war is terrorism
terrorism is war
how bombing millions of civillians in vietnam is any different from flying planes into buildings, i do not know...
Remember Richard Reid?
My point exactly. If in a war you bomb civilians on purpose you are a terrorist. A stray bomb that falls in a neighbourhood is not terrorism but Dresden was. It does not matter if it is done by legitimate governments or guerrillas. Most states have in one time or other done it. The bombing of London during WW2 can be considered terrorism, or the bombing of Dresden by the Allies in the same war.
Carpe jugulum.
The guys being bombed dont want to be bombed one way or the other. Nobody wants to be bombed. Common citizens do not participate ACTIVELY in warfare and should therefore be spared as much as possible (IMO). They also tend to not define things one way or the other (generally speaking). Its the guys on the other side of the political agenda that usually use terms like "terrorist attack" wheter it is or not.
But attacking civilians on purpose or not makes a big diference. Carpet bombing a piece of jungle to destroy a road or trail can cause some civilian casualties but carpet bombing a village to eliminate "terrorist supporters" causes consistently more loss of innocent lives. There are several serious implications. While a few stray bombs may cause some people to turn against the agressor, systematic attack against the population can eventually unite all citizens in that nation and even other nations against the agressor. It can be balanced (in the politicians view) with short term goals but in the long run it is very damaging to post war reconciliation.
And personally I think that indiscriminate killing of people is morally wrong and the people doing it are therefore terrorists.
Collateral damage as the eufemism goes is a deplorable consequence of war.
But attacking civilians on purpose or not makes a big diference. Carpet bombing a piece of jungle to destroy a road or trail can cause some civilian casualties but carpet bombing a village to eliminate "terrorist supporters" causes consistently more loss of innocent lives. There are several serious implications. While a few stray bombs may cause some people to turn against the agressor, systematic attack against the population can eventually unite all citizens in that nation and even other nations against the agressor. It can be balanced (in the politicians view) with short term goals but in the long run it is very damaging to post war reconciliation.
And personally I think that indiscriminate killing of people is morally wrong and the people doing it are therefore terrorists.
Collateral damage as the eufemism goes is a deplorable consequence of war.
Carpe jugulum.
-
Kashluk
I understand the difference between intentional and unintentional deaths of civilians, but isn't the result the same? And actually, more civilians usually die because of the unintentional strikes. This of course depends on the war, but it mostly is so.
Of course, if I shoot a man on purpose it's murder but if my gun accidently goes off it's manslaughter or whatever.
But what about if cops are chasing a bad guy and while they're doing it they fire on the crowd and end up killing more civilians than criminals? How can you judge that?
The same thing with making difference between intentional and unintentional "terrorism". It's an attack, backed with an agenda, against people and property.
And everyone who has kids / younger siblings knows the trick of little children. First they punch you in the stomach, say "Sorry" and repeat it. Who decides what is intentional and what is unintentional? "Sorry, I didn't mean to kill any civilians by bombing that hospital."
---
But it seems I was wrong about Reid. Now that I've studied a bit more about him, it seems he did associate with "terrorists" (remember, the whole debate was about the use of the word) and that would also make him one.
- like I said, I'm not defending people hijacking planes and bombing public transports, just trying to make a difference between a shit-for-brains dude who escaped from mental institution and a person (who could even be called a soldier in some cases) who has an ideology, which he defends.
I guess the word "terrorist" just sounds so pretty that people are overusing it so much these days.
Of course, if I shoot a man on purpose it's murder but if my gun accidently goes off it's manslaughter or whatever.
But what about if cops are chasing a bad guy and while they're doing it they fire on the crowd and end up killing more civilians than criminals? How can you judge that?
The same thing with making difference between intentional and unintentional "terrorism". It's an attack, backed with an agenda, against people and property.
And everyone who has kids / younger siblings knows the trick of little children. First they punch you in the stomach, say "Sorry" and repeat it. Who decides what is intentional and what is unintentional? "Sorry, I didn't mean to kill any civilians by bombing that hospital."
---
But it seems I was wrong about Reid. Now that I've studied a bit more about him, it seems he did associate with "terrorists" (remember, the whole debate was about the use of the word) and that would also make him one.
- like I said, I'm not defending people hijacking planes and bombing public transports, just trying to make a difference between a shit-for-brains dude who escaped from mental institution and a person (who could even be called a soldier in some cases) who has an ideology, which he defends.
I guess the word "terrorist" just sounds so pretty that people are overusing it so much these days.
