What is a Terrorist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Stopping Japanese aggression was rational, but stopping Israeli is not ?!?!

---

Exactly. If the terrorists would leave Israel the fuck alone or act like decent people and become decent citizens, this shit would not be happening. I believe in individuality. Israel should be a nation where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain. If American Indians, my close relatives by the way, started blowing up restaurants and talking a bunch of "Us them we they ours theirs" shit, I would call those idiotic individuals irrational too. Would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

According to you, extreme action is alright if it is rational, it was okay to nuclear bomb Japan because it would end a war.

This example would go with any war!

Do you think rationality picks a site?

Israel is in conflict with Palestine, THEREFOR it would be RATIONAL for Palestine to deal with Israel in extreme manner, like nuking.

---

No, it is not rational to pull the us and them holy land shit against Israel. It is fucking retarded. If Palestinians were Christians, I bet you would say the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Try to view things with a Universal perspective ;)

---

:rolllaugh::clap: Did you come up with that yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Iran hasn't made any militaristic moves against Israel. And you can't mean HAMAS either, since they have coherent reasons that go beyond the concept of just "get them", or for the sake of "pleasing Allah"... So you might want to be more clear as to who you're reffering to.

---

My point about Iran was based on a hypothetical, and I would love for you to tell me about the brilliant and effective strategies of the wacky religious cuckoo burgers in Hamas. Don't forget about the large numbers of terrorists, yes terrorists, who act alone and blow up buildings in Israel and get nowhere with it but dead and in the middle of mindless tragedy they created. By the way, do you have a problem with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Considering that even the American news (NBC, at least, suprise) acknowledged that out of all of the Palestinian civilians that Israeli troops have killed, over a third of them were children. They've killed some 1,100 civilians just in the timespan of the recent Gaza conflict alone. So yes, Specialis, you'd be correct.

---

I need to study the recent conflict more. What was the goal, and what was accomplished? If the answer is nothing more than grrrrrrr and roar and me scare THEM, then it was definitely a terrorist act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

No. Maybe what our way of life depends on. Maybe. Selling weapons to both sides, using military force to procure resources in other defensless countries, destroying every piece of land we can lay our hands on in the name of capital interest.. Those words came out of the mouth of an ex-special forces member who served in the US Army, by the way. I guess it's easier to get sick of corruption when you actually take part in it.

---

Have you read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation"? Please do. You will believe me then. Seriously. Read it. You will get the picture of why Islamofascists hate me and YOU.

Our interests in the Middle East go far beyond economic interests, and the Middle East presence that got Bin Laden so pissed in the first place is our consentual presence in Saudi Arabia. Our presences in Iraq and Afghanistan are allowed by the new governments. It's just too bad the wonderful people in the Taliban and the Hussein regime didn't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

This would be reason number One. Stepping right into the heart of the Middle East to steal a sovereign (and globally reckognized) nation with the intent of imprisoning it's people (internment camps) and killing unarmed civilians (women and children being the majority), you'd think that would have been the obvious answer. Not because they "hate our way of life". Oneironaught was on the right course with this when he suggested that their reasons were the result of another conflict largely unbeknownst to us.

---

Steal? No, Iraq and Afghanistan do not belong to us. They are not going to be stars on the American flag. When the insurgents stop their irrational bull shit, we will call off our combat activities and the citizens will have the land to themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Violating laws of war that were agreed to and established by the other powerful nations of the world is not exactly what I'd call rational. It's old news that killing civilians does nothing but strengthen the conviction of your enemy to burry you, and it makes you look like the bad guy to your allies and everyone else in the world. The only circumstance I can think of under which killing civilians could ever be justified is when the enemy intentionally kills your civilians first, and even then it's still shaky ground.

---

Killing civilians has made a lot of great changes for the world, as horrible as that method is. It ended WWII, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Did you get that probability from somewhere or did you just make it up? Nuking cities with the intent of killing civilians could just have likely turned the rest of the world against us. Do you not agree?

---

Yeah, I made it up. It is such a coincidence that it worked. How strange. Who would have thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

It's quite simple really. The difference between the oppressors and the oppressed is that only the oppressed call out for freedom. The Palestinian's are calling for freedom, they want their country back. They are being occupied, and their civilian's are being killed by soldiers who's equipment seriously outperforms that of their own 'soldiers'. There's a big difference between living in Jerusalem as a Jew (big deal) and then taking part in the Israeli expansion into lands that never belonged to them. Who do you think started the conflict? It was called PALESTINE before all of this happened.

