this information, in case there's other valuable information there i can benefit from.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:00 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
I'm not gonna play this stupid little game of yours. You know as well as I that shooting for the sport of it (which I disagree with, btw) and killing with the intent of wiping out the food supply in order to starve the indians are two very distinct things.

But you go right ahead and think otherwise since it helps your argument.


fine, i'll do that. when actions have bad consequences, those who commit the actions are responsible for those consequences. there is an extenuating circumstance if the actions were undertaken with good intentions, but doing something for the fun of it does not constitute a good intention. so, from a practical standpoint, it's irrelevant if there was no intent to cause starvation, because slaughtering the buffalo did cause starvation. to make an analogy, negligent homicide is still homicide, even if it's not deliberate.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:08 pm
Yitwail, I agree with your above paragraph. What happened to the Native Americans was a crime. Killing off the buffalo did indeed lead to starvation. But the thread is talking about terrorism. Using the example of killing off the buffalo, selling liquor to the indians, etc as a way of equating our government with terrorists is what I have been ridiculing.

Heck, about the only way you could equate the two would be to talk about the massacres our military committed against the unarmed women and children in indian encampments. But then there are also plenty of indian atrocities committed against unarmed settlers, men, women and children. So neither side has a great argument for the moral highground.

Have a good day.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:40 pm
thanks, you have a nice day too.

the occupation/annexation of Indian lands was a messy affair. there were even Indians who aligned themselves with the Cavalry against other Indians, but the bottom line is, the US government did not distinguish itself for fair and humane treatment of Indians, as you've acknowledged. with that settled, i won't be pursuing this discussion any further.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 11:43 pm
During the escalation of violence before the American Revolutionary War rebels would terrorize Loyalists by tarring and feathering them, pouring hot tea down their throats, and beating them.

Here's a description of the process from The Good American:
Quote:


In it's website about the American Revolution, PBS goes on to mention:
Quote:
At this point the person was usually taken about the streets of the town in a cart surrounded by shouting people. In some cases he might be placed in the stocks, hanged or beaten. If he survived, he was finally left on his own. Most who got this far were barely alive, exhausted and severely burned. The tar was extremely difficult to get off the badly burned skin, which often got infected. Those that survived could not be helped by anyone. Giving comfort or first aid to a survivor often would result in the helper being attacked.

Tar'd and Feather'd'
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 08:32 am
InfraBlue wrote:
During the escalation of violence before the American Revolutionary War rebels would terrorize Loyalists by tarring and feathering them, pouring hot tea down their throats, and beating them.


There is no mention of any organized group (other than the British soldiers and loyalists themselves) taking part in these activites.

From the description on the linked page it sounds more like a criminal act than terrorism. But if these acts were committed by an organized group that can be more clearly defined than "rebels" then it could possibly qualify as terrorism. We would also have to look at it in the context of what was and what wasn't agreed upon "acceptable" conduct at the time - not by todays standards.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 05:00 pm
The point is that these activities were engaged in by American colonials distinguished by their opposition to Britain's political/economic policies, and their willingness to use violence against civilians to terrorize those colonials who were loyal to British rule, and or British civilians themselves.

Pointing out how a government treats or regards these activities does not negate the purpose of their implementation, to terrorize to achieve a political goal.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 10:22 pm
Terrorism is to produce terror. George Washington by attacking on XMas day helped introduce terror in a new level in that there are no sacred days in which military personnel and civilians can take comfort in i.e. an attack is imminent regardless.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 08:06 am
InfraBlue wrote:
Pointing out how a government treats or regards these activities does not negate the purpose of their implementation, to terrorize to achieve a political goal.


Yes, it does. That's how we differentiate between what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act". You also can't apply comtemporary standards to acts that were committed centuries ago. A lawful act means it was within the bounds of the laws at the time it was committed not within the bounds of current laws.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 05:14 pm
Differentiating between what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act" does not alter the meaning of the word "terrorism," outside of the jurisprudence of a country.

We are not discussing law here, we are discussing acts that can be labeled "terrorism."

So, one country, e.g. the USA, goes through legalistic contortions to distinguish jurisprudentially for itself what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act" in regard to its laws. Another country, e.g. Iran, openly supports what can be termed a "terrorist organization," i.e. Hezbollah. Yet another country, i.e. the UK, treated individuals and organizations in Palestine which can be termed "terrorists" as criminals, and treated those activities which can be termed "terrorism" as "criminal acts."

