Bill O'Reilly sez you're unpatriotic if...

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kucinich

---
It's not terrorism if, for instance, we drop a bomb and accidentally kill some civilians, or if we target someone knowing that some civilians will probably die too but try to minimize the civilian casualties.

In the eyes of the victims, it would very likely be regarded as terrorism. And their perception is everything that counts, becauce that perception is what they will base their response on.

There is really no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both attack without warning.

[MrFun]

Chemical -- legitimate warfare tactics allow for surprise attacking your enemy.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MrFun
Chemical -- legitimate warfare tactics allow for surprise attacking your enemy.

Did I say something to oppose that?

[MrFun]

As long as you distinguish war tactics from terrorism, I guess not.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's a political word, and like all political words it attempts to pass itself off as what philosophers call a "thick ethical concept".

A thick ethical concept – like courage or justice – is a concept that contains both a normative element and a descriptive element: so courage is both a good thing and applies to certain acts. In contrast, a "thin ethical concept" – like goodness or rightness – is purely normative.

This is why people say that terrorism is by definition wrong: they understand it as a thick ethical concept.

Unfortunately, it is also a very confused concept since you cannot isolate the descriptive portion of the concept in such a way that it doesn't produce obvious counterexamples. But to the people that employ it this doesn't matter, because it functions as a political word. Political words are thick ethical concepts that people try to force into general usage so that they can define the terms of the debate and get their own way. The relation to reality is of secondary importance.

That's basically what I was thinking, although thanks for putting it into philosophical terms.

I'd say we need a purely descriptive word for the practice of covert operatives leaving suitcases of explosives about, and other terrorist activites; but I suppose such a word would inevitably get moral weights added to it.

With regards to intent, I think that there's a world of difference between proving individual intent, and proving intent at a state level. One is tricky, but doable. The other is extremely difficult, except perhaps if there is a strong authority figure controlling the whole state.

With that in mind, states should be held accountable mostly on consequential grounds, moreso than individuals.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

what did that email say bezerker?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ramo

The whining about terrorism usually stems from a sense that one act is ok (at least in relative terms), while another is not. Unless you want to broaden the definition of "terrorism" to include any destructive act that scares anyone, for anything vaguely related to a social or political reason.

There is nothing significantly different from the bombing of Hiroshima than typical strategic bombing at the time - you attacked targets with military value. Dresden and the Tokyo firebombing were exceptions, because there was no significant military value, but most strategic bombing didn't fall into that category.

I would define terrorism as political violence conducted either indescriminately or intentionally against civilians. As such Hiroshima would fall under the category. As would suicide-bombing a police station in the middle of Baghdad.

It's not whining, it's a simple application of a definition. I'm just tired of people defining terrorism as "things I don't like."

So in other words, if any civilian happens to get hurt, or if the military enemy you're attacking hides behind civilians, then to attack is to commit an act of terrorism. Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Really? Tell that to their leadership, or to the Army, Navy and Marines on Okinawa. It doesn't matter if an enemy is beaten or not (arguably, the Japanese were plainly screwed after Midway), if he either doesn't know it, or refuses to acknowledge it.

The enemy is only "beaten" in a meaningful sense when he surrenders and organized resistance stops. That wasn't the case in August, 1945.

We aren't arguing differing view points apperantly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think Osama bin Laden would be a terrorist. His intent isn't to strike fear.

YES IT IS! His end goal is supremecy of Wahabbist Islam, but his acts of terrorism are intended to strike fear into the West.

[Ramo]

So in other words, if any civilian happens to get hurt, or if the military enemy you're attacking hides behind civilians, then to attack is to commit an act of terrorism. Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!

I didn't say that. There's a difference between making a real effort to avoid civilian casualties and making indiscriminate attacks. And nuking a city certainly is an indiscriminate attack.

[David Floyd]

MtG,

If ten times more people starve and die of disease due to prolonging a war, it's ok, because it's passive and we can all satisfy our neo-leftist limp dicked sense of "morals" rather than taking the only feasible action to immediately and decisively end the war.

So what you are saying, then, is that if the US failed to drop the atomic bomb, and if the Japanese government decided to continue the war and as a consequence, millions of Japanese civilians would have died of starvation, this would be the fault or responsibility of the US?