A freedom fighter would take up arms and openly engage the oppressing force in armed conflict. Example - American "Minutemen" vs. the Bristish Army in 1776Kashluk wrote:What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
- depends on which side of the conflict you are.
----
Yeah, I'm not calling Reid a hero or anything, just annoyed with using the word "terrorist" for every retarded fuckhead around. "OMG YOU STOLE A CANDYBAR, YOU LITTLE TERRORIST, YOU!"
Terrorists - being total cowards - avoid a stand up fight and instead go for soft targets like you and me being placing bombs on supermarket shelves and aircraft. Example - IRA, "Real" IRA, INLA, UVF etc. Vs. The UK People 1970 - 2003.
America can keep Mr. Reid (a British citizen) in whatever dank shithole you throw him into until he rots as he certainly won't get more than a token sentence if he came back here while Tony Blair (the PM who let the IRA into our Houses of Parliament alive..) is in power.
-
Kashluk
Well, I guess I've been pounded enough about that piece of errorness, Vik, so I'll just stand defeated and have nothing more to say.
And fuck you too, EvoG. Where are my screens?
But what about the point Grey Fil brought up? Wouldn't the bombing of London or Dresden for example be counted as terrorism then? It's targeted (mainly) against civil population, to cause panic and distress in the supply etc. Sure, it happens during a war situation, but then again Chechenian bomb strikes in Moscow happened during war time as well and on the soil of a country taking part in that war.
And fuck you too, EvoG. Where are my screens?
But what about the point Grey Fil brought up? Wouldn't the bombing of London or Dresden for example be counted as terrorism then? It's targeted (mainly) against civil population, to cause panic and distress in the supply etc. Sure, it happens during a war situation, but then again Chechenian bomb strikes in Moscow happened during war time as well and on the soil of a country taking part in that war.
If you can't call terrorism the bombings on civilians during a war, how can you declare war upon terrorists?
Anyway Reid was a total fuckhead and surely he'd have succeeded if he wasn't so dumb. I doubt he was a real terrorist, I think the real ones just used his stupidity to make him go bomb himself.
To go back to the subject, the judge shouldn't have let out this long shit trail over the court. Useless and stupid over-patriotism, he isn't there to tell people his opinion, just to render the court decision.
He shouldn't be the one judging Reid a soldier or not. He isn't supposed to have an opinion. In the judge's mind everyone is innocent until the opposite is proven, and when it is proven, he is supposed to tell him what the court decided, and I dobut the court decided that this flag would stand there and w/e other bullshit.
Land of freedom my ass.
Anyway Reid was a total fuckhead and surely he'd have succeeded if he wasn't so dumb. I doubt he was a real terrorist, I think the real ones just used his stupidity to make him go bomb himself.
To go back to the subject, the judge shouldn't have let out this long shit trail over the court. Useless and stupid over-patriotism, he isn't there to tell people his opinion, just to render the court decision.
He shouldn't be the one judging Reid a soldier or not. He isn't supposed to have an opinion. In the judge's mind everyone is innocent until the opposite is proven, and when it is proven, he is supposed to tell him what the court decided, and I dobut the court decided that this flag would stand there and w/e other bullshit.
Land of freedom my ass.
So the JUDGE shouldn't be judging him? Thanks for showing your ignorance on this matter.He shouldn't be the one judging Reid a soldier or not. He isn't supposed to have an opinion. In the judge's mind everyone is innocent until the opposite is proven, and when it is proven, he is supposed to tell him what the court decided, and I dobut the court decided that this flag would stand there and w/e other bullshit.
He makes his final decision based on the suggested punishment of the jury, a judge often explains many things to the criminal AND states his opinion. You tell me what this man's opinion, one he had every right to state and privileged to state due to his status as a JUDGE, some how managed to harm?
You don't want a judge to state his opinion? News flash this isn't the Soviet Union so he is ALLOWED to state his opinion in this Land of the Free. Take your blind hate for the United States else where, to some place where people are actually stupid enough to agree with you.Land of freedom my ass.
Funny how it seems that he already had that whole speech prepared before the jury decided whether or not he was guilty. Isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Nice way to jump the gun if you ask me.Hammer wrote:He makes his final decision based on the suggested punishment of the jury
And nobody is arguing that point. But there is a time and place for opinions, and giving a nationalistic fellating speech during a verdict is not one of them. It's simply innappropiate for the judge to be saying that when he did. If he wanted to say that speech outside of the courtroom afterwards, then he is more than welcome to do so.Hammer wrote:he is ALLOWED to state his opinion in this Land of the Free
ExtremeRyno wrote:I don't really represent the views that I've written here in this thread... I just like to type.
