Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare - Page 3

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 05:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
nye, the thing i dont understand is how anyone can tolerate any violence period. and certain kinds of violence over another. does the victim and intent really change the fact of what happened?

Do we tolerate a robber at the local bank? No.

Why? Because we all live in an ordered, and enforced, society.

Do we tolerate some of our sons and daughters killing 'enemies' overseas? Yes.

Why? Because the world is not an ordered and enforced society. No matter how we want to dress it up, no matter how much you want to believe in the UN, the reality is that someone is just around the corner wanting to take your national lunch away from you. There are no cops to stop it. There is no order, aside from the agreements of the 200 some-odd nations of the Earth. And those agreements aren't particularly useful when the **** hits the fan.

Ask the Tibetans.

As for what Westerners should tolerate for violence. I would say enough to ensure a halt to the attacks on civilians by civilians for political purposes most anywhere in the world. If we do not do it, who will?

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 05:56

Sure we tolerate our adventures overseas, but when the game comes to us, all of a sudden its an outrage and unnacceptable. to who though?

Thats not to say we shouldnt act and not intervene, quite the oppisite, when we have a chance to defend ourselves from real threats, we should. We should go after terrorists with the same resolve as we go against conventional armies. We have to put our foot down somewhere, but crying foul over terrorism isnt going to stop it.

think about violence relativism...

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:58

Such people...

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 05:59

MRT, you can stow that where the sun doesn't shine pal.

notyoueither · May 1, 2003, 06:01

No, when the game comes to you, the stakes are raised, or you realise you are at the table.

I have always said that terrorism was unacceptable and should be squashed. Glad to see many of your countrymen come on board recently.

Think about the self preservation of the leaders of the states who have supported terrorism up to this point.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 06:02

only if you move your head for a moment.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 06:07

notyou, sure, they must consider themselves fair game.

Btw, Syria has pulled out of parts of Lebanon, seemingly on their own.

CyberGnu · May 1, 2003, 06:08

MRT

The whole idea of "civilian" vs. "military" died with the advent of industrialism.

What we should be concerned with is aggression. An aggressor is always wrong, regardless what means of fighting he employs. The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

Sirotnikov · May 1, 2003, 06:19

MRT and Cyber Gnu scare me.

The whole idea of regulated warfare is that assured mutual destruction is prevented.

If both sides kill each other completely, using all possible means - there'd be no one to inherit the earth and win the fruits of war.

That's just silly.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 06:26

the problem is you cant regulate the actions of others. you can only react, and for israel that means reacting to terrorism with conventional means. for palestine that means reacting with terrorism to conventional means.

if you cant win the fight their way, fight any way you know how, or die trying.

Lancer · May 1, 2003, 06:33

"You can only react"

Erm, Iraq.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 06:36

youre right lancer...we had no provocation and were the aggressor...and we were wrong. conventional terrorists.

DinoDoc · May 1, 2003, 06:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Frankychan
Terrorism is NOT war. Terrorism is armed, private combat. WAR encompasses more than just combat

No it doesn't. Wars are defined by 1000+ battlefield deaths.

Lonestar · May 1, 2003, 07:00

I prefer the Israeli method of dealing with terrorists.

DinoDoc · May 1, 2003, 07:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
yes, i understand that mad monk. you cant just say "no war" and expect it to happen. the idea that i find ridiculous is that our conventional warfare is somehow more acceptable to other people than terrorism.

Why does that shock you so?

Bereta_Eder · May 1, 2003, 07:08

Americans terrorise so they terrorise them back.

DinoDoc · May 1, 2003, 07:09

As if this thread didn't have enough idiots.

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 07:10

doesnt shock me, just makes me wonder why people view the two differently?

Bereta_Eder · May 1, 2003, 07:12

so are you leaving DD

DinoDoc · May 1, 2003, 07:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
doesnt shock me, just makes me wonder why people view the two differently?

Do you not see any difference between civilians blown up in a dance hall by a suicide bomber and soldiers killed by the enemy?

MRT144 · May 1, 2003, 07:20

i see a difference in inent, but the problem is civilians still die in military operations. in the end though, that doesnt matter to the victim who is after all the person we should try to help...

DinoDoc · May 1, 2003, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
i see a difference in inent,

Then you already understand why people see the two concepts differently. I was afraid that you were like CG and considered the distinction between the two concepts meaningless.

BeBro · May 1, 2003, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

What we should be concerned with is aggression. An aggressor is always wrong, regardless what means of fighting he employs. The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

Noone is always right.

And your statement makes it very easy to simply declare something an aggression and therefore justifying everything against it.

CyberGnu · May 1, 2003, 07:32

BeBro, that's a different question though.

The gray areas are the reason we have courts - but this question is how to define the underlying principles.

If you will, make the analogy to being attacked on the street by an armed opponent. The law says you can defend ourself, and whatever you do in self defense is OK. However, if you prior to the attack insulted the virtues of his mother, a court might decide that there were mitigating circumstances in his attack...

Do you see what I mean?

CyberGnu · May 1, 2003, 07:35

Dino, why does that scare you?

BeBro · May 1, 2003, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The law says you can defend ourself, and whatever you do in self defense is OK.

Yes, as long it is really in self defense. To continue your example: The armed man attacks, I defend myself (no problem). Somehow I manage to get my hands on the guy´s weapon (fine) so he´s not a danger anymore (even better). All this would be justified, it would be even justified when I injure him, or kill him, as long as it is in direct defense.

It would however not be justified if I then, after I seized his weapon and took control of him, when therefore the direct threat for me is gone, take the weapon I got from him and say "Hey, you attacked me! So it is ok to kill you now! Prepare to die!"

*Kills the man*

That would make me a murderer, and every court in Germany would decide accordingly.

CyberGnu · May 1, 2003, 07:46

Bebro, exactly. To quote from my earlier post:
The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

What you describe is the last part - when the aggressor can't harm you anymore you are obliged to treat him well.

Bereta_Eder · May 1, 2003, 07:53

BebRo but in Germany there exists the rule of law. So youknow that the one who did you harm has good chancesof being sent to prison and be punished.

In theinternational arena int. laws are seldom obeyed which means that people take the law (as they see it) in their own hands.

Bereta_Eder · May 1, 2003, 08:04

now of course their practice is to be contemned as of course is the practcies of "organized or state" terrorism against other countries or peoples.
there's no way around it.

BeBro · May 1, 2003, 08:06

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Bebro, exactly. To quote from my earlier post:
The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

What you describe is the last part - when the aggressor can't harm you anymore you are obliged to treat him well.

But capitulation implies that you are always right as long as you didn´t get what you want politically, which is not exactly the same as being under direct threat for your life (which is the most important point to fall under the self-defense rule).

To go back to our example, let´s say I simply escape him the first time, then meet the same guy again, and say: "Hey yesterday you attacked me and got away with it, so today I kill your wife and children in pure self-defense!"

In this case, he hasn´t "capitulated", he may even still be a kind of threat, but my killing of his wife and children is by no means an act of self-defense.