we say terrorists kill innocent people...

No such luck. The difference is immense morally between the kind of accidental civilian deaths which have occurred in all wars, and the deliberate targetting of non-combatants by the Palestinians. If you know of a case in which the Israeli military, acting according to orders, deliberately tried to kill non-combatants, you need only post it.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

You're off topic. Start another thread for that discussion.

A strange thing to say to me...

Why? People say it to me all the time. We're discussing who's a terrorist and who isn't.

Wanna put it to a vote?

Let's take the vote in Iraq...or Iran...and let's be sure to include the name George Dumbya Bush in the list of contenders.

MY BET: There are tens of millions of people who consider George Dumbya Bush to be one of the world's greatest terrorists...and who consider the United States of America to be one of the greatest of the terrorists nations.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM...but they have a right to think that way...and in a formal debate, their position could easily be argued and sustained.

Terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder.

It is idiots like you on our side...and your counterparts on the other side that cause most of the problems in the world right now.

I think you were about to give an example of the US targetting non-combatants for attack in the past quarter century or so.

You simply are too fukin' stupid to deal with this stuff, Brandon. Go back to playing with the kids in the playground.

Brandon9000 wrote:

No such luck. The difference is immense morally between the kind of accidental civilian deaths which have occurred in all wars, and the deliberate targetting of non-combatants by the Palestinians. If you know of a case in which the Israeli military, acting according to orders, deliberately tried to kill non-combatants, you need only post it.

Yet again. 'Accidental civilian deaths'. It sounds so nice in the press, but it's still the plain fact that civilian, non-combatant people were killed by weapons deployed by the enemy. By deploying those weapons, they made a simple, concious choice.
They choose to deploy a mode of attack which can lead to civilian deaths. Especially nowadays there are alternatives. SMART weaponry, or even special op teams.
But this is acceptable. Why? PR. Now more then ever people know the value of good or bad press. And governments more then others. Every conflict is not just fought on the battlefield, it's being fought on every major newsstation and newspaper. So the moment civilians die, we see both sides start press action. When country A attacks headquarters of country B, and civilians die, we see B issuing press statements in wich the civilian deaths are often exaggerated, whereas country A will state that the mission was a succes with the deaths of innocent bystanders held to an 'acceptable' minimum.
We need to be aware of this double war. News from the warzone is NOT objective. A good claim can be made that no news is objective, but news items from war zones are especially suspect of being subjective.

Naj.

Since you cannot provide evidence to support your contentions, you forfeit, and my opinion prevails, at least formally.

NickFun wrote:

At least most other wars had a reason and defined goals. This war by the US was simply a vengeful act of terrorism.

In what way was it terrorism? Terrorism is any action you don't agree with? The stated rationale for the war was concern about weapons development by Saddam Hussein, not revenge. Can you disprove this?

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

At least most other wars had a reason and defined goals. This war by the US was simply a vengeful act of terrorism.

In what way was it terrorism? Terrorism is any action you don't agree with? The stated rationale for the war was concern about weapons development by Saddam Hussein, not revenge. Can you disprove this?

The UN did a pretty thorough search and did not find any WMD's. There was no indication Saddam had any technology to develop WMD's. There is no evidence Saddam was any threat at all to the US. In a standard court of law Bush and his cronies would haev been found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced thusly.

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

At least most other wars had a reason and defined goals. This war by the US was simply a vengeful act of terrorism.

In what way was it terrorism? Terrorism is any action you don't agree with? The stated rationale for the war was concern about weapons development by Saddam Hussein, not revenge. Can you disprove this?

The UN did a pretty thorough search and did not find any WMD's. There was no indication Saddam had any technology to develop WMD's. There is no evidence Saddam was any threat at all to the US. In a standard court of law Bush and his cronies would haev been found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced thusly.

NickFun wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

At least most other wars had a reason and defined goals. This war by the US was simply a vengeful act of terrorism.

In what way was it terrorism? Terrorism is any action you don't agree with? The stated rationale for the war was concern about weapons development by Saddam Hussein, not revenge. Can you disprove this?

