i thought in war you werent supposed to kill government officials

i thought that was one of the things

10/9/2005 9:23:46 PM

well, it really depends on whose side youre on in a conflict of ideas...one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

israel and palestine both committed acts of terror during their conflic

10/10/2005 11:36:40 AM

Quote :

"killing government officials and military personnel in a time of war is just warfare."

I would consider a tax collector to be a government employee, in much the same way that, say, an engineer being contracted to rebuild Iraq is an employee.

On the other hand, does that mean you think it's not terrorism when Iraqi insurgents kidnap and/or kill US or Iraqi governement officials?

10/10/2005 1:36:37 PM

GGMon: its ok for insurgents to kill contractors, thats part of warfare

10/10/2005 2:34:53 PM

^^ no because they are not organized into units under common flags.

they don't wear uniforms either and hide amongst the populace.

10/10/2005 2:59:24 PM

oh, so iraq isnt a war?

10/10/2005 3:22:58 PM

^^ and people that tarred and feathered tax collectors differed from that how?

10/11/2005 11:48:44 AM

^ we already went through how tarring and feathering doesn't constitute terrorism

^^ no iraq is no longer a war. it ceased being a war when we stopped fighting the iraqi army. we are now faced with an insurgency, which is entirely different from war.

10/11/2005 2:29:08 PM

^no, you just said that it wasn't. You didn't offer an explanation.

you offered this (incorrect) definition:

Quote :

"terrorism=extreme acts of violence (ie: blowing up buildings, cutting off heads) meant to kill in the name of allah or white power or whatever."

Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence with the intent of intimidating a society or government. Note that the extremity of the violence is irrelevant. It can range from an atom bomb to a broken knee cap. It could also include the threat of pouring hot tar on someone's skin to prevent them from fulfilling their job as tax collector. It could also be the threat of chopping off the head of some civilian who is being paid to help rebuild a country.

Are you seriously trying to argue that if someone went around killing and maiming tax collectors with the intent of discouraging the government from taxing them that it wouldn't be terrorism? What if they blew up an IRS building and only government officials died?

10/11/2005 3:18:41 PM

explain to me how the tarring and feathering of a government official by a mob would strike fear into the hearts of ordinary citizens.

blowing up random civilians in a market does exactly that.

attacking only government officials, one at a time with no collateral damage is not terrorism. it is acts of violence and a resistance to something, but not terrorism.

there is a difference.

[Edited on October 11, 2005 at 3:28 PM. Reason : *]

10/11/2005 3:26:59 PM

so if its not a war these insurgents should get trials and the other protections promised under the law model

10/11/2005 3:29:28 PM

sure if there was a legal system.

10/11/2005 3:30:49 PM

um

there is a legal system

10/11/2005 3:33:56 PM

^^^^because an ordinary citizen will say "oh shit, I'd better not take that job." They will also be afraid to side politically with the tax collectors and the government that wants to impose taxes, for fear of violence. Tax collectors weren't the only people being tarred and feathered either.

also, "strike fear into the hearts of ordinary citizens" is only part of the definition of terrorism.

Here's the OED defnition: A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation.

It's applicable definition of terrorist is :Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.

You're limiting the definition to ordinary citizens but the definition actually includes other groups. It can be targeted at specific relgious groups, ethnicities, or a specific government.

Pouring hot tar on someone because you don't like the role they play in government and you want to intimidate others from fulfilling that role is terrorism.

Whether or not there is collateral damage and whether not you do it one person at a time is irrelevant to the definition.



[Edited on October 11, 2005 at 3:48 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/11/2005 3:40:25 PM

look you can use semantics to make the definition whatever you want

i'm saying what it IS.

10/11/2005 4:17:05 PM

^ I have to admit, that made me laugh out loud.

When it comes to the OED vs. you "saying what it IS" I'm gonna go with the OED.

10/11/2005 4:30:29 PM

you do that. but if it doesn't strike fear into a populace i'm not going to call it terrorism. i call it "pissing into the wind".

