Turn on thread page Beta

Is 'terrorist' the correct and appropriate label for these delusional criminal thugs? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I'll accept that potentially one of them was brainwashed in to actually carrying it out based on such reasons. I will not accept that it was the reason behind the plot, or the motive behind those who planned and organised the attack.
    Despite his admittance? :rolleyes:

    You obviously know the real reason, so hare it with us...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    If they take aggressive action against innocent civilians for political or social ends, they're terrorists. End of.
    If the US bombs a radio station or a power plant, completely run by civilians, is that terrorism?

    Politicians and scholars have been heavily debating the term terrorist ever since 9-11. According the United States, that attacks against the Pentagon were labeled a terrorist attack, although the Pentagon is our military headquarters. The Chinese refer to the students killed at Tianamen Square as terrorists and counter revolutionaries. For a while, President Bush used the label terrorist to describe any Iraqi fighting off our invasion. The use of the word terrorist is totally subjective and is basically rhetoric used to distort what is really going on. Modern propaganda....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    No, I don't think so, but that's beside the point. Even if it had - that doesn't make it our fault. Our foreign policy is OURS.
    Well, their foreign policy decision was to come bomb you.... Does that justify it?

    'Your' foreign policy, as you put it, involved bombing and killing 'them'. So, yeah, I think they have some say in how they will take that.... It seems rather obvious.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    For a while, President Bush used the label terrorist to describe any Iraqi fighting off our invasion.
    He still does. As do the British.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phillip)
    You seriously think that a compromise, or even an actual attempt of a dialogue, is possible with people who believe that all of their actions are divinely warranted?
    In a word, yes. I don't think it matters what their motivation is, or whether or not they believe a god is behind their motives, if they have things they want so badly they're prepared to kill and die for them, we should at least attempt diplomacy to limit loss of life. Did anyone watch Question Time the other day? The one with the students? I thought Davina McCall made some excellent points, though perhaps not expressed in the most articulate way, especially about the IRA and how it wasn't so very long ago that people were resolutely against negotiation with them, accepted that they would always fear bomb attacks in London, and could never envisage a peace agreement.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    Well, their foreign policy decision was to come bomb you.... Does that justify it?

    'Your' foreign policy, as you put it, involved bombing and killing 'them'. So, yeah, I think they have some say in how they will take that.... It seems rather obvious.
    You took the words right out of my mouth :five:

    I don't like Meatloaf really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    In a word, yes. I don't think it matters what their motivation is, or whether or not they believe a god is behind their motives, if they have things they want so badly they're prepared to kill and die for them, we should at least attempt diplomacy to limit loss of life. Did anyone watch Question Time the other day? The one with the students? I thought Davina McCall made some excellent points, though perhaps not expressed in the most articulate way, especially about the IRA and how it wasn't so very long ago that people were resolutely against negotiation with them, accepted that they would always fear bomb attacks in London, and could never envisage a peace agreement.
    Of course it matters, how do you intend to engage in a debate with people who have a full conviction that they've got God on their side? What compromise would they be willing to agree with you on?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phillip)
    Of course it matters, how do you intend to engage in a debate with people who have a full conviction that they've got God on their side? What compromise would they be willing to agree with you on?
    Well, I don't intend to start anything personally, and my knowledge of the Hamas charter etc is nowhere near detailed enough to actually name specific points on which the extremists of Islam might be prepared to compromise, but I have enough faith in people whose profession is in diplomacy and engineering international relations to feel that it would be possible. Certainly I think ruling it out in such an obtuse manner is pretty backward, but horses for courses I guess.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    Despite his admittance? :rolleyes:

    You obviously know the real reason, so hare it with us...
    Can you not grasp the difference between the specific motivation and the over-riding reason?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    If the US bombs a radio station or a power plant, completely run by civilians, is that terrorism?
    Are they killing civilians specifically for political or social ends? Or are they hitting a strategic target (staffed by civilians) for some other purpose?

    (Original post by Kondar)
    The use of the word terrorist is totally subjective and is basically rhetoric used to distort what is really going on.
    There's a definition. I pointed that out and what it was, it's you who's rejecting it and trying to confuse the situation with subjectivity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Well, their foreign policy decision was to come bomb you.... Does that justify it?
    I didn't say it was justified, the point is that it can be made by each State.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    'Your' foreign policy, as you put it, involved bombing and killing 'them'. So, yeah, I think they have some say in how they will take that.... It seems rather obvious.
    Our foreign policy was to remove Saddam, not to kill "them". 98% of the killing of civilians in Iraq is done by Islamic terrorists - whilst our troops try and protect them. And then Islamic terrorists come here and bomb us because people are dying in Iraq? That makes no ****ing sense at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I didn't say it was justified, the point is that it can be made by each State.


