|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 27 2016 04:56 Plansix wrote:
There is the May 19 Communist Coalition and Weather Underground, both who committed acts of violence in the US and were both left leaning, self described communist.
And if you are requesting if acts of violence have ever been committed by foreign nationals that are non-military during a time of conflict, there are numerous examples of that throughout history. We just didn’t call them terrorist then. It was traitors, enemy agents or spies. The words changed, but they still tried to blow things up or shoot people back then.
The 19 Communist Coalition and the Weather Underground never targetted citizens, and they never attacked foreign countries - they were americans violently defending values in the US. The terrorism we are facing today is coming from people who don't feel like they are part of the nation they attack, that don't pin point targets that have any kind of symbolic signifiance nor do they try to gain any political gain from it, but that just want to terrorise the population by directly attacking it.
Terrorism is actually really old, and was usually used by the dominant power as a mean to facilitate the governance, like in France during the terror. The face it take today in the arabic world is heavily linked to the anarchist state of this area of the world and its complete inhability to create a stable political system, and that is not something the occident is totally responsible of - my point since the beginning.
To actually understand the situation, much like you said in previous posts, we would need to go back on the history of each unstable countries in the arabic world and see why most of their plans failed - something I personally am unable to do due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. But I personally know about Algeria's history, and their political problems (there the terrorists attacks that started in the 90ies, and the political unstability is still very much a reality, hidden by their massive army) were not due to the influence of the occident, but rather to the end of the communist utopia, the failure of most post colonial policies (like in the education, or their socialists policies in the agriculture or the industry).
|
Really? The May 19 Communist Coalition didn't target civilians? While it wasn't a theater or an office building, they did target a lot more politicians than military personnel, bombing the US senate, the South African embassy and some other stuff. Qualifies as terrorism in my book (and unless we keep moving the goal post, in anybody's book: the IRA and ETA were (are) terrorist organizations, yet almost exclusively have political targets).
Anyway, this whole discussion seems entirely tangential. Your initial point seemed to be that while the west has fucked shit up worldwide, Muslim terrorism is entirely on them, because while the west has been fucking shit up abroad for the last 500 years or so, this is the first time they brought war home with them. I would say the reverse: it is quite amazing that we have fucked shit up sufficiently in the middle east that they are bothering to blow shit up abroad rather than focus solely on their milennia old rivalries.
Now, there is plenty the west is not to blame for, such as Shia-Sunni hatred, oppression/genocide of minorities, and religious fundamentalism. But we have been perfectly happy since WW2 to prop up our puppet dictators as long as they kept selling us oil. And I know I say the west, but I really mean any global superpower: it's not like the Russians acted any different. Part of the blame for all of this blowing up in our faces is on both propping them up in the first place, and then naively believing that a hands-off approach during their implosion in the Arab spring wouldn't cause a huge power vacuum that would lead directly to bloody conflict.
|
On January 27 2016 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
Really? The May 19 Communist Coalition didn't target civilians? While it wasn't a theater or an office building, they did target a lot more politicians than military personnel, bombing the US senate, the South African embassy and some other stuff. Qualifies as terrorism in my book (and unless we keep moving the goal post, in anybody's book: the IRA and ETA were (are) terrorist organizations, yet almost exclusively have political targets).
Anyway, this whole discussion seems entirely tangential. Your initial point seemed to be that while the west has fucked shit up worldwide, Muslim terrorism is entirely on them, because while the west has been fucking shit up abroad for the last 500 years or so, this is the first time they brought war home with them. I would say the reverse: it is quite amazing that we have fucked shit up sufficiently in the middle east that they are bothering to blow shit up abroad rather than focus solely on their milennia old rivalries.
Now, there is plenty the west is not to blame for, such as Shia-Sunni hatred, oppression/genocide of minorities, and religious fundamentalism. But we have been perfectly happy since WW2 to prop up our puppet dictators as long as they kept selling us oil. And I know I say the west, but I really mean any global superpower: it's not like the Russians acted any different. Part of the blame for all of this blowing up in our faces is on both propping them up in the first place, and then naively believing that a hands-off approach during their implosion in the Arab spring wouldn't cause a huge power vacuum that would lead directly to bloody conflict.