10/11/2005 4:36:06 PM

Quote :

"because an ordinary citizen will say "oh shit, I'd better not take that job." They will also be afraid to side politically with the tax collectors and the government that wants to impose taxes, for fear of violence."

10/11/2005 4:40:55 PM

Quote :

"jumping jack flash it's a gas gas gas"

10/11/2005 4:44:03 PM

did your brain just break?

10/11/2005 4:49:19 PM

Quote :

"blah blah hibbidy hooblah"

10/11/2005 4:53:20 PM

I understand your point of view so much more clearly now.

10/11/2005 5:17:22 PM

Alot of this was covered already in the movie Clerks:

Quote :

"Randal: So they build another Death Star, right? Dante: Yeah. Randal: Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it. Dante: Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due. Randal:And the second one was still being built when they blew it up. Dante: Compliments of Lando Calrissian. Randal: Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right. Dante: And you figured it out? Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials. Dante: Basically. Randal: So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished. Dante: And the second time around...? Randal: The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction. Dante: So? Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers. Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at. Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms. Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction? Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living. (The Blue-Collar Man (Thomas Burke) joins them.) Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about? Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi. Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels. Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs. Randal: Like when? Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was. Dante: Whose house was it? Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's. Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster? Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine. Dante: Based on personal politics. Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling. Randal: No way! Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet. "

10/11/2005 6:42:13 PM

You just reminded me how shitty that movie was. All that dumb, rambling dialogue.

10/11/2005 7:14:35 PM

^^ funny and true, they know the risks when they go, not that that makes it right or wrong for the insurgents to kill civilians though.

Quote :

"you can use semantics to make the definition whatever you want"

semantics are the defiinitions of a word. It's the literal meaning. So no, one can not use semantics to make the definition of a word whatever they want. That being said, terroism or war, it's still some form of violence/intimidation with the intent of getting what you want.

Quote :

"no iraq is no longer a war. it ceased being a war when we stopped fighting the iraqi army. we are now faced with an insurgency, which is entirely different from war."

We are no longer at war with Iraq, we and the Iraqi government are at war with those opposed to a U.S. occupied Iraq and a heavily U.S. influenced Iraqi government. The American Revolution was an insurgency, it was still a war.

Quote :

"no because they are not organized into units under common flags. they don't wear uniforms either and hide amongst the populace"

are you talking about the insurgents? I'm assuming the insurgents b/c you say they hide amongst the populace. What the fuck does it matter if they have uniforms, or a flag. Or Maybe they do and you just haven't seen them. Why would they walk around in a uniform? we wear camouflage to blend in with the environment, we have these guys called Recon that wear civilian clothes, and grow their hair out so they blend in with the populace to gather information, it's called not being a dumbass and making yourselves known. These guys don't have forts or military bases, and they aren't in a jungle where they can hide in bunkers, they are fighting out of their houses. They'd be pretty easy to find if they had a damn flag over their house, which would make them dumb as hell. The militia's during the American Rev. war didn't fly a flag over their farm saying they were part of the group.

Warfare changes, armies don't just line up and walk toward each other shooting any more. THERE ARE NO RULES IN WAR, except for those which you CHOOSE to follow. It's WAR, not tea and cookies, people will do whatever they have to to reach their goals. They used to not kill officers in battle (this was a "rule"), they stopped putting rank on helmets in vietnam due to these units known as snipers that looked for officers specifically and shot them to break down chain of command. We did the same thing. We also used a lot of guerilla warfare in vietnam compared to the past. The way we fight (the "rules" and tactics) changes based on the environment and how our enemies fight. We do things by the written rules because we have to appeal to other countries so that they don't fuck us in other areas. The insurgents aren't looking far enough ahead that they want to appeal to these countries, only to the people who support them so they don't have to adhere to these rules. Of course if they were to overcome the current government and form a new one the UN could charge the leaders with war crimes. Or countries may not deal with them. But that's really just consequences you have resulting from the rules of the people with the most power, there are no real rules.

