Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Presidential candidate endorses terrorism

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 11
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 template Next
  • #106
    Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
    BlackCat, it doesn't matter whether they could technically qualify as terrorism, we're using terrorism as a technical term here to mean something very specific.
    It's Kitchum's use of the word that is in question so technically it does matter. If Kitchum's use of the term "terrorism" technically qualifies as "terrorism", then you can't say his use of the word does not qualify as "terrorism". (I'll leave that up to you guys to decide since I wouldn't want to stomp on any burgeoning pedants' hopes and dreams.)

    But you are correct that in the end it doesn't matter what label you give it. It's us killing civilians to try to force a nation to do what we want them to. Whether you think it's justified or not, call it "terrorism" or "a pre-emptive strike", that's what it is.

    Comment

    • #107
      Originally posted by Aeson View Post
      It's Kitchum's use of the word that is in question so technically it does matter. If Kitchum's use of the term "terrorism" technically qualifies as "terrorism", then you can't say his use of the word does not qualify as "terrorism". (I'll leave that up to you guys to decide since I wouldn't want to stomp on any burgeoning pedants' hopes and dreams.)

      But you are correct that in the end it doesn't matter what label you give it. It's us killing civilians to try to force a nation to do what we want them to. Whether you think it's justified or not, call it "terrorism" or "a pre-emptive strike", that's what it is.
      Disagree a bit. What DaShi et al. tries to do is to make a difference between "rape" and "involuntary intercourse". When beduins kills americans (civil or not) it's terrorism, when good ole americans kills beduins, it's preemptive strikes.
      With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

      Steven Weinberg

      Comment

      • #108
        That isn't a disagreement as I am not addressing what label to use on it.

        Comment

        • #109
          Originally posted by Aeson View Post
          That isn't a disagreement as I am not addressing what label to use on it.
          Quite agree Sorry, misread your post.
          With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

          Steven Weinberg

          Comment

          • #110
            BlackCat, the difference is that we attack military targets or targets of strategic significance. Terrorists do not distinguish between civilians and the military.

            We're not interested in slaughtering Iranians--quite the opposite. We just don't want them to get nukes, and are willing to do what it takes to prevent that.
            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
            ){ :|:& };:

            Comment

            • #111
              Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
              BlackCat, the difference is that we attack military targets or targets of strategic significance. Terrorists do not distinguish between civilians and the military.

              We're not interested in slaughtering Iranians--quite the opposite. We just don't want them to get nukes, and are willing to do what it takes to prevent that.
              Since when has there been a state of war between US and Iran ? If the US actually kills these people, it's cold blodded murder and terorism and not "involuntary intercourse".
              With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

              Steven Weinberg

              Comment

              • #112
                We haven't declared war since 1941. You no longer need to be in an official war to engage your enemies.
                If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                ){ :|:& };:

                Comment

                • #113
                  HC, as stated before, by your definition it would make perfectly sense, being reasonable and defendable if iranians started to kill US military targets and targets of strategic significance. I'm pretty sure that you would be quite outraged by such actions and call it terrorism.
                  With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                  Steven Weinberg

                  Comment

                  • #114
                    Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                    We haven't declared war since 1941. You no longer need to be in an official war to engage your enemies.
                    Are you really so stupid as this comment suggest ?
                    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                    Steven Weinberg

                    Comment

                    • #115
                      Btw. there are something much more worrisome than all this terrorist BS. Kit started this thread at seven in the morning on a saturday - that really doesn't make sense
                      With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                      Steven Weinberg

                      Comment

                      • #116
                        Originally posted by BlackCat View Post
                        HC, as stated before, by your definition it would make perfectly sense, being reasonable and defendable if iranians started to kill US military targets and targets of strategic significance. I'm pretty sure that you would be quite outraged by such actions and call it terrorism.
                        No, it would not be terrorism. If they attacked military targets, it would be war. And yes, we would be outraged. If you're wondering why there seems to be a double standard here, it's because one is a rogue, repressive islamic regime and the other is a democracy which is also a superpower.
                        If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                        ){ :|:& };:

                        Comment

                        • #117
                          I think you forgot a "rogue" there. We've been invading and messing with a lot more places than Iran can even dream of.

                          Comment

                          • #118
                            Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                            No, it would not be terrorism. If they attacked military targets, it would be war. And yes, we would be outraged. If you're wondering why there seems to be a double standard here, it's because one is a rogue, repressive islamic regime and the other is a democracy which is also a superpower.
                            Uhmn, I didn't know that US was islamic or that Iran was a superpower.
                            With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                            Steven Weinberg

                            Comment

                            • #119
                              Were the Kennedy assassinations (either of them) typically described as terrorism?
                              No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                              Comment

                              • #120
                                Depends - if it was the result of a conspiracy, it could be called terrorism, but that would demand that the conspirators said it was them that did it. Since they haven't it was probably just a nutcase.
                                With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                                Steven Weinberg

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 template Next
                                Working...
                                X