Politicians =/= innocent civilians. Exactly, it is a specificity of modern terrorism to attack civilians without any discrimination, and that has a lot to do with the specific situations of arabic countries.
I never said it was "entirely" on them, but arguing that the west is responsible for the terrorism and the sorry state of the middle east is nothing but ethnocentrism.
|
On January 27 2016 08:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
Really? The May 19 Communist Coalition didn't target civilians? While it wasn't a theater or an office building, they did target a lot more politicians than military personnel, bombing the US senate, the South African embassy and some other stuff. Qualifies as terrorism in my book (and unless we keep moving the goal post, in anybody's book: the IRA and ETA were (are) terrorist organizations, yet almost exclusively have political targets).
Anyway, this whole discussion seems entirely tangential. Your initial point seemed to be that while the west has fucked shit up worldwide, Muslim terrorism is entirely on them, because while the west has been fucking shit up abroad for the last 500 years or so, this is the first time they brought war home with them. I would say the reverse: it is quite amazing that we have fucked shit up sufficiently in the middle east that they are bothering to blow shit up abroad rather than focus solely on their milennia old rivalries.
Now, there is plenty the west is not to blame for, such as Shia-Sunni hatred, oppression/genocide of minorities, and religious fundamentalism. But we have been perfectly happy since WW2 to prop up our puppet dictators as long as they kept selling us oil. And I know I say the west, but I really mean any global superpower: it's not like the Russians acted any different. Part of the blame for all of this blowing up in our faces is on both propping them up in the first place, and then naively believing that a hands-off approach during their implosion in the Arab spring wouldn't cause a huge power vacuum that would lead directly to bloody conflict. Politicians =/= innocent civilians.
Politicians = combatants?
Not that i disagree with bombing people responsible for stuff rather than actual civilians (if you know what i mean, not saying yay kill politicians), the initial statement was "citizens". Politicians are certainly citizens.
|
On January 27 2016 08:33 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:29 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2016 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
Really? The May 19 Communist Coalition didn't target civilians? While it wasn't a theater or an office building, they did target a lot more politicians than military personnel, bombing the US senate, the South African embassy and some other stuff. Qualifies as terrorism in my book (and unless we keep moving the goal post, in anybody's book: the IRA and ETA were (are) terrorist organizations, yet almost exclusively have political targets).
Anyway, this whole discussion seems entirely tangential. Your initial point seemed to be that while the west has fucked shit up worldwide, Muslim terrorism is entirely on them, because while the west has been fucking shit up abroad for the last 500 years or so, this is the first time they brought war home with them. I would say the reverse: it is quite amazing that we have fucked shit up sufficiently in the middle east that they are bothering to blow shit up abroad rather than focus solely on their milennia old rivalries.
Now, there is plenty the west is not to blame for, such as Shia-Sunni hatred, oppression/genocide of minorities, and religious fundamentalism. But we have been perfectly happy since WW2 to prop up our puppet dictators as long as they kept selling us oil. And I know I say the west, but I really mean any global superpower: it's not like the Russians acted any different. Part of the blame for all of this blowing up in our faces is on both propping them up in the first place, and then naively believing that a hands-off approach during their implosion in the Arab spring wouldn't cause a huge power vacuum that would lead directly to bloody conflict. Politicians =/= innocent civilians. Politicians = combatants? Not that i disagree with bombing people responsible for stuff rather than actual civilians (if you know what i mean, not saying yay kill politicians), the initial statement was "citizens". Politicians are certainly citizens.
Politicians hold direct responsability for their actions since they have the power, they vote the war, I actually hold a politician more responsible than a policeman or a military.