    Our foreign policy was to remove Saddam, not to kill "them". 98% of the killing of civilians in Iraq is done by Islamic terrorists - whilst our troops try and protect them. And then Islamic terrorists come here and bomb us because people are dying in Iraq? That makes no ****ing sense at all.
    Wrong. In 2005, the Iraq Body Count group and Oxford-based academics reported that 37.3% of casualties were directly killed by US forces. 35.9% by criminals (common criminals taking advantage of the chaos, NOT politically motivated militants) 9.5% by anti-occupation forces (ie the resistance), 2.5% by a combination of US and anti-occupation forces, 2.5% by assorted military activities, 1.3% by 'terrorists', and 11% by unknown agents. Thus the greatest single direct killer was the US military. The least prevalent killer was terrorism. Next time do your research before preaching about 98% etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Are they killing civilians specifically for political or social ends? Or are they hitting a strategic target (staffed by civilians) for some other purpose?
    Well, the Pentagon is a military target and the World Trade Center was not some random meaningless target, both were very selective and strategic, so does that mean the 9-11 attacks were not terrorist attacks.
    There's a definition. I pointed that out and what it was, it's you who's rejecting it and trying to confuse the situation with subjectivity.
    Thats your definition. Everyone has there own, the Bush administration, the Red Cross, the UN, Amnesty International, the EU, China, Russia, even Al Qaeda. Your definition only applies to how you interpret it and does not mean there is some homogenous definition out there. Furthermore, the concept of terrorism and its use allows those who wield it great influence and power over their constituencies.
    98% of the killing of civilians in Iraq is done by Islamic terrorists
    Lol, seriously, if you believe this....... then you are the stereotypical Bush supporter.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Lol, seriously, if you believe this....... then you are the stereotypical Bush supporter.
    I wouldn't go as far as 98%, but it's pretty damn clear that all of the "spectacular" attacks (i.e. the massive suicide bombings, large-scale attacks on mosques, murder of tribal chiefs) are carried out by Islamists. The Shi'a militias and the Sunni militants generally specifically target members of the opposite sect, including civilians. In mixed areas (Baghdad, Kirkuk, etc.), these are the people responsible for probably a majority of the deaths. But elsewhere, especially in much of the "Sunni triangle", Islamists are doing a vast majority of the killing. Also, unlike the militias and militants, whose goal is ethnic cleansing, the goal of the Islamists is simply violence for violence's sake.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I wouldn't go as far as 98%, but it's pretty damn clear that all of the "spectacular" attacks (i.e. the massive suicide bombings, large-scale attacks on mosques, murder of tribal chiefs) are carried out by Islamists. The Shi'a militias and the Sunni militants generally specifically target members of the opposite sect, including civilians. In mixed areas (Baghdad, Kirkuk, etc.), these are the people responsible for probably a majority of the deaths. But elsewhere, especially in much of the "Sunni triangle", Islamists are doing a vast majority of the killing. Also, unlike the militias and militants, whose goal is ethnic cleansing, the goal of the Islamists is simply violence for violence's sake.
    I have friends in the military that are in Iraq as we speak. One of my 'friends' brags that he has a confirmed kill count over 150.... I don't feel like searching for statistics, but look at Cage's post. The information he provided seems to pretty much go along with what I have been hearing.

    Oh, my fav professor Andrew Reynolds, is now the senior election advisor for the UN and the lead architects for Iraq's electoral system!! He seems to pretty much say the same thing.
    check him out http://www.gov.an/ccg/home.nsf/vImagesW/CV+Andrew+Reynolds/$FILE/CV+Andrew+Reynolds.pdf
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Wrong. In 2005, the Iraq Body Count group and Oxford-based academics reported that 37.3% of casualties were directly killed by US forces. 35.9% by criminals (common criminals taking advantage of the chaos, NOT politically motivated militants) 9.5% by anti-occupation forces (ie the resistance), 2.5% by a combination of US and anti-occupation forces, 2.5% by assorted military activities, 1.3% by 'terrorists', and 11% by unknown agents. Thus the greatest single direct killer was the US military. The least prevalent killer was terrorism. Next time do your research before preaching about 98% etc.
    You're kidding yourself if you think it's actually possible to make those distinctions.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    I have friends in the military that are in Iraq as we speak. One of my 'friends' brags that he has a confirmed kill count over 150.... I don't feel like searching for statistics, but look at Cage's post. The information he provided seems to pretty much go along with what I have been hearing.

    Oh, my fav professor Andrew Reynolds, is now the senior election advisor for the UN and the lead architects for Iraq's electoral system!! He seems to pretty much say the same thing.
    check him out http://www.gov.an/ccg/home.nsf/vImagesW/CV+Andrew+Reynolds/$FILE/CV+Andrew+Reynolds.pdf
    Then your friend is a pathological liar. If every soldier in Iraq killed one tenth of what your friend claims, there'd be about 5 million dead Iraqis from US arms. The most liberal estimates suggest that the US is irresponsible for about 200k Iraqi casualties (many of them terrorists/militants no doubt). Which is well under 1 kill per American soldier (I'm assuming about 500k must have served in Iraq by now).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Wrong. I
    1.3% by terrorists?! They must be on the same drugs the Lancet guys are. Not buying that **** for a single second. You're trying to tell me that those spectacular car bombings that kill dozens of people almost every day are only 1.3% of deaths? Yeah, someone's lying here, and it isn't me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Well, the Pentagon is a military target and the World Trade Center was not some random meaningless target, both were very selective and strategic, so does that mean the 9-11 attacks were not terrorist attacks.
    They're terrorism because of the ends. Come on, this is not difficult, stop playing dumb.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    Your definition only applies to how you interpret it and does not mean there is some homogenous definition out there.
    Except there IS a generally accepted definition that runs the same through most sources, even if the details vary slightly.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    Lol, seriously, if you believe this....... then you are the stereotypical Bush supporter.
    Fact is, Coalition forces are responsible for a small percent of deaths. The rest is Muslim on Muslim, be it sectarian, terrorist or criminal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    1.3% by terrorists?! They must be on the same drugs the Lancet guys are. Not buying that **** for a single second. You're trying to tell me that those spectacular car bombings that kill dozens of people almost every day are only 1.3% of deaths? Yeah, someone's lying here, and it isn't me.
    Yes, I don't buy it either.

    I would put the figure at around 40%.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    I have friends in the military that are in Iraq as we speak. One of my 'friends' brags that he has a confirmed kill count over 150....
    If we only count the US troops in Iraq at the moment, and they'd only killed a tenth of that each, that'd still be 2 million dead. I'm guessing he's not being entirely accurate.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.