---

The Iraqi insurgents are not calling out for freedom. They are calling out against it. That is a fact. The Palestinians and the Israelis need to live together in a secular democracy of equality. Everything else is bull shit. I don't believe in the "us and them" superorganism bull shit. Every person is an individual. Right?

The 1948 action was wrong. Very wrong. But this is 2009. Very few of the actual invaders are still alive. What we have now is a nation of people who were born there and grew up there. Kicking two year olds out now makes as much sense as kicking American Indians out of the U.S. today because the cave people were there first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exactly. If the terrorists would leave Israel the fuck alone or act like decent people and become decent citizens, this shit would not be happening. I believe in individuality. Israel should be a nation where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain. If American Indians, my close relatives by the way, started blowing up restaurants and talking a bunch of "Us them we they ours theirs" shit, I would call those idiotic individuals irrational too. Would you?

No, it is not rational to pull the us and them holy land shit against Israel. It is fucking retarded. If Palestinians were Christians, I bet you would say the same thing.

---

Oh, "if the terroists would leave Israel alone this would not be happening.."

You do not see the long chain of events, starting from decades ago! Do you think that it's that simple!?

Individualism.. yeah..

Why did you not write:

"Israel and Palestine should be nations where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain."

Can you please rephrase the last paragraph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Why did you not write:

"Israel and Palestine should be nations where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain."

---

Edit: Oh, I missed the "and Palestine". However, I do very much agree with it. The us and them stuff that is based on race, religion, heritage, and nationality is shallow, dangerous, and irrational. Nobody is guilty of evil because of where or how they were born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What? I did write that, or at least something to that effect. Do you disagree with it?

---

You were emphasizing Israel.

Do you agree with ALL people should have equal rights?

Do you agree with the Palestinian people having equally right to a national state?

Yes, Israel has this right too, but not in this way.

Right now Israel has no respect for NON-isreali soil, the settlements etc.

I think this picture is pretty illustrative.
http://www.hamdden.co.uk/Images/Pale...d_loss_Map.jpg


(Notice all the settlements)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ttlements).png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

You were emphasizing Israel.

---

We were talking about Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Do you agree with ALL people should have equal rights?

---

All innocent individuals.

Don't think I side with Judaism over Islam or anything like that. I think it's all a bunch of B.S. When it comes to the us and them religious jargon, they all need to shut the fuck up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Do you agree with the Palestinian people having equally right to a national state?

---

Absolutely, but the idea I like much more than that is the idea of Israel and Palestine joining as one secular nation where all innocent people are equal. Then they can all be happy about being in the "holy land" in peace. I know that is unrealistic, but at the same time, it is what makes sense. Religion seems to get in the way of what makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Right now Israel has no respect for NON-isreali soil, the settlements etc.

---

That might be true. Maybe I have a lot to learn about Israeli agression. I know a good bit more about Palestinian irrationality. Israelis are responding to it, but perhaps irrationally. At least the Israeli military went after just government targets and dropped warning leaflets on the civilians first. That is very differerent from the way Palestianian terrorists do things.

Israel pretty much has state sanction terrorism. They provoke all the stuff that happens to them. The fact of the matter is, Israel's terrorism is far better funded, and gets better media coverage so it appears more "legitimate". Killing innocent people, is killing innocent people though.

this is a sensitive subject

I think, a people have the right to be a people. Whether that means they are a tribe, a city, or a country. And a group of people have the right to be sovereign, and govern themselves. Its a very natural biological thing for a group of humans to come together and govern themselves

A terrorist is someone who wants to usurp the sovereignty of others, for what ever reason. This means that sovereign nations do not have the right to invade or attack other sovereign nations if the purpose is to destroy their sovereignty. Doing so would make that nation a terrorist nation.

The terrorist usually resorts to fear and violence to spread chaos and panic. Because that is a most effective way to create disorder, which destroys the established sovereignty

Now there are some subtle differences between the terrorist and the freedom fighter

A real freedom fighter is fighting for his own people. That is subjective in itself, but usually this implies he is not 'invading' another country. The soldier is not a freedom fighter in this sense, because he is just following orders. All good soldiers are just following orders, and they hope their leaders are making the right decisions. Leaders don't always make the right decisions, and innocent people suffer at the hands of soldiers. The good soldier is neither a terrorist or a freedom fighter. He is simply doing his/her job. And will be remembered as one or the other depending on the outcome of the war.

