If We Don't Call Them Names, the Terrorists Win

[Chemical Ollie]

Let's go on a crusade and smoke'em out. Lord have mercy on their souls, because we won't!

[Sirotnikov]

If one posits that a soverignty in a state lies with its people, then each member of the populace is a backer of government policy, by either direct action or by inaction and acquiesence.

This is bullcrap on so many levels.

If only because I can give you examples of people who voted / demonstrated against some policy, who were later the victims of terrorism.

But I can't believe that you can claim to argue from a higher moral stand-point while carrying that drivel.

This makes it moral for me to kill you for a barrage of reasons, having to do with US actions that I disapprove of.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

This is bullcrap on so many levels.

If only because I can give you examples of people who voted / demonstrated against some policy, who were later the victims of terrorism.

But I can't believe that you can claim to argue from a higher moral stand-point while carrying that drivel.

This makes it moral for me to kill you for a barrage of reasons, having to do with US actions that I disapprove of.

No actually, not under my system because I am the one positing that violence is inherently immoral or at best amoral.

And "drivel" this notion isn't. For one, it was the underpinning of the terror raids during WW2, the underpinning of the theory of mutualy assured destruction, and also the underpinning of a sanctions regime, which essentially seeks to punish the entire populace, not only its leaders, usually in the hope that the populace will then change regimes to one that will agree to whatever policy brought the sanctions on.

Which is also why it is an underpinning of modern terrorism.

[Sirotnikov]

Yes, as a rule its forbidden. Doesn;t mean its not done, and when done, it is sometimes decried, but no one is ever punished unless they wrre on the losing end of th war.

also not true.

there are countless examples from recent wars, both in US and IDF forces, of soldiers being punished and jailed for illegal actions against innocent populace.

Not true. "Barbarian" always simply meant "them", the other guy.

No it hasn't.

Barbarians always referred to outsider nations, who usually were raiders and looters and often killed off the entire male populace of cities the sacked.

Something which neither the Romans, Greeks, or Muslims did as a common practice.

The definition of honor itself has changed immensely from when it started, and as for morals in war, you simply have to look at warfare's long history going back to see that morality was very subjective. And as for the shunning, if you were strong or rich enough, no one shunned you.

Morality is always subjective. And no one claimed that honor or morality didn't change or evolve.

You're the one that claimed that current ethics of war are random / have no basis. I contend that.

Your response is no retort to that. More like admission of defeat.

The rules were established by the victors, for their own pusposes. Certainly the shock of the previous two world wars was a huge incentive, but notice for example that no move was ever made to ban the use of nuclear weapons. Why? Because those states ijn power had them, and would not place any limits on themselves in their use.

How is that relevant?
Were chemical weapons banned after WWI because it was something that 3rd world countries would do?

Was the rational treatment of civilian populace some invention to weaken 3rd world countries / terrorist groups in future wars? Or was it a direct response to bombing campaigns undertaken by the germans and later the allies?

Was the prevention of repopulation of an occupied land not related to events in WWI and WWII?

Was the humane treatment of war prisoners something that was invented to piss off 3rd world countries or splinter organizations in future wars?

To claim that the protection of non-armed civilians came to piss off and weaken terrorist groups (most of which hadn't existed then), is laughable at best.

And there is a definite state based bias. The international system and those rules were created to limit one state's actions against another, not a states actions against those under its recognized control. Note that almost all terrorism is purely internal. AQ is different only in that it does not have a very limited area of concern for a terrorist organization.

1st it is untrue that it is mostly internal, unless you consider resistance to occupation something internal.

In which case it would be governed by internal laws, which give unique power to the state police, and said terrorist acts would be illegal still, only under different codex.

This does not however in any way retract from the responsibility of any armed force, military, para-military or police, towards the well being of non-armed civilians.

[Sirotnikov]

I'm tired and all next week is difficult for me, so I'll stop posting on this issue now.


I'm pleased to have pwned you though, and shown that your moral system comes down in shambles

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm just curious what is gained from not calling evil acts what they are.

But we call them what they are - murderers, terrorists. These aren't in any way euphemisms to me. There's no need to get hysterical (which is what AQ etc do), and I could as well ask if that would stop any die-hard terror guy.

I think if our politicians or media need to "call them names" because otherwise it wouldn't be clear to anyone here that terrorist action is not really nice then we already lost that one.