The jurisprudential hair splitting of the first country has done nothing to alter, outside of the jurisprudence of that country itself, the meaning of the word "terrorism," i.e. the the systematic use of violence to produce terror as a means to intimidate and/or coerce societies or governments.

Likewise, the support of the second country, or the treatment of acts of terrorism as "criminal acts" by the third have done nothing to alter the definition of the word "terrorism."

That term can be applied to acts that were committed centuries ago if those acts abide by the definition of that term, "terrorism."

Those American colonials who tarred and feathered Loyalist colonials and British citizens--usually tax collectors, employees and officials of the British government, and their sympathizers--all necessarily rebels against the British government, systematically used terror through these activities as a means to intimidate and/or coerce a society or government. Ergo, those American colonial rebels were terrorists. The destruction of property, i.e. goods and chattels, e.g. The Boston Tea Party, can also be termed "terrorism," by the definition given.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 05:59 pm
In fact, in Boston, the mob surrounded the house of the Stamp Tax Collector, and fired shots into the house, then set fire to the house, again firing shots as the man and his companions fled from the rear of the house.

Certainly, that, and the hangings which succeeded battles between Tories and Rebels in the South can be characterized as terrorist acts. Blowing up the King David Hotel can be characterized as a terrorist act. Claiming that therefore, terrorism gave birth to the United States and Isreal is a demonstration of a complete lack of proportion in judgment, and evidence of profound stupidity in historical perspective.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:48 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Differentiating between what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act" does not alter the meaning of the word "terrorism," outside of the jurisprudence of a country.

We are not discussing law here, we are discussing acts that can be labeled "terrorism."

So, one country, e.g. the USA, goes through legalistic contortions to distinguish jurisprudentially for itself what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act" in regard to its laws. Another country, e.g. Iran, openly supports what can be termed a "terrorist organization," i.e. Hezbollah. Yet another country, i.e. the UK, treated individuals and organizations in Palestine which can be termed "terrorists" as criminals, and treated those activities which can be termed "terrorism" as "criminal acts."

The jurisprudential hair splitting of the first country has done nothing to alter, outside of the jurisprudence of that country itself, the meaning of the word "terrorism," i.e. the the systematic use of violence to produce terror as a means to intimidate and/or coerce societies or governments.


Nonsense. We have International laws and agreements that define what is lawful warfare (i.e. Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, Lieber Code), terrorism, etc... They aren't definitions based on a single country's definition. They are the definitions that the overwhelming majotiy of countries in the world have agreed to whereas only YOU have decided on your your definition.

Quote:
That term can be applied to acts that were committed centuries ago if those acts abide by the definition of that term, "terrorism."


I have no doubt that the term can be applied to these. Doing so however, renders the word meaningless. Next you'll be trying to apply it to common muggers on the claim that they are trying to force governments to remedy some perceived injustice by "terrorizing" people with cash in their wallets.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 09:13 pm
The definition of terrorism I've been using is a dictionary definition thereof.

"International laws and agreements that define what is lawful warfare, terrorism, etc. . . ." are definitions for jurisprudential purposes. Jurisprudential purposes are not the end all, be all criteria of word definitions, and the language is all the better for it.

Going by your criteria, what the Irgun and LEHI committed in Palestine isn't terrorism because the British treated it at criminal behavior, and it wasn't agreed upon by international law.

What the Irgun and LEHI committed in Palestine was terrorism regardless of how the British treated it as criminal behavior, and its lack of international jurisprudential agreement.

I won't be trying to apply the term "to common muggers on the claim that they are trying to force governments to remedy some perceived injustice by 'terrorizing" people with cash in their wallets,' because that is a stupid conclusion, and is merely a weak straw man argument that you have created.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 05:03 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
The definition of terrorism I've been using is a dictionary definition thereof.

"International laws and agreements that define what is lawful warfare, terrorism, etc. . . ." are definitions for jurisprudential purposes. Jurisprudential purposes are not the end all, be all criteria of word definitions, and the language is all the better for it.


Horsecrap. Your supposed dictionary definition isn't the be all and end all either and your mincing of definitions just leaves a lot of ambiguity. Nothing means anything and everything means nothing.

Quote:
Going by your criteria, what the Irgun and LEHI committed in Palestine isn't terrorism because the British treated it at criminal behavior, and it wasn't agreed upon by international law.


