[rikdpola]

Terrorists are pussies. How's that work for you?

[gtyruzzel]

The London and Glasgow bombers deserve the title of "pitiful, incompetent boobs" more than anything else.

I mean how pathetic is it if you set up a car bomb and you're dumb enough to park it in a tow away zone? Or if you attack an airport and end up hurting no-one else and setting fire to yourself?

[Ngdyoysv]

That's funny, isn't it?

[lXwVlTgO]

wait a minute, the people in charge of preventing such attacks not only have to do the investigating and preventing, they gotta inform people the attempted attacks were immoral?

[Aw1HhC0m]

Originally posted by Berzerker
wait a minute, the people in charge of preventing such attacks not only have to do the investigating and preventing, they gotta inform people the attempted attacks were immoral? I dunno...if these attacks had happened in Great Yarmouth I might be praising Allah myself right now. It would take a car bomb to improve that town...

[romalama]

These days officials win praise for such evasion. In London, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil-rights group Liberty, observed of Gordon Brown that he "has passed the first test of his administration. He has not played politics with the terror threat and has treated this weekend's events as an operational rather than a political matter."

But if the admirable part of political correctness is that one shouldn't utter unsupportable, reactionary ethnic, gender, or other generalizations, that principle is misapplied in the case of terrorists, who are picked out for condemnation by their acts alone. Aren't "bastards," "scum," and so on precisely the right terms for people who seek to maim and kill presumably innocent others to make a political point?
Please tell me that he's not saying that terrorist wants to make a political point, and Mr Brown is wrong for trying to make it an operational one.

We should not minimize the thirst for respect among terrorists and their potential sympathizers. When we treat terrorists only as tactical foes, as though we're too jaded for moral talk, we raise the self-respect of terrorists and their appeal to young people.
Treating them like mere criminals raise their self-respect, but elevating them to political enemies would deflate it? Somehow, wanting to be Charles Manson rather than Ruhollah Khomeini doesn't fit my mental image of Joe Terrorist.

[Caregrasy]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

No, his point is that we shouldn't say "don't be a terrorist, it's illegal and you might get arrested".

We should say "don't be a terrorist, they are immoral scumbags that deserve hell, and we'll **** you up if you're one". Then 'he' is an idiot. Besides, tabloid newspapers already call terrorist names. I don't think there is any evidence that because the Sun or the NY Post call people evil scumbags, that it has done anything to stop terrorism

[HRCPda7R]

Then 'he' is an idiot. Besides, tabloid newspapers already call terrorist names. I don't think there is any evidence that because the Sun or the NY Post call people evil scumbags, that it has done anything to stop terrorism The point is that no one says that terrorism is fundamentally wrong.

It's as if it was just a nuisance because, hey, you know - it is directed at us.

Guess what - armed conflict is a bad thing. People die and all. It is horrible. Terrorism is worse, because it intentionally seeks out the defenseless and the innocent and attacks them. And no one says that. No one says "stop abusing international laws of warfare". No one says "stop intentionally targeting innocent people". No one says "this is wrong".

The author's point is that alot of western politicians, especially in Europe, are afraid to grow a moral backbone, for fear of offending someone.

But a moral backbone is the basic thing that holds and unites a society. And if we're ever to grow beyond wars and petty conflicts, it will only be when every nation on earth will morally criticize people who do wrong.

Calling people evil scumbags has everything to do with stop terrorism.

Terrorism is there because some people think it is legitimate, and because alot of other good people do nothing to ostracize it.

[Gintovtosik]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The point is that no one says that terrorism is fundamentally wrong. It isn't. "Terorrism" is no more fundamentally wrong than War.


Guess what - armed conflict is a bad thing. People die and all. It is horrible. Terrorism is worse, because it intentionally seeks out the defenseless and the innocent and attacks them. And no one says that. No one says "stop abusing international laws of warfare". No one says "stop intentionally targeting innocent people". No one says "this is wrong".

Terrorism doesn't just 'seek out the helpless." After all, we label attacks against occupational forces "acts of terrorism."

I have always found this attempt to excuse political violence by setting up rules about who gets to be killed, rules meant to support any imbalance of power, to be moraly suspect. Its easy to denounce the killing of innocents when you are a member of the group strong enough to be able to chose whom to kill.


The author's point is that alot of western politicians, especially in Europe, are afraid to grow a moral backbone, for fear of offending someone.

