Young White Men the Most Hated in Britain

[Dinner]

Thinking that war is sometimes justified is not even remotely the same as terrorism as modern war has a hell of a lot of rules and really does attempt to limit civilian casualities. To compare civilian casualities are the goal of terrorism. So you really are making a false equivalency here.

Also you are wrong about muslims not supporting formal war. Just mention Israel and they will go on and on for hours about their desires to kill all of the Jews and reclaim the land for their religion. Not all Arabs will do thst, of course, but a large percentage. Probably the majority of men at least.

Some of them have learned that Arab Armies suck no matter how much modern equipment you give them aND so don't want war because they know they wI'll lose. All of their countries are ruled by dictatorships of one sort or another, the officer corps are picked for loyalty not competence, while the average conscript has very little morale or will to fight for the dictator. Thus corporal and capital punishment are often used to keep soldiers from running away from battle which really only works to a limited degree.

[Kidlicious]

We need to put a hold on all Brittish visas.

[ZEE]

I am really enjoying this thrade, you guise.

[Dinner]

Just stop, man. You really are going off the rails and fighting shadows in your head so it is time to go eat lunch, take a walk outside, and listen to the birds or something.

[C0ckney]

Thinking that war is sometimes justified is not even remotely the same as terrorism as modern war has a hell of a lot of rules and really does attempt to limit civilian casualities. To compare civilian casualities are the goal of terrorism. So you really are making a false equivalency here.

Also you are wrong about muslims not supporting formal war. Just mention Israel and they will go on and on for hours about their desires to kill all of the Jews and reclaim the land for their religion. Not all Arabs will do thst, of course, but a large percentage. Probably the majority of men at least.

i don't understand why you are making an abstract 'argument' about war sometimes being necessary instead of actually dealing with the point. i could just as easily say 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', but there's not much value in trading platitudes.

let's deal with practical matters. what is the difference between being killed by a suicide bomb and one dropped from 20,000ft? how many people have died because of western interventions in the middle east compared to terrorist attacks in the west?

[Dinner]

Except, no, no, we cannot. By definition terrorism targets civilians thus breaking the laws of war which all nations have agreed upon making it illegitimate.

You are making a false equivalency when you claim something both immoral and illegitimate can be compared to something which is allowed under international law and universally agreed to be legitimate. You can rightly say you dislike war but you cannot say all war is illegal. One can say all terrorism violates international law and is illegitimate so the two are not the same.

[C0ckney]

firstly, you don't know what false equivalence is; you can't even spell it.

secondly, your argument is a mere straw man since these are moral questions, not legal ones; and the fact you won't address them on moral terms shows the moral weakness of your position.

thirdly, you, no doubt unintentionally, rather make my point. if we in the west can justify bombing and invading countries by looking at our rules and laws (and that's arguable in many cases - iraq is a prime exmaple - but again besides the point), then terrorists can justify their bombings and shootings with reference to their rules and laws.

[Dinner]

1) Equivalent and equivalancy are both proper words so stick it where the sun does not shine, jr.

2) You are just wrong when you claim outlawed tactics like terrorism (which deliberately target civilians) are morally or legally the same as internationally allowed, recognized, and legitimate state functions such as war. You are spinning around without a compus when you try to say things which are not the same some how are the same. We do have international treaties and laws especially designed to limit harm to civilians while still recognizing war as a legitimate action by nation states.

3) No, no, they cannot. Terrorism is never legal under international law where as war by nation states can be.

[C0ckney]

1) they are both words but the fallacy that you don't understand is called false equivalence.

2) you don't appear to have understood what i'm saying at all; perhaps you ought to adjust your 'compus' (heh). alternatively, you could try answering the questions i posed earlier. here they are again:

what is the difference between being killed by a suicide bomb and one dropped from 20,000ft? how many people have died because of western interventions in the middle east compared to terrorist attacks in the west?

3) do you really not understand what i've written? how do you think ISIS, for example, justify their acts except by reference to their own rules and laws?

[Dinner]

False equivalency is a correct phrase in American English, deal with it.

As for the rest I don't know what else to tell you as you are clearly lost in the clouds. Terrorism is outlawed under international law and so is always wrong; war is in international law as a legitimate option for nation states under certain conditions provided strict laws are followed as it is conducted. Your claims that illegal and legal are the same is just false. Functionally the two aren't even the same as one targets civilians while the other seeks to not target civilians.

You are just completely wrong.

[C0ckney]

perhaps i should put it another way as you seem to have become bogged down in a mire of irrelevant ****e.

your claim is that 25% of muslims support terrorism and that this is a bad thing.

my claim is that many people in the west - and certainly more than 25% - support bombing and/or invading muslim countries, and not in some abstract 'sometimes war is necessary' sense but in the sense of supporting real wars with real consequences.

you try to justify western actions with certain 'arguments' that essentially amount to 'bombing/invading iraq, for example, is totally justified because of reasons'; an ISIS supporter would justify their actions with certain 'arguments' that essentially amount to 'the paris attacks, for example, are totally justified because of reasons'. only the reasons change.

[Sava]

firstly, you don't know what false equivalence is; you can't even spell it.

truth

[Sava]

only the reasons change.

there exists a spectrum of what is justified

if you think everything is just "reasons", you are much dumber than I thought

[loinburger]

Whether something intends to kill civilians isn't as important as whether something will kill civilians. If we dropped a nuke on Baghdad and said "well we weren't targeting the civilians, we were only targeting Saddam Hussein and the civilians happened to be in the way" then that wouldn't have passed muster. The actual invasion of Iraq wasn't that flagrant, but we were still essentially saying "we're going to invade Iraq, this is almost certainly going to directly cause the deaths of [X] civilians, and that's okay by us." Fortunately international law was on our side thanks in no small part to our having veto powers in the only internationally recognized political body that could have censured us.

[C0ckney]

which is we must look at practical questions, a couple of which i have referred to, when making moral judgements.

and don't worry, you couldn't be any dumber than i think you are.

edit: x-post.