More nonsense. The Irgun and LEHI certianly don't fall under the definitions of a lawful combant or beligerent in any International law or treaty which leaves the options of their actions being either terrioism or a simple crime. Your silly straw man here that it was "treated as criminal behavior" doesn't make it a simple crime. The difference between a terrorist act and a simple crime is in the motivation and almost no western country has any law against motivations. The only issues they can arrest and try a person for is their actions - which are criminal. The sanctions for a terrorist act and a siimple crime are usually identical so your claim that they "treated it like a crime" is silly on it's face.

Quote:

What the Irgun and LEHI committed in Palestine was terrorism regardless of how the British treated it as criminal behavior, and its lack of international jurisprudential agreement.


Which is exactly why the British government classified both them both as terrorist organizations - contrary to your assertions otherwise.

Quote:
I won't be trying to apply the term "to common muggers on the claim that they are trying to force governments to remedy some perceived injustice by 'terrorizing" people with cash in their wallets,' because that is a stupid conclusion, and is merely a weak straw man argument that you have created.


Give it time. You'll be doing it before you know it...
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2005 09:38 pm
fishin' wrote:
Horsecrap. Your supposed dictionary definition isn't the be all and end all either and your mincing of definitions just leaves a lot of ambiguity.


I didn't say my definition was the be all end all of the word terrorism. You're assuming your narrow legalisms are.

Quote:
Nothing means anything and everything means nothing.


Nice. That was almost a tautology. An example of your thought processes.

Quote:
More nonsense. The Irgun and LEHI certianly don't fall under the definitions of a lawful combant or beligerent in any International law or treaty which leaves the options of their actions being either terrioism or a simple crime.


The Irgun and LEHI certainly didn't fall under the definitions of a "lawful combatant" or "belligerent" because the British made no such stupid distinctions. Those distinctions have been made recently by the US government for its own legalistic purposes, mostly to curtail individuals' human rights.

Quote:
Your silly straw man here that it was "treated as criminal behavior" doesn't make it a simple crime.


Well, you certainly have a predilection for straw men. Who said anything about "simple crime"? What the hell does that mean, anyway? I was drawing an example of the ridiculousness of the criteria you are trying to present, what with your distinctions "between what is 'lawful warfare', 'terrorism' and a 'criminal act', yada yada . . . Once again, the British made no such stupid distinctions.

The point is that no matter how the British dealt with it--they could have paid the Irgun and LEHI stipends for their acts--these groups committed terrorism, as terrorism is generally defined, as I have done so previously.

Quote:
The difference between a terrorist act and a simple crime is in the motivation and almost no western country has any law against motivations.


Okay. So what? Once again, you are arguing from a legalistic point of view, whatever "simple crime" means.

Quote:
The only issues they can arrest and try a person for is their actions - which are criminal. The sanctions for a terrorist act and a siimple crime are usually identical so your claim that they "treated it like a crime" is silly on it's face.


What is silly on it's face is the distinctions you are trying to make-- "lawful warfare," "terrorism," "criminal act"--which you yourself have pointed out above. You are arguing against yourself.

Now that's entertainment!
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2005 10:31 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
I didn't say my definition was the be all end all of the word terrorism. You're assuming your narrow legalisms are.


My "narrow legalisms" are what the nations of the world have agreed upon. That's hardly narrow.


Quote:
The Irgun and LEHI certainly didn't fall under the definitions of a "lawful combatant" or "belligerent" because the British made no such stupid distinctions. Those distinctions have been made recently by the US government for its own legalistic purposes, mostly to curtail individuals' human rights.


You ignorance of history is showing agin. The terms (and definitions of..) "lawful combatant" and "belligerent" came from the 1899 Hague Peace Conference at the request of the Russians. Your claim that they came from anything recent within the U.S. is 100% bullshit.

Quote:
Well, you certainly have a predilection for straw men. Who said anything about "simple crime"?


I did. Apparently you have reading comprehension problems too.

Quote:
Once again, the British made no such stupid distinctions.


And again you'd be wrong. You must be getting used to that though. Maybe you should try looking up Sir Julian Pauncefote since he was the British representative at the 1899 Hague Conference. The British not only signed the resulting treaty they complained about treatment of British civilians under the treaty during the 1st World War and insisted it be strengthed afterwards. So much for not making distinctions... Or is it your claim that the British ignored these international treaties while dealing with these groups??