The initial statement was innocent citizens ("No communist power specifically targetted innocent citizens abroad").
|
On January 27 2016 08:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:33 m4ini wrote:On January 27 2016 08:29 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2016 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
Really? The May 19 Communist Coalition didn't target civilians? While it wasn't a theater or an office building, they did target a lot more politicians than military personnel, bombing the US senate, the South African embassy and some other stuff. Qualifies as terrorism in my book (and unless we keep moving the goal post, in anybody's book: the IRA and ETA were (are) terrorist organizations, yet almost exclusively have political targets).
Anyway, this whole discussion seems entirely tangential. Your initial point seemed to be that while the west has fucked shit up worldwide, Muslim terrorism is entirely on them, because while the west has been fucking shit up abroad for the last 500 years or so, this is the first time they brought war home with them. I would say the reverse: it is quite amazing that we have fucked shit up sufficiently in the middle east that they are bothering to blow shit up abroad rather than focus solely on their milennia old rivalries.
Now, there is plenty the west is not to blame for, such as Shia-Sunni hatred, oppression/genocide of minorities, and religious fundamentalism. But we have been perfectly happy since WW2 to prop up our puppet dictators as long as they kept selling us oil. And I know I say the west, but I really mean any global superpower: it's not like the Russians acted any different. Part of the blame for all of this blowing up in our faces is on both propping them up in the first place, and then naively believing that a hands-off approach during their implosion in the Arab spring wouldn't cause a huge power vacuum that would lead directly to bloody conflict. Politicians =/= innocent civilians. Politicians = combatants? Not that i disagree with bombing people responsible for stuff rather than actual civilians (if you know what i mean, not saying yay kill politicians), the initial statement was "citizens". Politicians are certainly citizens. Politicians hold direct responsability for their actions since they have the power, they vote the war, I actually held a politician more responsible than a policeman or a military. The initial statement was innocent citizens ("No communist power specifically targetted innocent citizens abroad").
First, that's wrong. Some politicians certainly do, but a blanket statement that includes opposition is wrong.
Second:
The 19 Communist Coalition and the Weather Underground never targetted citizens
Irrelevant to my point, I'm willing to say that communist or socialist movements were terrorists, now give me exemple of communists that specifically targetted citizens in foreign countries.
And that's leaving out that M19CO certainly did kill innocent people. They didn't target them specifically, but they certainly accepted it. It's like saying "drones killing civilians is fine because we targeted that one dude there". It's not. Neither does it make it "less terrorism". Same for drones btw.
|
On January 27 2016 08:40 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:35 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2016 08:33 m4ini wrote:On January 27 2016 08:29 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2016 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
Really? The May 19 Communist Coalition didn't target civilians? While it wasn't a theater or an office building, they did target a lot more politicians than military personnel, bombing the US senate, the South African embassy and some other stuff. Qualifies as terrorism in my book (and unless we keep moving the goal post, in anybody's book: the IRA and ETA were (are) terrorist organizations, yet almost exclusively have political targets).
Anyway, this whole discussion seems entirely tangential. Your initial point seemed to be that while the west has fucked shit up worldwide, Muslim terrorism is entirely on them, because while the west has been fucking shit up abroad for the last 500 years or so, this is the first time they brought war home with them. I would say the reverse: it is quite amazing that we have fucked shit up sufficiently in the middle east that they are bothering to blow shit up abroad rather than focus solely on their milennia old rivalries.