The freedom fighter looks like a terrorist because hes not necessarily playing by the rules given to him by a commander. If too many freedom fighters organize, they become a guerilla. And the freedom fighter loses sight of freedom, when hes fighting for his commanders right to rule others. Usurping sovereignty, becoming terrorists.

It may seem like the line is thin, but its not. Who are you fighting for? For your leader and his right to rule others? Or for the sovereign people and the right to rule themselves? The latter is usually remembered as brave freedom fighters who brought democracy.

If a civilized nation wants to remain a civilized nation, there needs to be certain boundaries before we 'invade'. One, it should be first and foremost a defensive act. Two, we leave. We leave so the nation can be sovereign again. Remaining for too long, and people will start to think you want to take over. And in their eyes, you are the ones terrorizing.

I for one how ever believe in the saying you can't get a different result by doing the same old thing. And the same old thing we have been doing is using an act of violence to enforce peace. That is the history of mankinds war. But its not going to work anymore. Or efforts to bring peace using violence will only fuel more hatred. We need a better way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I for one how ever believe in the saying you can't get a different result by doing the same old thing. And the same old thing we have been doing is using an act of violence to enforce peace. That is the history of mankinds war. But its not going to work anymore. Or efforts to bring peace using violence will only fuel more hatred. We need a better way.

---

We just liberated a third world nation from the dark depths of genocidal dictatorship and put up something as advanced as a democracy. It is going to take a while for the transition to be complete. The violence has died down a lot, and the new government is advancing and training so that they can end up swimming on their own. The day is coming. But the "freedom fighters" are causing the big ass delay because they despise freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We just liberated a third world nation from the dark depths of genocidal dictatorship and put up something as advanced as a democracy. It is going to take a while for the transition to be complete. The violence has died down a lot, and the new government is advancing and training so that they can end up swimming on their own. The day is coming. But the "freedom fighters" are causing the big ass delay because they despise freedom.

---

we did not put up a democracy in Iraq. and we can not. not now, not ever

only Iraq can put up a democracy in Iraq. That is something we are learning in this war, is we can not force democracy. You can not enforce peace through violence, because peace implies free will and violence negates it. Only the sovereign nation itself can choose it. And if the country is weak, we can choose to aid the young democracy. That is something we can do.

but this is a very...thin line we walk

Iraq has to choose its own future. We can't choose it for them.

Like democracy is such a good thing. It's actually fundamentally opposed to individual liberty.

Example 1: Someone goes into a neighbourhood and goes door to door asking if people want a new motorcycle. Anyone who says 'yes' gives the person $10,000 and they go out and buy a motorcycle. They get it the next day. Wow, what a nice person, right? Nothing wrong here.

Example 2: Someone goes into a neighbourhood and goes door to door asking if people want a new motorcycle. He tallies up all the 'yes' and 'no' votes. If more than 50% of the people in the neighbourhood said 'yes', he goes door to door and takes $10,000 by force, from everyone, including the people that said 'no'. The next day, everyone in the neighbourhood gets a new motorcycle.

Can anyone see the fundamental difference between the two scenarios?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Like democracy is such a good thing. It's actually fundamentally opposed to individual liberty.

Example 1: Someone goes into a neighbourhood and goes door to door asking if people want a new motorcycle. Anyone who says 'yes' gives the person $10,000 and they go out and buy a motorcycle. They get it the next day. Wow, what a nice person, right? Nothing wrong here.

Example 2: Someone goes into a neighbourhood and goes door to door asking if people want a new motorcycle. He tallies up all the 'yes' and 'no' votes. If more than 50% of the people in the neighbourhood said 'yes', he goes door to door and takes $10,000 by force, from everyone, including the people that said 'no'. The next day, everyone in the neighbourhood gets a new motorcycle.

Can anyone see the fundamental difference between the two scenarios?

---

The first scenario requires a billionaire to go door to door when he would obviously send his butler?

uh....

well, its human nature to give up certain aspects of free will, so someone else can have the burden of telling us what to do

which is why for a large portion of our history, we had kings and queens :? which is illogical in light of how important liberty is to us. but makes sense when you understand how lazy people are when it comes to actually acting out something. even if that action is thinking for yourself, baaaaaa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Iraq has to choose its own future.

---

Now they can.

Now I haven't read any of this so you're going to have to start from scratch against me but Osama bin Laden said his whole plan from the beginning was the provoke the United States in engaging in foreign wars that would bankrupt its economy. It seems like he played Bush and the dumber half of the American people pretty well in that, don't ya think?