As for what is gained by a more "controlled" language - my approval, of course

[Blaupanzer]

Most modern terrorists are already dead by the time we hear about them. The dead don't seem to care what you call them. At least none of the dead have ever complained. Kill the terrorists if they don't do it themselves, let other people call them names. Something about "sticks and stones ..."

[fed1943]

War is very bad.

Terrorism worse.

A good reason to not "bad name" terrorism is to participate or
profit from it.

Think,please:

Who was the first known terrorist leader? Wasn't he the distinguished
Knight Sir Lawrence of Arabia?

Who first trained Al-Quedda? Wasn't SAS members under orders of
UK Government?

How do you think to convince any Muslin (or non-Muslin) that the big
reason under Iraki invasion is not oil business when the only visible
change is on this field?

Best regards,

[PLATO]

Originally posted by fed1943
How do you think to convince any Muslin (or non-Muslin) that the big
reason under Iraki invasion is not oil business when the only visible
change is on this field?

Best regards,

10 Improvements in the life of Children:

1.) A "back to school" campaign delivered 1,500 kits with book bags, notebooks, pens and pencils that helped 120,000 students in Baghdad return to their classrooms in May 2003. In preparation for the new school year, 1.2 million kits for secondary school students and 4,000 kits for their schools including desks, chairs, blackboards, and bookshelves are arriving in Iraq.

2.) Malnutrition contributed to high mortality rates in Iraq during Saddam's rule. The food aid for Iraq has continued to supply the public distribution system and has allowed the majority of Iraqis access to food rations. On July 15, the World Food Program reported that nearly 1.5 million metric tons of food, or more than the three months supply required to keep the distribution system operating, have been dispatched to Iraq. An additional 2.2 million metric tons of food will arrive by the end of October. These steps will contribute to reversing malnutrition.

3.) To date, 22.3 million doses of measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and polio vaccines have been provided, enough to vaccinate 4.2 million children.

4.)Nearly all Iraqi children have finished their exams from last year and are ready to start a new school year in the fall. All universities are reopened.

5.) A $53 million program to rehabilitate more than 100 schools and clinics is underway. In the southern region, more than 50 schools are in various stages of rehabilitation. More than 600 schools will be in "like new" condition in time for the beginning of classes.

6.) Five million revised math and science textbooks will be ready before the start of the school year.

7.) Saddam Hussein's rhetoric is being removed from Iraqi schoolchildren's textbooks. In the words of Dunia Nabel, a teacher in Baghdad: "We want flowers and springtime in the texts, not rifles and tanks." (The Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2003).

8.) Ten delivery rooms in hospitals and primary healthcare centers in Basra have been rehabilitated and stocked with essential drugs and medical supplies.

9.) The juvenile institution for children that was the subject of reports of abuse and appalling conditions under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by a project run by UNICEF and NGOs. Seven orphanages have undergone major building renovations and training for staff.

10.) Nearly 3,000 soccer balls were shipped on May 30 and another 60,000 balls on their way to Iraq through a private/public partnership and the U.S. soccer community.

Provincial Reconstruction Units:

The PRTs Are Implementing Programs Aimed At Improving Local Governance, Restoring Essential Services, Promoting Small Business, And Building Confidence And Reconciliation Among Their Iraqi Counterparts. A variety of activities are underway, and a number of accomplishments are evident in just the first two months after their stand-up:

- In partnership with the district council, an embedded PRT has aided the development of an Economic Growth Strategy, including a new Business Information Center to promote private sector economic growth.

- Another embedded PRT has assisted in the formation of a project management office that coordinates more than 168 projects, with a value of $400 million, in its battle space.
An embedded PRT has promoted the renovation and reopening of the Doura Market Complex which has increased the number of shops open from only 2 in December to over 235 today.

- An embedded PRT has identified eight "model communities," through which the PRT will encourage local participation in government and increased security by establishing training and assistance programs.

- An embedded PRT has assisted the establishment of an Economic Development Office which is expanding business leadership by creating a jobs center, helping open up State-Owned-Enterprises, and promoting micro-businesses.

And in some of the more fun places in Iraq:

- Ninewa: The Ninewa PRT helped establish the Mosul branch of the Central Criminal Court of Iraq to adjudicate terrorism cases. Since the Court opened in December, 173 cases have been tried, resulting in 96 convictions and 77 acquittals.

- Baghdad: The Baghdad PRT has helped build the capacity of the Provincial Reconstruction Development Committee (PRDC) by strengthening the linkages between Baghdad’s nine Districts and six Qada councils and the Provincial Council. With the assistance of PRT the PRDC has approved a total of 68 PRDC projects worth $110 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF). At this time, 42 projects valued at $81 million dollars have been awarded for construction.