Killing your enemy is warfare. Civilians are just as much their enemy as military (someone can hate/want to fight you without you recipricating those feelings). Thus killing civilians can be part of warfare. They have a goal and they are doing what they feel is the most effective way to achieve that goal. They don't want to conquer the US or beat us in war, they want us to leave their country. All US occupants are their enemy not just the military. In most of the wars we've been in we've wanted the countries people to be behind us so we would drop fliers, food, anything we could think of (this is all propaganda) all over the country, making them happy and enticing them to support the U.S.. The insurgents don't want us behind them, (nor do they have a way to entice us to if they did) they want us gone... all of us, civilian and military. They want us to be afraid of being there. They believe that by killing as many of us as possible, be it military or civilians, matter of fact probably more so if it's civilians, then we will leave.

10/11/2005 7:40:19 PM

so all those syrians want us to leave their country. wait, we're not in their country. all those iranians want us to leave their country. wait, we're not in their country.

who wants us to leave again? and where?

10/11/2005 10:25:12 PM

Iraqi insurgents?... don't think it was that complicated

10/11/2005 11:05:18 PM

last i heard the insurgency was being "led" by individuals who are not iraqi.

try again.

[Edited on October 12, 2005 at 8:31 AM. Reason : oh and btw: ]

10/12/2005 8:30:28 AM

let me see some links, i've read this as well, but it's always been thrown in along with the iraqi led insurgents, and mostly stated by the Bush administration, which although i support them in the war, they haven't been straightforward. And let's face it, the more "terrorist led forces" we're still fighting there the better it looks than fighting "Iraqi people resisting our occupation". And not that I'm saying there aren't any, but just because there are some doesn't mean they all are non-iraqi's.

And let's say they are all Non-Iraqi's. That only very slightly changes their reasons for fighting, not their methods of fighting. They still want us out of the land, it's just not their nation. The whole deal with Al-Queda (and other islamic factions), and the reason the Taliban embraced them in afghanistan, is because they are on a fucking crusade. They want non-islamic people out of their countries. They don't want their countries ran by western politics, or western philosophy. Their culture is different. They see our occupancy and any western influence as us strong arming our philosophies into their cultures and curupting their beliefs. I'm talking about the fanatical groups which are leading these activities throughout the middle east, not nec. the general public.

The fanatics want to take over all of the governments in that reagion, if they can get us out of Iraq while the Iraqi government is still very weak then it would make it very easy for them to take over. And then after that they would want to move into europe. This is why no matter what, we can not pull out. That and the public scorn we would recieve from other countries. The taliban had Afganistan, they and people of the same school of thought are still around over there and want to gain as much control as possible. They have comparatively small numbers so having us there puts a big damper on them, especially if a solid Iraqi government gets up and running. As of right now and especially in previoius months, if we would just leave Iraq then whoever has the most might could easily take over. Right now that would probably be fanatical groups.

They are religioius nuts, not nationialists. So it really doesn't matter if they're Iraqi, Iranian, Canadian, American, Or Cocksuckernese, they want non-islamics out of the middle east. All non-islamics, no matter what country they are from, if they're military or not, are their enemy.

10/12/2005 9:11:32 AM

finally a post that can't be trolled.

kinda sad about it though.

10/12/2005 9:21:37 AM

30thAnnZ:

Quote :

"anyone who disagrees with me is trolling"

[Edited on October 12, 2005 at 10:44 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/12/2005 10:44:02 AM

actually no, anyone who disagrees with me is a moron.

but if you can't see open trolling in this thread that makes you a complete moron.

[Edited on October 12, 2005 at 10:57 AM. Reason : btw, i was the one doing the trolling, dipshit.]

10/12/2005 10:53:47 AM

^did I hurt your feelings?

10/12/2005 10:56:52 AM

it would be exceedingly difficult for you to either rile me up or to "hurt my feelings" when all i've been doing is trolling you incessantly.

10/12/2005 10:59:22 AM

It's just that usually when someone starts calling people things like "moron" and "dipshit" it means they're upset a la an 8 year old. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't making you cry.

10/12/2005 11:03:17 AM

10/12/2005 11:04:07 AM