Ukraine Crisis - Page 532

On May 14 2014 11:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:

The first part yes, not the guerilla part though. Guerilla warfare has nothing to do with terrorism. All he shows is a clear misunderstanding of what terrorism is. Guerilla warfare is a form of fighting/combat. It has nothing to do with terrorism. I guess you could make the claim that the victims of the guerilla warfare were terrified by the fact they were engaged in combat, but that doesn't constitute terrorism, unless we are to say that all warfare is terrorism.

The capturing of journalists and military observers caused terror to the individuals who kidnapped, so I would be compelled to agree.

But a simple direct mapping led him to describe the American Revolution as terrorists. It says enough.


Yeah, all those police stations/armories captured didn't have any weapons at all.
Lol not even the Ukrainians in this thread believe the bs you say lol. You still have to show any proof for your crazy claims.

On May 14 2014 11:49 m4ini wrote:


Not even acknowledging your posting, sorry.

Definition of terrorism.

And then there's that.



The try does, yes.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., military personnel in peacetime or civilians).

On May 14 2014 11:50 hunts wrote:


So then you do agree that the armed seperatists are terrorists because they have tortured and killed politicians, they have kidnapped, beat up, threatened, and robbed journalists, and apparently in 2 of the cities they occupy are not allowing anyone to leave.

I'll at least show you some respect, even if you give none. But you are honestly the first person I've ever heard make the argument that guerilla warfare is terrorism. In this age, where everything is terrorism, I guess it makes sense.

So, we have separatists who were attacked by Ukrainian forces and fight back with guerilla warfare. They are fighting combatants, their actions are not intended to create fear (ironically, the Ukrainian forces are causing a bit of a stir by trying to bring the fight directly into the towns), and their fight against Ukrainian forces is for the purpose of not being conquered by them.

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

But how you describe terrorism, every revolution ever, just the fact that revolutionaries are fighting an organized military force attempting to subdue them is terrorism for you. Good to know America was founded by terrorism. Thanks bud.

Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state or become part of a different state

On May 14 2014 12:10 m4ini wrote:


I never did. Go back and read my edit. Just because you didn't understand what i was saying, doesn't mean that i'm wrong. And about respect, you did read your posting before you edited it, right? If not, feel free to read again in my quote. Respect is mutual, if you try to be condescending, well, figures.



Look, in the same wiki you linked me.



What does that sound like? The link you supported even states that there's no coherent definition of terrorism, in fact, it even states what i linked earlier. So why do you assume that i'm wrong and you're right in your definition, are you that full of yourself?



It's not how i describe terrorism.

What does that sound like?

On May 14 2014 12:20 marigoldran wrote:
The issue of the definition of terrorism IS a very relevant part of this discussion. After all, BOTH sides are calling the other "terrorists." Since both of the principal actors: Putin AND the Kiev government are using the SAME WORD to describe each other, I believe it is an important word. Does that make sense to people?

On May 14 2014 12:25 marigoldran wrote:
The modern definition of terrorism was invented by the recent American president: George W Bush.

A terrorist, by definition, is anyone your country doesn't like.

Putin obviously accepts this definition, as does Kiev. As does the Syrian government. As do the Syrian rebels. As does the American government. In other words, it's a very widely accepted definition.

On May 14 2014 12:29 marigoldran wrote:
In other words: anything someone writes that you disagree with is "insensible."

In other words, you're no better than Bush at making arguments.

EDIT: Please take it as a compliment. I'm comparing you to a highly esteemed American president.

On May 14 2014 12:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:


America doesn't define it that way either. Why would American politicians say that America was founded by rank-and-file terrorists, even if the revolutionaries fit the label you posted like a glove? :S

What does it sound like? It's saying pretty much anything that isn't an organized military force under a country, although organized military forces and the governments that direct them can and sometimes do fit this definition as well, minus the "non-state entity" part, meaning they can't be terrorists since they don't satisfy that condition. So you see? Everythingis terrorism if it isn't directly done by an organized government. So, if we follow that definition, it is impossible for the state to commit terrorism, while anything non-state agencies do is terrorism. People defending themselves against ethnic cleansing campaigns can be labeled terrorists. This definition is rather amusing too.

And yet despite that, America says that revolutionaries against regimes we don't like, even Islamic jihadists massacring people left and right, are not terrorists. I see a lot of "flexibility" in the usage of this term

See my last edit in my last post. In case you've forgotten about the "black men", we don't even have to be nitpicky about whether Ukraine's military assault is considered terrorism. The Ukrainian government has their own terrorists.

But, this has nothing to do with my original point that Ukraine is copying American rhetoric. I have no idea why you turned it into a discussion about the most loosely-defined word ever to exist.

I'm sorry, but I make arguments on the basis of facts, not pure speculation.

On May 14 2014 12:34 marigoldran wrote:
Your "facts" come from disjointed news reports and twitter feeds.

Given our distance from the situation on the ground, there are no "facts." Only opinions.

On May 14 2014 12:37 m4ini wrote:


I don't care what america defines as terrorism and what not. I go by international definitions, and while unarguably not all of them fit, some do. So again. What makes your definition correct, and mine wrong?



Oh, organized governments can be terroristic regimes as well. Terrorism is a bit more than flying planes into a house. It's also more than "just" frightening civilians. You can also terrorize governments. There's even cyberterror, who's dying there? Same goes for revolutions. Reign of terror, rings a bell? French revolution? But in fact, you don't even need to be that blunt, did you know that the "trumpets of jericho" on a stuka were deribelately added to terrorize allied soldiers?

What i'm trying to say is, you're going way to easy on the terrorist-thing. While i agree, that term is way to widely used, if it fits, it fits. Not to mention, that if they're not terrorists, then they're insurgents. Which isn't that far off terrorism, and basically needs the same response.



Well. That only makes the US hypocritical, but still not the "inventor" of terrorism or its definition, or did i miss something?



Oh i do agree, i responded to someone else stating exactly that. But they're there to be gone on 25th. When do the insurgents/terrorists, whatever you wanna call them, disappear?

Oh, and i didn't discuss. You immediately started blabbering about the american revolution and whatnot, so don't put that on me.



Then i'd like to see your source that the insurgents got their weapons off of captured ukrainian military bases/armories.

On May 14 2014 12:47 marigoldran wrote:
“Russia is already engaged” in Ukraine “in supporting Russian-led protesters and terrorists,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk told reporters in Brussels today after talks with European Commission President Jose Barroso. “We urge Russia to condemn them, to urge all these so-called protesters -- or really, terrorists -- to leave and vacate the buildings, and to do everything they can to stabilize the situation in Ukraine. Russia will fail to make Ukraine a failed state.”