Well, as I stated above, I don't think the stance taken by the author is moral. A true moral backbone would be far more radical than name calling. It would demand a real demand that all individual human rights be respect, and would demand a far more stringent look at any political violence, including that which the powerful have decided to make OK, because they have a monopoly on it.


But a moral backbone is the basic thing that holds and unites a society. And if we're ever to grow beyond wars and petty conflicts, it will only be when every nation on earth will morally criticize people who do wrong.

See above.

Calling people evil scumbags has everything to do with stop terrorism.

Terrorism is there because some people think it is legitimate, and because alot of other good people do nothing to ostracize it. Bull. As long as political violence is seen as a legitimate act, there will be acts of political violence that those in power will seek to delegitimize throught the label of terrorism.

In the past 50 years, 'moraly acceptible' political violence, aka. "war", has killed vast number of people more than 'moraly unacceptible' political violence, aka. "terrorism." That seems to me a very ****ed up moral compass.

[soSldI4i]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Over in the uncool thread you didn't seem to have a problem with people who give fcuk-all about int'l law. 1st of all that thread it totally cool.

2nd - i do find it bad that people don't care about int'l law. i wish it had been enforced equally on all sides, in which case i'd be a stern proponent of it.

Currently though, it is problematic, and I acknowledge that.

[spoddersedpn]

Originally posted by GePap
It isn't. "Terorrism" is no more fundamentally wrong than War. Of course it is more fundamentally wrong.

Warfare is currently governed by int'l law which has developed over years of discussions and considerations for a solid moral code for solving disputes forcefully.

Warfare, while certainly unpleasant, strives to be the most civil way of applying organized violence. It is regulated and the amount of force is usually measured, and directed at what is deemable 'legitimate' targets.


Terrorism on the other hand, intentionally targets the weaker innocent civilians. Something which int'l warfare rules forbid.

Because intentionally trying to hurt innocent people, instead of facing an enemy's army, is morally repugnant and cowardly.

Terrorism doesn't just 'seek out the helpless." After all, we label attacks against occupational forces "acts of terrorism."
That is a semantic problem of news organizations / interested parties.

Example: The Hamas attack on an IDF base and capturing of a soldier is most certainly a legitimate guerilla action.

However, since 99% of Hamas activity is directed against Israeli civilians, Hamas is still predominantly a terrorist organization.

Had Hezbullah not actively targetted Israeli population points, or assisted palestinian terrorists, it could have rightly labeled itself a guerilla organization.

I have always found this attempt to excuse political violence by setting up rules about who gets to be killed, rules meant to support any imbalance of power, to be moraly suspect. Its easy to denounce the killing of innocents when you are a member of the group strong enough to be able to chose whom to kill.
This is utter nonsense.

Everyone is strong enough to choose who to kill, as proved by Hezbullah and Hamas when they rarely choose to confront IDF forces directly.

Targetting innocents is easier for everyone - even advanced western armies. There are good reasons why the US / UK forces in Iraq try to seek out the terrorists instead of simply killing everyone in sight, hoping to strike fear.

Well, as I stated above, I don't think the stance taken by the author is moral. A true moral backbone would be far more radical than name calling. It would demand a real demand that all individual human rights be respect, and would demand a far more stringent look at any political violence, including that which the powerful have decided to make OK, because they have a monopoly on it.
Not any political violence is immoral.

Some things are moral and some things aren't. There are immoral means to wage war. We can easily judge that, because even in street brawls some things are considered "below the belt".

There can also be immoral causes, but causes are much more difficult to judge. You don't always know the entire history for a cause.

And most certainly, we can't reach a state where some person with a cause he believes in, feels he can do what ever the heck he wants.

Bull. As long as political violence is seen as a legitimate act, there will be acts of political violence that those in power will seek to delegitimize throught the label of terrorism.

In the past 50 years, 'moraly acceptible' political violence, aka. "war", has killed vast number of people more than 'moraly unacceptible' political violence, aka. "terrorism." That seems to me a very ****ed up moral compass. If you sincerely claim that there is no moral difference between plain military actions and intentional targeting of civilians (aka terrorism), why the heck do people get riled up when accusing Israel of unproportional responses to terrorist attacks? Or improperly handling civilian casualties?

Hey, after all, if an intentional attack on a legitimate military target (training camp / logistics base / combatant group) is morally equal to an intentional attack on a group of civilians - then what the heck are people crying about certain IDF tactics which they don't like?