Now, there is plenty the west is not to blame for, such as Shia-Sunni hatred, oppression/genocide of minorities, and religious fundamentalism. But we have been perfectly happy since WW2 to prop up our puppet dictators as long as they kept selling us oil. And I know I say the west, but I really mean any global superpower: it's not like the Russians acted any different. Part of the blame for all of this blowing up in our faces is on both propping them up in the first place, and then naively believing that a hands-off approach during their implosion in the Arab spring wouldn't cause a huge power vacuum that would lead directly to bloody conflict. Politicians =/= innocent civilians. Politicians = combatants? Not that i disagree with bombing people responsible for stuff rather than actual civilians (if you know what i mean, not saying yay kill politicians), the initial statement was "citizens". Politicians are certainly citizens. Politicians hold direct responsability for their actions since they have the power, they vote the war, I actually held a politician more responsible than a policeman or a military. The initial statement was innocent citizens ("No communist power specifically targetted innocent citizens abroad"). First, that's wrong. Some politicians certainly do, but a blanket statement that includes opposition is wrong. Second: Show nested quote +The 19 Communist Coalition and the Weather Underground never targetted citizens Show nested quote +Irrelevant to my point, I'm willing to say that communist or socialist movements were terrorists, now give me exemple of communists that specifically targetted citizens in foreign countries. And that's leaving out that M19CO certainly did kill innocent people. They didn't target them specifically, but they certainly accepted it. It's like saying "drones killing civilians is fine because we targeted that one dude there". It's not. Neither does it make it "less terrorism". Same for drones btw.
I personally see a huge difference between a movement that target innocent civilian to create fear in the population or because they want to kill people who are, by their standard, degenerates and unpures, and a movement that tries to target someone they feel is responsible of a specific situation and kill innocent people as collateral. The difference is in the doctrine that motivate the terrorist attacks and the institutions that certify if any attack is justified or not.
Also, it's true that some politicians are not responsible, those are also not targetted.
|
On January 27 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 08:40 m4ini wrote:On January 27 2016 08:35 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2016 08:33 m4ini wrote:On January 27 2016 08:29 WhiteDog wrote:On January 27 2016 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
Really? The May 19 Communist Coalition didn't target civilians? While it wasn't a theater or an office building, they did target a lot more politicians than military personnel, bombing the US senate, the South African embassy and some other stuff. Qualifies as terrorism in my book (and unless we keep moving the goal post, in anybody's book: the IRA and ETA were (are) terrorist organizations, yet almost exclusively have political targets).
Anyway, this whole discussion seems entirely tangential. Your initial point seemed to be that while the west has fucked shit up worldwide, Muslim terrorism is entirely on them, because while the west has been fucking shit up abroad for the last 500 years or so, this is the first time they brought war home with them. I would say the reverse: it is quite amazing that we have fucked shit up sufficiently in the middle east that they are bothering to blow shit up abroad rather than focus solely on their milennia old rivalries.
Now, there is plenty the west is not to blame for, such as Shia-Sunni hatred, oppression/genocide of minorities, and religious fundamentalism. But we have been perfectly happy since WW2 to prop up our puppet dictators as long as they kept selling us oil. And I know I say the west, but I really mean any global superpower: it's not like the Russians acted any different. Part of the blame for all of this blowing up in our faces is on both propping them up in the first place, and then naively believing that a hands-off approach during their implosion in the Arab spring wouldn't cause a huge power vacuum that would lead directly to bloody conflict. Politicians =/= innocent civilians. Politicians = combatants? Not that i disagree with bombing people responsible for stuff rather than actual civilians (if you know what i mean, not saying yay kill politicians), the initial statement was "citizens". Politicians are certainly citizens. Politicians hold direct responsability for their actions since they have the power, they vote the war, I actually held a politician more responsible than a policeman or a military. The initial statement was innocent citizens ("No communist power specifically targetted innocent citizens abroad"). First, that's wrong. Some politicians certainly do, but a blanket statement that includes opposition is wrong. Second: The 19 Communist Coalition and the Weather Underground never targetted citizens Irrelevant to my point, I'm willing to say that communist or socialist movements were terrorists, now give me exemple of communists that specifically targetted citizens in foreign countries. And that's leaving out that M19CO certainly did kill innocent people. They didn't target them specifically, but they certainly accepted it. It's like saying "drones killing civilians is fine because we targeted that one dude there". It's not. Neither does it make it "less terrorism". Same for drones btw. I personally see a huge difference between a movement that target innocent civilian to create fear in the population or because they want to kill people because they feel they are degenerate or unpure, and a movement that tries to target someone they feel is responsible of a specific situation and kill innocent people as collateral. Also, it's true that some politicians are not responsible, those are also not targetted.