We were occupying the Middle East since Bush Snr, even after Reagan said we didn't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. We were defending Israel which most muslims viewed as invaders of the Ottomon empire. We were doing a lot of meddling in people's sovereign business. Some of it, you can justify but most of it, such as reinstalling the Shah in Iran, was war crimes. And let's face it, Muslims don't believe in borders, the English came in and gave them borders but they were always just arbitrary lines that signified nothing except which corrupt idiot could have what. The second they move into democracy, we would shut them down.

So this is all being written out in response to Os original post, because the question is, what is a terrorist? Here was an unstoppable enemy, and George Bush and Osama Bin Laden practically worked together to take it down. It doesn't seem so much like they're islamofascists bred to hate us when I put it that way, now does it? They're more like theocratics unified against one untouchable foreign enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Now I haven't read any of this so you're going to have to start from scratch against me but Osama bin Laden said his whole plan from the beginning was the provoke the United States in engaging in foreign wars that would bankrupt its economy. It seems like he played Bush and the dumber half of the American people pretty well in that, don't ya think?

---

He did? That is the first I have heard. I know he called us a "paper tiger" because of when Clinton backed out of Somalia when things got a little rough. Backing out of Vietnam early is something Al-Zawihiri cited as a sign that we are weaklings who can be defeated. That is what gave Bin Laden and Al Qaeda the will and the courage to attack us domestically. He and other leaders in Al Qaeda thought we would back out of the Middle East if we started getting attacked here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Here was an unstoppable enemy, and George Bush and Osama Bin Laden practically worked together to take it down. It doesn't seem so much like they're islamofascists bred to hate us when I put it that way, now does it? They're more like theocratics unified against one untouchable foreign enemy.

---

What enemy are you talking about there?

You don't think calling us paper tigers wasn't another provocation? Be real, the terrorists won, if anyone gets a mission accomplished banner its them, they bankrupted the fucking country that was 1000 times more powerful than them. That's pretty nice handiwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You don't think calling us paper tigers wasn't another provocation? Be real, the terrorists won, if anyone gets a mission accomplished banner its them, they bankrupted the fucking country that was 1000 times more powerful than them. That's pretty nice handiwork.

---

No, I think he might have said the stuff about starting wars to save face. He now knows he should not have fucked with us, so he is going, "Uh, yeah, that's what I was trying to do!"

We are not bankrupt, but if we end up that way, it will be because of the extreme pressure Democrats put on loan companies to greatly lower their standards and the insane bailouts that are happening now. Obama wants a $1 trillion stimulus package that could put us under for a very long time. That is the real economic threat.

What we have done in the Middle East is take the Taliban and the Hussein regime out of power and replace them with democracies. That is Bin Laden's worst nightmare. He practically thinks democracy is Satan himself. When the Middle East eventually becomes advanced enough to be beyond its current existence as a nesting bed for backward ass terrorists, Bin Laden will have officially lost once and for all. As it is now, he is merely getting his ass kicked in. I don't think he is living a happy life. Things will only get worse for him from here on out.

The US has been bankrupt for years. All the wars helped in that way, but it would of happened anyway. Our government is not responsible with money, in any way at all.

Some people will keep denying it up until we end up creating a new currency because the dollar has become worthless.

The bailout is the only thing to stop the economy from collapsing. The american people have to save the industries because... they're fucking bankrupt.

But sure blame the democrats, even though historically it's always been republicans that cause economy deficits and democrats that get us out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The bailout is the only thing to stop the economy from collapsing.

---

You have it ass backwards, actually. The bailouts are fascistic and are what fundamentally cause a cancerous economy. Think about it: who are the ones saying that the economy needs more "regulation" and "government help"? The politicians. Who benefits the most from a fascist economy? The politicians, and their patsies in industry.

I really don't want to commit reductio ad hitlerum here, but it applies. The exact same rhetoric being spouted by our politicians today was said by Hitler in the early 30s, and we all know how that bailout turned out.

The bailouts only make things worse. The economy is doing bad so what do we do? We spend even more money that we don't have! Here is a question for you. How do you dig yourself out of debt by spending money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The bailouts only make things worse. The economy is doing bad so what do we do? We spend even more money that we don't have! Here is a question for you. How do you dig yourself out of debt by spending money?

---

Invest in the next generation..?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Invest in the next generation..?

~

---

I sure hope that was a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I sure hope that was a joke.

---

:roll:

I await your undeniable economic logic.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

:roll:

I await your undeniable economic logic.

~

---

I await the concrete explanation behind the cereal box rhetoric you just repeated. I can't respond unless you make yourself clear.