As you put it - war is war, and its bad no matter what you do.

So the heck with it. We should just ignore limits of human conscience

[weightpillsnow]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Terrorism on the other hand, intentionally targets the weaker innocent civilians. Something which int'l warfare rules forbid.

Because intentionally trying to hurt innocent people, instead of facing an enemy's army, is morally repugnant and cowardly. Actually, the intention of terrorism is to create popular political pressure against a certain policy by making the populace fear the continuation of that policy given the possibility they might be killed. That attacking people in places they think are safe becomes one of the fundamental tools of this kind of policy is incidental to the policy, not what drives it.

This is utter nonsense.Everyone is strong enough to choose who to kill, as proved by Hezbullah and Hamas when they rarely choose to confront IDF forces directly.

Targetting innocents is easier for everyone - even advanced western armies. There are good reasons why the US / UK forces in Iraq try to seek out the terrorists instead of simply killing everyone in sight, hoping to strike fear. Yes, different political aims bring about different political means. The US and UK are in Iraq as a matter of policy FOR the Iraqi people, not against it.

Advance militaries will strike at civlians indirectly when the civilian populace is seen as the enemy, not as a friend. And they have attcked them directly when they felt is necessary.


Not any political violence is immoral.

Some things are moral and some things aren't. There are immoral means to wage war. We can easily judge that, because even in street brawls some things are considered "below the belt".

And the basis for that morality is? Most of the time it is just a set of agreed upon or imposed upon rules. It isn;t constant and certainly not absolute.

I think your example of a street brawl is a bad one - some things might be "bellow the belt," but it isn't a boxing match, and striking bellow the belt is okay on the streets.


And most certainly, we can't reach a state where some person with a cause he believes in, feels he can do what ever the heck he wants.

I agree. The question is, how do we come upon those limits, and who decided those limits. What authority do they have.


If you sincerely claim that there is no moral difference between plain military actions and intentional targeting of civilians (aka terrorism), why the heck do people get riled up when accusing Israel of unproportional responses to terrorist attacks? Or improperly handling civilian casualties?

I think both military action and terrorism are immoral, taking into account where morality currently stand and think all such actions reprehensible. If I am more vocal in my denoucement of one and not the other it is because some acts are self-evidently wrong while other acts are rationalized in ways I find appaling, or for reasons I find appaling.


Hey, after all, if an intentional attack on a legitimate military target (training camp / logistics base / combatant group) is morally equal to an intentional attack on a group of civilians - then what the heck are people crying about certain IDF tactics which they don't like?

Immorality is not absolute. The harm an act does varies with the act, as does its efficacy. NO two acts are the same. Each act is to be judged accordingly, which includes taking into account the reason for the act, the supposed aim of the act, and finally the effect of the act.

As you put it - war is war, and its bad no matter what you do.

So the heck with it. We should just ignore limits of human conscience Yes, war is always bad. That if anything is a more stringent limit on human conscience than what you profess.

[TodeImmabbedo]

It's maybe just that non-pc talk certainly doesn't, so it doesn't appear to be a wise move

[Zarekylin75]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the intention of terrorism is to create popular political pressure against a certain policy by making the populace fear the continuation of that policy given the possibility they might be killed. That attacking people in places they think are safe becomes one of the fundamental tools of this kind of policy is incidental to the policy, not what drives it. Non-sequitor.

You are talking about the end-goal of terrorism, which is fine and dandy. Every violent action has demotivation / fear as one of its goals. Agreed that terrorism is much more reliant upon it than an army attack.

What separates terrorism is an intentional attack of what is unconsidered unreasonable targets - innocent civilians having no direct hand in the conflict, and no means for self defense, as opposed to striking actual representatives of the enemy force (government, logistics or military).

This is not at all incidental to the policy, but the main ingredient in it. It is also the whole reason why is it uniquely labeled and ostracized.

Yes, different political aims bring about different political means. The US and UK are in Iraq as a matter of policy FOR the Iraqi people, not against it. Great, but who's to judge that? Al-Qaeda don't feel this way.

That's why the question of motive is a difficult one, when it comes to judging military measures.

That is why the question of methods has become relevant from a moral stand point. Because judging motive is not always objectively possible in a real-politik world.