- Anbar: The Anbar PRT has played an active, and often central, role to help re-connect broken lines of communication between the central GOI in Baghdad and Anbar provincial government. The Governor is now able to directly advocate for the needs of his province with the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers and other Executive branch leaders in the central Iraqi government.

- Diyala: The Diyala PRT has partnered with Iraqis on the Baqubah General Hospital Renovation – a major addition to the existing basic structure will enable more specialized infant and child care as well as the detection and treatment of infectious diseases that impact a large portion of the local population.

But, yep...We are only helping out in the oil fields.




I guess it is easy for some to fall sway to leftist propaganda that all is bad in Iraq and that the US is just a greedy oil hungry conquerer. The real question we should al be asking is why the mainstream media is only painting one side of the picture. Clearly it is a political agenda and clearly it does more to foster the view our enemies want the world to have of us as opposed to he full picture.

[molly bloom]

Calling Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof the leaders of the Baader Meinhof Gang made me respect them, have deep sexual urges for plastic explosives and want to be an international terrorist.


If only people had called them muthaf*ckin' skanky scum sucking vipers then the fight against international terrorism would have been over much more quickly.


And I would never have consummated my unnatural love for Semtex.

[fed1943]

Thanks for your quick answer,Plato.

First, I want to say this: I'm a friend of States, I know Americans do
not want to be the owners of the World and I know most Americans
(as persons and as a community) believe in Democracy and respect all people.

But I know this, not by media, or other ways of knowing "America
seen from outside" but because I was enough time,spoke with
enough people, and worked in places to know "America seen from
inside". Quite different they look, believe me.

Adapting an old Roman saying: the Power must be honest and look
honest. That's the "visible" I posted. To change the oil bus rules,
while your soldiers still there, was not the smartest move, don't you
agree?

Best regards,

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by fed1943
Who was the first known terrorist leader? Wasn't he the distinguished Knight Sir Lawrence of Arabia?

No. It depends on how far you want to go back but the tactic is far older than that.

Who first trained Al-Quedda? Wasn't SAS members under orders of UK Government?

No. AQ didn't exist while the West gave a damn about Afghanistan.

How do you think to convince any Muslin (or non-Muslin) that the big reason under Iraki invasion is not oil business when the only visible change is on this field?

PLATO answered this one.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


No actually, not under my system because I am the one positing that violence is inherently immoral or at best amoral.

And "drivel" this notion isn't. For one, it was the underpinning of the terror raids during WW2, the underpinning of the theory of mutualy assured destruction, and also the underpinning of a sanctions regime, which essentially seeks to punish the entire populace, not only its leaders, usually in the hope that the populace will then change regimes to one that will agree to whatever policy brought the sanctions on.

Which is also why it is an underpinning of modern terrorism.

I dont know what Bomber Harris said, but the position of the USAF, and AFAIK the nominal position of the UK govt, wrt to conventional attacks during WW2, was that they were attacking legitimate military targets, such as manufacturing plants, and were not deliberated attempting to kill civilians. When civilians were killed, such euphemisms as "dehousing" were used, to maintain the notion that it was an economic target (worker housing) that was attacked, and that civilian deaths were accidental. Now there are memos indicating that Harris thought that killing and terrorizing civilians was legitimate, but AFAIK that was never the official position of the UK or US govts.

MAD was accepted on the basis of its being the only possible approach to detering a second strike. If theres any official assertion that Soviet civilians generally were not owed protection as civilians, Id like to see the cite.

No modern western sanctions regime has explicitly sought the deaths of civilians.

Modern terrorism's intellectual roots are quite distinct from the allied strategic bombing. Paul Berman gives the best discussion of its roots ive read.

[lord of the mark]

If we were to determinet that war following the Geneva conventions, refraining from genocide and deliberate murder of civilians, was just as immoral as as terror, genocide, etc we would almost certainly not end war. All we would achieve would be to take away from those who follow the conventions, a propaganda weapon against those who do not, and make the use of the "alternative means", whether a suicide bombing, or a gas chamber, more useable.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by BeBro


But we call them what they are - murderers, terrorists. These aren't in any way euphemisms to me. There's no need to get hysterical (which is what AQ etc do), and I could as well ask if that would stop any die-hard terror guy.

I think if our politicians or media need to "call them names" because otherwise it wouldn't be clear to anyone here that terrorist action is not really nice then we already lost that one.