The UN did a pretty thorough search and did not find any WMD's. There was no indication Saddam had any technology to develop WMD's. There is no evidence Saddam was any threat at all to the US. In a standard court of law Bush and his cronies would haev been found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced thusly.

You don't understand, Nick...

...in Brandon's mind it is not terrorism when we do it. It is not killing and maiming innocents when we do it.

It only is terrorism and murder when "they" do it.

He is an idiot, Nick.

You'd have better luck trying to reason with a rabid skunk.

NickFun wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

At least most other wars had a reason and defined goals. This war by the US was simply a vengeful act of terrorism.

In what way was it terrorism? Terrorism is any action you don't agree with? The stated rationale for the war was concern about weapons development by Saddam Hussein, not revenge. Can you disprove this?

The UN did a pretty thorough search and did not find any WMD's. There was no indication Saddam had any technology to develop WMD's. There is no evidence Saddam was any threat at all to the US. In a standard court of law Bush and his cronies would haev been found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced thusly.

I won't address off topic statements no matter how tempted I am. Please support your assertion that the war in Iraq qualifies as an act of terrorism.

Terrorism is terrible. No doubt about that--so don't misunderstand me. We define terrorists as non-state combatants. What makes them more horrible that state-run combatants? What about state-sponsored terrorism? What does THAT mean? Can it be claimed that because they are sponsored by a state they are not terrorists? We also say that terrorists are worse that state-militarary forces because they (the terrorists) kill innocent civilians. I've never understood why we call civilians who condone official killing on their behalf "innocent" (except for children, of course). We killed hundreds of children, old people pets in our shock and awe of Bagdad (not to mention Hiroshima), and Isreal is doing it now. In what sense are such acts not terroristic and therefore morally superior to the horrendous acts of Islamist terrorists? ALL FORMS OF MILITARY ACTION ARE TERRIBLE. WE MUSTN'T JUSTIFY ONE WITH OUR DEFINITION OF THE OTHER.
The matter becomes more complex when we bring into the discussion the justification of self-defense. Bush says he's defending America in his attack on Bagdad. We probably used the same pretext when we attacked Mexico.
"Informal" terrorism is HORRIBLE, but so is "official" war.

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

At least most other wars had a reason and defined goals. This war by the US was simply a vengeful act of terrorism.

In what way was it terrorism? Terrorism is any action you don't agree with? The stated rationale for the war was concern about weapons development by Saddam Hussein, not revenge. Can you disprove this?

The UN did a pretty thorough search and did not find any WMD's. There was no indication Saddam had any technology to develop WMD's. There is no evidence Saddam was any threat at all to the US. In a standard court of law Bush and his cronies would haev been found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced thusly.

I won't address off topic statements no matter how tempted I am. Please support your assertion that the war in Iraq qualifies as an act of terrorism.

As a rule I don't find it necessary to prove the obvious. But seeing as how Brandon is so lost here, I will try.

Let's try the dictionary definition for terroism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Case closed.

Mr. Brandon, I agree there is a difference between civilian deaths in war, that you wish to term accidental, and the victims targeted by terrorist suicide bombers. The difference of course lies in the purpose, and in that, you are right, this difference is a moral one. But may point, which you apparently refuse to see, is that this difference is IMHO not as big as you seem to want to portray it. After all, in essence, in both cases THE PERSONS IN CHARGE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CIVILIANS COULD DIE IN THE PLANNED ACTION, AND IN BOTH CASES THE DECISION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE ON REGARDLESS.

However, in a war, those deeds are done under a shroud of legimitacy, making this, perhaps, all the more dangerous.
You are no doubt familiar with this tired old saw: "Kill one, and you are a murderer. Kill a million, and you are a conqueror."

And if you fail to see the truth in there, then, indeed, there is no point in arguing further.

The facts are in -- the US is the worlds largest terrorist orgainization.

If you want to argue that all wars are bad, and that the US is simply in the category of countries that sometimes wage war, then I am not interested in arguing. However, it's not terrorism, and it's not even remotely in the same moral category as when someone detonates a bomb in a discotheque. They do it, we don't.

Brandon, you are suffering from hardening of the categories.