Advance militaries will strike at civlians indirectly when the civilian populace is seen as the enemy, not as a friend. And they have attcked them directly when they felt is necessary.
What do you mean indirectly?

As a rule it is forbidden.

Unless you have a civilian populace that is actually armed / actively engaged in the war effort (building tanks), in which case it loses its "civilian" status.

And the basis for that morality is? Most of the time it is just a set of agreed upon or imposed upon rules. It isn;t constant and certainly not absolute.

If you're frankly interested in a serious post about the roots of ethics in warfare, I can supply. I have a great chapter in a book about warfare that deals with ethical thought on warfare and foreign relations through the ages until modern time.

You can't simply say that it isn't there, when it is, and countless writers have addressed it. The ideas of ethics, morals and honor have always persisted in warfare, even if there always were 'barbarians' who ignored it. They were always shunned. And should be.


I agree. The question is, how do we come upon those limits, and who decided those limits. What authority do they have.
Current limits were decided upon by the international community following 2 world wars.

They were not established, as many dubiously claim, to protect the rich west from incapable poor countries.

The rules were established to protect the west from itself. So that a large country using immoral methods would not cause insurmountable destruction of human life, beyond some agreed upon logic.

I think both military action and terrorism are immoral, taking into account where morality currently stand and think all such actions reprehensible. If I am more vocal in my denoucement of one and not the other it is because some acts are self-evidently wrong while other acts are rationalized in ways I find appaling, or for reasons I find appaling.
First of all, I think you'd find yourself in a minority camp, not only in this forum, but among the general populace.

I do not accept the notion that any use of force is inherently wrong.

Some situations call for it, and in some situations it is the only way out.

When you have two nations with two competing interests and two competing wills, which they are unable to settle or compromise in dialogue or through mediation - you eventually have to settle the tension.

There isn't always a golden path, or a truly objective P.O.V, because the two players may have different narrations of events, or even slightly different values and moral codes. A way for one will to beat the other and rectify reality will eventually come down to brute force.

That is in my view a reality of life - because there will always be conflicts.

Since that is a given, then my goal, as a moral person, is to find agreed upon standards, so that the conflicts, when they occur, do not bring about:

a) the end of civilization
b) more damage than is needed to solve the dispute in any direction


Immorality is not absolute. The harm an act does varies with the act, as does its efficacy. NO two acts are the same. Each act is to be judged accordingly, which includes taking into account the reason for the act, the supposed aim of the act, and finally the effect of the act.
the reason for the act and the aim of the act should be the top priorities there.

Nuking Japan is sort of moral because in the long run it probably saved more lives than it wasted.

However, employing violence with the aim of hurting defenseless civilians, for the purpose of 'national liberation' / 'revenge for grievances' is absolutely immoral.

I doubt there will be people who are not fundamentalist muslims / catholics dispute this.


Yes, war is always bad. That if anything is a more stringent limit on human conscience than what you profess.
War is not always bad.

War has positive and negative impacts.

Positive - if there is a decisive victory - it solves disputes. One will is victorious over another. A new reality is born, where the previous dispute is decided in someone's favor.

Negative - it destroys lives and property.
(It may also create new disputes - but that is always a given. Everytime you reach a new status some people will dislike it).

A war to repell an agressor is not bad (say, WWII against hitler)
A war to defend liberties in another country (say, darfour) is not bad.


Now here we come to a problem. A war to solve a land dispute between india and pakistan. I don't know for sure who is the aggressor and who is the victim here. There are two colliding narrations.

But if the two nations can't reach an agreement and each is positively sure that it is being grieved by the other one, then a war is eventually moral.

However, what I can do, is try and limit the scope of destruction. I can set up 'rules' so that solving the inherent problem (land dispute, mixed with religious strife) will not cause out-of-worldly damage.

I can outlaw nukes. I can outlaw WMDs. I can agree that attacking non-combatants is wrong. All these measures are meant to minimize the negative aspects of war - the killing and the destruction of property, while maintaining the positive aspect - effectively solving the dispute, and ending the conflict.


If you simply outlaw war, as you suggest, then we are left with no way to solve disputes.

Reconciliation is not always an option. It is not an option when the two sides are sure of their own truth. It is not an option when one side is a clear aggressor.


What do you do with those disputes?

[gWhya5ct]

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

[Sipewrio]

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.

[Rqvtwlfk]

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

[duminyricky]

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 ..."

[arriftell]

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.

[Squeernemergo]

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,