Because we know, we can blow up things around the innocents.
And no. There's no huge difference between inciting fear by killing people directly or inciting fear by maybe killing them on accident. One is more malicious, that i'd agree to - but the result is certainly the same. That aside, i think this discussion is rather pointless, because we know that you have a rather borked view on violence (suits you, as long as it hits the people you deem right).
They also didn't target "someone", as you state it: they targeted "the government". Which clearly is made out of the opposition as well. Calling "planting a device that kills everyone around it" in a room and then arguing that they specifically only target the (what you perceive as) "bad guys" is rather ridiculous. They're by definition "indiscriminate".
And it certainly doesn't bring back to life all the cops they killed. You know, the very people you deemed worthy to not die just a couple of posts back.
edit: i'd agree if they actually went after certain politicians, beat them up or maybe execute them (drastic) - they didn't, they chose specifically something that incites fear (and kills) in everyone, including population.
edit2: didn't even know.. Can you cite who was the target in their last bombing?
edit3: to be clear, i do understand what you're trying to say. I say, i disagree. Using indiscriminate weapons against something and not killing innocent people is down to luck. Not their intentions.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
This seems somewhat off topic.
|
Voting for war is far worse a crime than being a soldier.
|
On January 27 2016 20:14 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Voting for war is far worse a crime than being a soldier.
Kinda? I mean yea, the overlying responsibility is in the politicians that settle for armed intervention (wether by political will or through obligation or other excuses). Soldiers, however, do pick their vocation as the armed fist of the government full well knowing they'll be sent out to carry out the military desires of their politicians - while they're not responsible for the chocie of their politicians, they freely chose their job, and therefore are responsible for what that entails.
|
If you unleash the dogs of war, you know that despite your 'good intentions' as a politician, despite the best training you can offer your soldiers, your soldiers will commit at least one atrocity.
Soldiers are powerless victims of politicians. Not the other way around. Apart from a few crazies, who shouldn't be allowed to touch a weapon in the first place, almost every other soldier would rather have a real meaningful job and be with his/her family in safety. People are in the army because they had little other opportunities.
|
On January 27 2016 20:14 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Voting for war is far worse a crime than being a soldier.
Yea, that argument would work if soldiers were in the military by force or law. That's not the case. A soldier knows full well that he signs up for a job to potentially carry out the will of the "criminal voters".
Quite the mental gymnastic, to somehow make politicians the bad guys but people voluntarily signing up to carry out their will "poor dudes". And i'm telling you that as a former soldier.
|
On January 27 2016 21:57 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 20:14 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Voting for war is far worse a crime than being a soldier. Kinda? I mean yea, the overlying responsibility is in the politicians that settle for armed intervention (wether by political will or through obligation or other excuses). Soldiers, however, do pick their vocation as the armed fist of the government full well knowing they'll be sent out to carry out the military desires of their politicians - while they're not responsible for the chocie of their politicians, they freely chose their job, and therefore are responsible for what that entails.
A country must have soldiers. it-s no crime to sign up for the army. A country with no soldiers is easily blackmailed and stuff.
|
On January 27 2016 22:06 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 21:57 plated.rawr wrote:On January 27 2016 20:14 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Voting for war is far worse a crime than being a soldier. Kinda? I mean yea, the overlying responsibility is in the politicians that settle for armed intervention (wether by political will or through obligation or other excuses). Soldiers, however, do pick their vocation as the armed fist of the government full well knowing they'll be sent out to carry out the military desires of their politicians - while they're not responsible for the chocie of their politicians, they freely chose their job, and therefore are responsible for what that entails. A country must have soldiers. it-s no crime to sign up for the army. A country with no soldiers is easily blackmailed and stuff.
Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't do that job. People are saying it's idiotic to picture soldiers as "powerless victims" that "couldn't get any other job".
|
On January 27 2016 22:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
If you unleash the dogs of war, you know that despite your 'good intentions' as a politician, despite the best training you can offer your soldiers, your soldiers will commit at least one atrocity.
