Thread: What is a Terrorist?

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 would just hope for some more reaction from the western world, especially USA.

We just hear condemnetions of this obvious (allow me to say) massacre.

"The United Nations Security Council issued a statement on December 28, 2008 calling, "for an immediate halt to all violence", the Arab League, and the European Union made similar calls, as did Argentina, Brazil, China, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philipines, South Korea, and Vietnam. Libya pushed to issue a Security Council Resolution urging for a cease-fire, an effort which the US blocked, citing the failure of the statement made December 28.

On January 9, 2009, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a full Israeli withdrawal by 14 votes to one abstention (the United States), even though US diplomats had been involved in its drafting. Israel and Hamas both ignored calls for a ceasefire."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...3Gaza_conflict

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Of course it was "legal". The US government did it. That's not a valid argument at all. For example, if Kim Jong Il declares it legal to kill South Korean children on sight, is that now somehow an argument for why it's not terrorism? I also don't see why effectiveness comes into it. Are you saying that an act of violence is moral if it's effective? The Nazis effectively killed millions of Jews. Does this make it morally correct to do so?

Correct. That is not "terrorism". It is still immoral. The Nazis did not commit "terrorism". They committed genocide and unjustifiable take over.

You are confusing the definition issue with the morality issue. They are separate.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

And your comment about Germany killing the most civilians is quite dubious. Not even including the nukes, the Allied carpet bombing campaigns were MASSIVELY larger in scale than the German campaigns. In fact, I think the Final Solution is the only factor that even makes it conceivable that the Germans killed more civilians.

I was talking about what single country did, but the Axis Powers killed more civilians than the Allies, I think. Don't forget about how the Germans took over one country after another and used bombs to do it. They would pull air raids and wipe out entire towns at a time, definitely not for the greater good.

Originally Posted by Kiloisalb

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Yes, the terrorists we are talking about are fighting specifically against freedom. So, yeah, they fight freedom. But at least they blow up restaurants full of kids so they can say, "Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!" It accomplishes a great deal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the terrorists we are talking about are fighting specifically against freedom.

Is this seriously what is perpetuating this thread?

Is there really someone out there who says, "I hate freedom! Kill it!" cause I really want to see that quote. Someone of this mentality ought to at least be pretending that freedom is what their "goal" is. I'm looking at you, Mahmoud Ahmadinejaad.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is there really someone out there who says, "I hate freedom! Kill it!" cause I really want to see that quote.

Here's one...

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...evil+democracy

That was said by the "freedom fighter" Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the former leader of the Al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. He's the guy who used to get on video and cut off the heads of American civilians who were helping to build up Iraq. Fortunately, the U.S. military terminated him.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Here's one...

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

Naw naw naw, you said "freedom" not "democracy". I am really curious to see a quote against the explicit word 'freedom'. Is there seriously a quote of someone saying something along the lines of "I hate freedom" or "freedom must die" etc.?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Naw naw naw, you said "freedom" not "democracy". I am really curious to see a quote against the explicit word 'freedom'. Is there seriously a quote of someone saying something along the lines of "I hate freedom" or "freedom must die" etc.?

~

What other type of freedom oriented government is there?

Besides, Zarqawi and Bin Laden and the fellas settle for nothing short of a government run by the Koran, a kind of government where pretty much everything fun is illegal. That is hatred for freedom. Those people are clearly not fighting for freedom.

Read the answer to Q2 of this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Maybe the word "freedom" is not mentioned specifically in it, but it is freedom that he is speaking out against.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

A system of government is not the same as freedom.

Then I ask you the same question. What other type of freedom oriented government is there? If the people don't rule, they are not free. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

A system of government is not the same as freedom.