It was proven, though. That's the thing that people seem to be ignoring while they go on their little rants about the appropriateness of his speech. The decision was already made that Reid was guilty. This speech was the court opinion. Yes, that's actually what it's called, the opinion. Read the opinion in any court case and you'll see that the judge goes beyond the simple facts of the case. After all, they're called opinions and not "factual summaries".s4ur0n27 wrote:He shouldn't be the one judging Reid a soldier or not. He isn't supposed to have an opinion. In the judge's mind everyone is innocent until the opposite is proven, and when it is proven, he is supposed to tell him what the court decided, and I dobut the court decided that this flag would stand there and w/e other bullshit.
Like when the judge delivers the court opinion, for example? You don't seem to understand, he didn't just take it upon himself to bend the rules and deliver a patriotic speech for the Hell of it, this is normal. Judges actually do judge.Ozrat wrote:But there is a time and place for opinions,
Literacy is overated.
The judges PERSONAL opinion is irrelevant. The COURTS opinion is what counts. Whe can consider a judge (in countries where there is separation of powers) as a little tyrant who owns no allegiance to anybody EXCEPT the law. What this means is that he can do wathever he wants if he follows the law. But he is not himself in the sense that he is not mister A or B. He is the JUDGE, the power to evaluate and pass sentences in accordance with the law wich is the will of the people living under that law.
If somebody is put on trial and judged guilty (either by the judge or by a jury) then it is the judges DUTY to evaluate the causes and consequences of the accused actions and the best way to remediate the damage caused and to avoid further damage. It is the judges perrogative to explain to the accused why he is guilty and why he is punished in a certain way. The JUDGE not mister something or another.
If somebody is put on trial and judged guilty (either by the judge or by a jury) then it is the judges DUTY to evaluate the causes and consequences of the accused actions and the best way to remediate the damage caused and to avoid further damage. It is the judges perrogative to explain to the accused why he is guilty and why he is punished in a certain way. The JUDGE not mister something or another.
Carpe jugulum.
Think about what a judge actually is. He isn't just an interpreter of the black and white law because life is rarely black and white. Any judge is going to draw on his personal beliefs and experiences, that's just the way it is. Maybe you think that isn't the way it should be, but that's another issue altogether.Grey Fil wrote:The judges PERSONAL opinion is irrelevant.
Literacy is overated.
A judge is called a judge because he renders the court's judgement, and he calls the punishment. We don't wanna know if he likes his country or not. If Reid was a sodlier or a terrorist. The judge is there to tell what his sentence is. He's not a politician, so fuck off this patriotic speech. The judge isn't supposed to take side.
His personal and politic and nationalist opinions are OUT OF CONTEXT. The judge's judgement is ONLY the sentence/punishment, not what he thinks about the guy and his beliefs or him being a soldier or not or his country being the best or not.
Face it, it was a USELESS speech.
And stop pulling out this useless YOU BLIND AMERICAN HATERS, you are as blind as we are for loving your country so much, learn some modesty, maybe that's why everyone "hates" americans.
Face it, it was a USELESS speech.
And stop pulling out this useless YOU BLIND AMERICAN HATERS, you are as blind as we are for loving your country so much, learn some modesty, maybe that's why everyone "hates" americans.
How do you fail to understand what a "court opinion" is?
How is a speech useless? When is it useful? Silly statement friend. Speeches can and do server to incite emotion, and as it were, was a very good speech with regards to how the statement of one evil little man will go unheard and he will more or less rot in prison. Quite useful.
Sorry again, but its clear there IS blind-hatred, mainly due to the fact that you, nor anyone who spouts anti-americanism or at the very least denounces our patriotism, has any real personal reason to feel the way you do. You judge on a grand scale and do not see how good this country and its people can be. It is quite prejudicial.
Who cares ultimately...your mind won't be changed, so there you go. Glad this post could make you so angry.
Cheers
How is a speech useless? When is it useful? Silly statement friend. Speeches can and do server to incite emotion, and as it were, was a very good speech with regards to how the statement of one evil little man will go unheard and he will more or less rot in prison. Quite useful.
Sorry again, but its clear there IS blind-hatred, mainly due to the fact that you, nor anyone who spouts anti-americanism or at the very least denounces our patriotism, has any real personal reason to feel the way you do. You judge on a grand scale and do not see how good this country and its people can be. It is quite prejudicial.
Who cares ultimately...your mind won't be changed, so there you go. Glad this post could make you so angry.
Cheers
Do note the word "unlawful". Can anyone tell me what "law" is it referring to?dictionary.com : terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