That's preposterous - the US would have been responsible for it's decision not to drop the A-bomb, and the Japanese government would have been responsible for any decision to continue the war. Put another way, both the US and Japanese governments had a moral responsibility not to intentionally target civilians - I think everyone can agree on that. My point is simply that the actions of one side don't force the other side to act immorally - if the US chose not to drop the atomic bomb, that wouldn't have forced Japan to continue the war and starve to death. That would have been a conscious decision on the part of the Japanese government.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Nuking them was the humanitarian thing to do. Yeah right.

From Truman's point of view, yes.

Given the struggle to take small tropical islands and the death toll incurred by American forces in doing so, what might a hard scrabble defence of the Japanese home islands been like?

These were people who had been brainwashed by their government and armed forces into believing that the Americans would rape, mutilate and eat Japanese civilians. Rather ironic, given what Japanese forces had been doing to Chinese civilians and Allied soldiers.

http://www.nps.gov/amme/wwii_museum/battle_for_saipan/bob_hoichi_kubo_story_las_vegas_review.gif

http://www.nps.gov/amme/wwii_museum/battle_for_saipan/las_vegas_review_dec_1994_saipan.gif

In an ideal world, Truman would have cared about Japanese civilians too, and the lingering effects of atomic radiation. But he had American forces and voters to think about, and a war to be won.

I think this is rather different from the Guatemalan and El Salvadoran paramilitaries who decided to slit the throats of children as young as four - or the murderers who raped and killed American nuns.

If anyone can spot the imminent military threat posed by four year olds, or coffee growers, or nuns, let me know.

"The grisly reality of Central America was most recently revisited on Feb. 25 when a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that occurred during a 34-year civil war.

The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s.

Based on a review of about 20 percent of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93 percent of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved.

The report documented that in the 1980s, the army committed 626 massacres against Mayan villages.

"The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages … are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history," the commission concluded.

The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the north, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." "

Washington Post, February 26th, 1999

Besides carrying out murder and “disappearances,” the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found.

The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.

"Believing that the ends justified everything, the military and the state security forces blindly pursued the anticommunist struggle, without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values, and in this way, completely lost any semblance of human morals," said the commission chairman, Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist.

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people,” he added. "

New York Times, February 26th, 1999

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sandman


That's basically what I was thinking, although thanks for putting it into philosophical terms.

That's what we philosophers do – find bad reasons for endorsing what everyone believes by instinct (with apologies to BR).

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

O'Reilly is right because what the US is doing isn't terrorism, period.

But what the US has done in the past qualifies as terrorism.

Imran -

Calling the US a 'terrorist state', as opposed to saying this administration backs terrorism, while saying terrorism as a perjorative term is inconsistent with being patriotic.

Depends on how one distinguishes between the state and America. If we agree such a distinction exists, then one can love America and despise a political party in charge at any given moment. Obviously the people who call the US a terrorist state are referring to the latter, not the former.

I'd argue that considering your country one of the worst in the world means you don't love it (to do so would be very strange... do you love people you absolutely hate?).

Of course not, but it is quite possible to hate the GOP or the Dems when they are employing terrorism against other peoples and love America since it is so much more than a political party. The people who accuse opponents of lacking patriotism for not agreeing with their views or their political party are effectively defining themselves and their views as the essence of patriotism. Not love of one's country, but love of a political party or voter.

There is a difference between calling your country a terrorist state and deploring that a certain administration uses terrorism. If you refer to a majority of administrations as terrorist then I don't think you can really be patriotic.

Why? If the majority have employed terrorism then that is a simple truth. As Agathon put it, why does patriotism require believing in a falsehood? If patriotism is love of one's country, does that require love for politicians too?

Kontiki -

I'm sure he's all of those things and probably more. But so are a lot of other right-wing windbags on American TV and radio - Rush Limbaugh springs immediately to mind. I'm just wondering why O'Reilly in particular seems to get your goat. It almost seems personal.

I watch O'Reilly and I've criticised Sean Hannity too, but I don't listen to Limbaugh. Why does my motive intrigue you rather than the logic or illogic in what he said? I've already answered your question...

LOA -

what did that email say bezerker?

Can't remember, it was a while ago. I should have saved a copy...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah oreilly hannity and colmes i watch less (unless its a cat fight between ann coulter and kristen powers) just cuz its a trainwreck and everyone talks over everyone else, and hannity is incapapble of thinking for himself (same with colmes, whos a pushover and doesnt say anything usually) and he uses cheap tricks like fake emotion.