Quote:
Okay. So what? Once again, you are arguing from a legalistic point of view, whatever "simple crime" means.


lmao Yeah, ok. Just keep in mind that this "legalistic point of view" is the Internationally accepted view whereas your point of view is accepted only by you.

Quote:
What is silly on it's face is the distinctions you are trying to make-- "lawful warfare," "terrorism," "criminal act"--which you yourself have pointed out above. You are arguing against yourself.


Your failure to comprehend doesn't create a situation where I am arguing against myself.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 01:29 am
fishin wrote:
My "narrow legalisms" are what the nations of the world have agreed upon. That's hardly narrow.


If anything, your obtuseness certainly is redundant. Your narrow legalisms are what some of the nations of the world have agreed upon for their legalistic purposes. Their legalistic purposes are most certainly not conclusive for the definition of any word. Their legalistic purposes are narrow for the purposes of defining the word "terrorism."

Quote:
You ignorance of history is showing agin. The terms (and definitions of..) "lawful combatant" and "belligerent" came from the 1899 Hague Peace Conference at the request of the Russians. Your claim that they came from anything recent within the U.S. is 100% bullshit.


Try to keep up with the discussion. I did not mention anywhere where the terms "lawful combatant" or "belligerent" came from. I was referring to the distinctions between "terrorism" and "lawful combatant" and "belligerent" that the US government is making. Those distinctions that the US government has made are recent.

Yes, You mentioned "simple crime," I didn't. You created another straw man argument when you wrote, "your silly straw man here that it was "treated as criminal behavior" doesn't make it a simple crime".

Quote:
And again you'd be wrong. You must be getting used to that though. Maybe you should try looking up Sir Julian Pauncefote since he was the British representative at the 1899 Hague Conference. The British not only signed the resulting treaty they complained about treatment of British civilians under the treaty during the 1st World War and insisted it be strengthed afterwards. So much for not making distinctions... Or is it your claim that the British ignored these international treaties while dealing with these groups??


I was referring to the Britain's treatment of the Irgun and LEHI and their activities. I wasn't referring to Britain's complaints about treatment of British civilians. To get you back on track, we are talking about terrorism here, and Britain's treatment of the Irgun and LEHI, two terrorist organizations that pitted themselves against Britain and the Arabs in Palestine, not British complaints about the treatment of civilians during the First World War. Britain didn't distinguish the Irgun and LEHI as "belligerents" or "lawful combatants." The British regarded these two groups as criminal organizations, and dealt with them through their Criminal Investigative Division in Palestine, a police unit of the British Mandate in Palestine.

Quote:
Just keep in mind that this "legalistic point of view" is the Internationally accepted view whereas your point of view is accepted only by you.


This legalistic point of view is accepted by certain countries for legalistic purposes. My point of view is based on dictionary definitions of the word "terrorism."

Quote:
Your failure to comprehend doesn't create a situation where I am arguing against myself.


Your failure to coherently argue you point, first saying that the actions of the colonial rebels:

Quote:
. . . sounds more like a criminal act than terrorism.


then attempting to differentiate between what is "lawful warfare", "terrorism" and a "criminal act," and then saying:

Quote:
Your silly straw man here that it was "treated as criminal behavior" doesn't make it a simple crime. The difference between a terrorist act and a simple crime is in the motivation and almost no western country has any law against motivations. The only issues they can arrest and try a person for is their actions - which are criminal. The sanctions for a terrorist act and a siimple crime are usually identical so your claim that they "treated it like a crime" is silly on it's face. .


contradicting your original premise was entertaining at first, but has now become merely tiresome.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2005 02:56 pm
Of course politics does play a huge role in how a government interprets a political act. If it wants to tone down the situation it would treat it as a mere criminal act seeing that Israel is no threat to Britain but a nuisance factor. But a tiny act or manufactured act could be hyped up as terrorism to build up a case for attack on a nation perceived as a threat or as a prey for its resources whether it be its mineral wealth or oil reserves or strategic location. Terrorism is a nebulous term and used for political purposes thus my provocative topic.
0 Replies
 
catch22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2005 05:36 am
The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex.
Quote:
In US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.}


I presume that state terrorism comes under the ambit of this very definition.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/17/2022 at 01:35:16