Soldiers are powerless victims of politicians. Not the other way around. Apart from a few crazies, who shouldn't be allowed to touch a weapon in the first place, almost every other soldier would rather have a real meaningful job and be with his/her family in safety. People are in the army because they had little other opportunities.
I don't think any western country sends slave armies to war.
|
If living a life you'd rather not have is being a slave, then yes. If no, wtf are you talking about?
On January 27 2016 22:08 m4ini wrote:
Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't do that job. People are saying it's idiotic to picture soldiers as "powerless victims" that "couldn't get any other job".
People are in jail because they refuse to fight.
But you are right. If people are told to kill by some authority, they suddenly change into immoral butchers. The politician? Or human nature?
|
On January 27 2016 22:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
If you unleash the dogs of war, you know that despite your 'good intentions' as a politician, despite the best training you can offer your soldiers, your soldiers will commit at least one atrocity.
Soldiers are powerless victims of politicians. Not the other way around. Apart from a few crazies, who shouldn't be allowed to touch a weapon in the first place, almost every other soldier would rather have a real meaningful job and be with his/her family in safety. People are in the army because they had little other opportunities.
The fuck? You're clueless. Good lord this is what talking out of your ass looks like. Look as somebody who understands the military all too well and has had relations with quite literally thousands of different people in the armed forces you should probably try to avoid broad sweeping statements like those. Or better yet not act like you have any idea of what you are talking about at all.
|
On January 27 2016 22:49 OmniEulogy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 22:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
If you unleash the dogs of war, you know that despite your 'good intentions' as a politician, despite the best training you can offer your soldiers, your soldiers will commit at least one atrocity.
Soldiers are powerless victims of politicians. Not the other way around. Apart from a few crazies, who shouldn't be allowed to touch a weapon in the first place, almost every other soldier would rather have a real meaningful job and be with his/her family in safety. People are in the army because they had little other opportunities. The fuck? You're clueless. Good lord this is what talking out of your ass looks like. Look as somebody who understands the military all too well and has had relations with quite literally thousands of different people in the armed forces you should probably try to avoid broad sweeping statements like those. Or better yet not act like you have any idea of what you are talking about at all.
Are you the new Kwark?
|
I am exonorating them from the suffering they directly cause and your complaint, not argument, is that this is offensive to exactly the people I am exonerating?
Puzzling statement.
Any idea? I likely was already well-read on the subject and winning debates on exactly this subject when you were still in kindergarten.
Even if you are right. Even if every soldier knows exactly what he is doing and likes to do what they do, then making the right argument will offend them even more. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be made, and we should instead sit on our hands, because you have relations with quite literally thousands in the armed forces.
In fact, if you are right, I should go right after those that enlist in the army just because they enlist in the army, using personal arguments.
Say you have relationships with 10,000 in the armed forces. Some of them have gone to war. Some of those that went to war came back with PTSD. Some of those that have PTSD have issues with anger. Some of those that have issues with anger will commit violent crimes.
Since you literally know thousands, there is significant risk you also have relations with someone who will commit violent crimes. Likely victim will be someone they know.
So be careful.
The legal debate about 'superior orders' is an interesting one, because it cuts both ways.
If soldiers can make the argument 'I was just following orders', then they are innocent and the blame is on the politicians or superior officers (which can never be proven, unless the party that won the war makes up some stuff).
If the soldier can not be excused from saying 'I was just following orders', then how can you prosecute soldiers for folloing orders when they themselves have moral objections?
You can't. You have to admit that a soldier always has to make a moral decision about the nature of the order he received, and thus does not have to follow orders. Which usually means allowing what would otherwise be desertion.
Rulings so far shows the soldier always draws the short straw. Rulings are inconsistent against the common soldier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
They go to jail if they refuse to follow immoral orders for desertion. They go to jail if they carry out immoral orders for war crimes. You still sure soldiers aren't one of the many victims of war?
Funny I have to lecture kids on superior orders the day Eichmann's appeal citing 'I was just following orders' was released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
