we say terrorists kill innocent people...

real life wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Brandon

By what authority does the US police the world, invading country after country?

It's called self defense. Remember 9/11 ?

Real life.

B*llsh*t.
I deplore 9/11, just as everyone else does. Yet we criticize other countries for millitaristic actions, when they have been under attack much more recent then 9/11

That's too broad a question to be answerable, and certainly off topic.

I asked you for an example. You have a penchant for asking us for examples to prove your theories wrong, but where are your examples to stave your theories?

najmelliw wrote:

Terrorists, suicide bombers, are individuals as well. They claim they are at war, so in what way is a suicide bomb attack any different then the marines at Abu Ghraib? By your OWN words : Individual soldiers have committed atrocities in every war.

The marines at Abu Ghraib were soldiers disobeying orders, and an anomaly, and even they, as foul as their crimes were, didn't commit mass murder of non-combants. They've been arrested and prosecuted by our government. The Palestinian attacks on the helpless are the standard operating procedure and have gone on for decades. When have the official representatives of the Palestinians arrested and prosecuted anyone still alive associated with a deliberate bombing of civilians? The comparison is, frankly, ludicrous.

Brandon

By what authority does the US police the world, invading country after country?

Brandon wrote:

That's too broad a question to be answerable, and certainly off topic.

Not off topic at all, unless you label anything that can eventually prove you wrong as 'off topic'.
And not too broad at all. If we come to the conclusion that the US has no justification to invading other countries, then how is that different from Hitler trying to conquer the world?


Also, it was all over the news. Israel attacked several UN positions in Lebanon even though they knew what they were. In one incident communications were established and Israel promised to cease fire. It never happened, and all UN personnel was killed.

Only this:

If the US and the UN operate without moral justification or "just cause" we cannot say that what we're doing is right.
Maybe we're just trying to impose our ways on the rest of the world. We're definitely stealing their values.

It could be that the motivation for out "policing the world" is nothing but greed and fear.

In that case there are no greater terrorists than the US and the UN....

najmelliw wrote:

I asked you for an example. You have a penchant for asking us for examples to prove your theories wrong, but where are your examples to stave your theories?

I asked you for an example pages ago:

Brandon9000 wrote:

najmelliw wrote:

Terrorists, suicide bombers, are individuals as well. They claim they are at war, so in what way is a suicide bomb attack any different then the marines at Abu Ghraib? By your OWN words : Individual soldiers have committed atrocities in every war.

The marines at Abu Ghraib were soldiers disobeying orders, and an anomaly, and even they, as foul as their crimes were, didn't commit mass murder of non-combants. They've been arrested and prosecuted by our government. The Palestinian attacks on the helpless are the standard operating procedure and have gone on for decades. When have the official representatives of the Palestinians arrested and prosecuted anyone still alive associated with a deliberate bombing of civilians? The comparison is, frankly, ludicrous.

Is it that I am obligated to answer you, although you utterly ignore my questions? I asked first, so you go first.

Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.

Most of the wars in history have had practical, not moral justifications.

Quote:

Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.

So you think there's no connection between the meddling of our countries and the terrorist bombings?

Quote:

Most of the wars in history have had practical, not moral justifications.

That's only true in retrospect, if at all.
Hitler was not waging his wars because it was practical.
The rise of the Roman empire was not a practical matter. There was always the moral justification in the mind of the emperor.

Also, someone blowing up a school-bus, horrifying as that is, pales in comparison with the fact that we hold entire nations on the brink of starvation, where as many children as could fit in ten schoolbuses die every week at times.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.

So you think there's no connection between the meddling of our countries and the terrorist bombings?

The question isn't whether there's a connection or not. The question is whether such meddling itself constitutes terrorism.

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.

So you think there's no connection between the meddling of our countries and the terrorist bombings?

The question isn't whether there's a connection or not. The question is whether such meddling itself constitutes terrorism.

does that mean we are moving on to talk about the semantics of terrorism and what defines a terrorist (unfortunately I suspect the question was rhetorical).

Anyway. Heres a common definition of terrorisim

Quote:

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

In the current confilict with Israel and Lebanon, are the Israel army using violence (or the threat of violence) against Lebanese civilians? Yes.

Is this in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature? Yes

Is this done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear ? Yes

No, Brandon. The US. Army is not guilty of terrorism by the way you define it. I have made my points, as have others but so far, all you say is: "Since we (USA) do not deliberately target civilians, we are not terrorists."
You probably firmly believe that since america wages war on terrorism, you are the good guys. Just look at how Israel wages its war against the Hezbollah... and will fail. They want it gone. That won't happen. The Hezbollah is firmly entrenched in that society, and every bomb that drops only makes the moral believe in their just goal of eradicating Israel that much stronger. You can't win against terrorists with armies and bombs.
You can kill civilians with armies and bombs.
But that's ok, because they are not the real target. You play fast and loose with words to justify your own view on the world, with a disturbingly naive trust in the White House and the US army.
If you drop a bomb on an area where civilians live and say: "Oh, those deaths are only accidental, we wanted to hit so and so structure located there..." It's allright in your book, right?

Michael_S wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.

So you think there's no connection between the meddling of our countries and the terrorist bombings?

The question isn't whether there's a connection or not. The question is whether such meddling itself constitutes terrorism.

does that mean we are moving on to talk about the semantics of terrorism and what defines a terrorist (unfortunately I suspect the question was rhetorical).

Anyway. Heres a common definition of terrorisim

Quote:

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

In the current confilict with Israel and Lebanon, are the Israel army using violence (or the threat of violence) against Lebanese civilians? Yes.

Is this in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature? Yes

Is this done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear ? Yes

If you have evidence that the Israeli army has attacked civilians as an intended and not accidental target, as the Palestinians do, you need only present evidence for it. It's the Palestinians who firebomb school buses, not the Israelis.

Civilians have been targeted in Lebanon by the Israeli Defence Forces and in northern Israel by Hizbullah leaving hundreds dead.

After weeks of fighting, bombs and rockets continue to fall indiscriminately on women, children, ambulances, rescue workers and other innocent victims of this escalating conflict. These deliberate attacks violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes.