FiremanRyan
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 283
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Chico, CA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Tashah said:Hmm... It's defined somewhere in the US Code of Law and is worded something like this:
"An intentional overt or covert physical attack on a civilian population/facility with the intent to coerce a government to change its domestic or foreign policy."
Arch Enemy said:You can call both America and the Insurgents terrorists. We see the insurgents killing their selves for their beliefs (not religious but faction beliefs) so we call them terrorists because they're trying to spread their political power via bloodshed. Are we not doing the same? We're trying to "throw" Democracy onto other countries, sometimes through blood-shed. They can easily view us as terrorists as well, they wouldn't be wrong.
I think that Americans who believe that we are acting as terrorists in Iraq are in a very slim minority. I do not have one friend or colleague that's ever even suggested the possibility.FiremanRyan said:in another thread, someone brought up the idea that Americans are terrorists because there is no difference in them killing our civilians while we're over there doing the same thing. i keep hearing this argument but it holds little weight. going by this logic, both world wars would have been fought entirely by terrorists.
first of all, war is a conflict between military and militia powers and any collateral damage in the way of lost civilian life is unintended. obviously, during a time of war, the invaded country will experience this loss. i believe that the biggest part of defining terrorism is examining how and why innocent deaths come into play. the difference between war and terrorism is when civilians are intentionally targeted.
teacher said:Yea I know I'm defining terrorists and not terrorism but.....
My third.
Brainwashed zealots who are going straight to hell. Imagine their surprise when the 72 virgins are named "Bubba".
FiremanRyan said:but the difference is that we have officially declared war on the country and we arent intentionally targeting civilians to advance democracy. we attacked their government and military, civilians were collateral damage. to me, thats the big difference between the price of war and terrorism.
now that isnt to say that war and terrorism cannot coincide with each other. say a US soldier walked into a train station in Iraq and blew himself up. even though we're at war, that would be an act of terrorism because of the nature of the bombing and the fact that he intentionally targeted civilians.
theres a shady area in between though. what about the attack on the USS Cole? it was an unannounced attack by a group not at war with the US, but it was on a military vessel.
Surenderer said:Your actually telling the truth even though you dont realize it Teacher (goes to your brilliance I suppose :lol: ) Virgins in the Koran doesnt mean sexual......it means innocence because nothing in Heaven is sinful.....Dont know how many zealots realize that though
Nah, knew exactly what I was saying. What God would reward the blowing up of children.
Didn't know that about the virgin thing though. I choose to ignore that information. The thought of a line 72 long behind Mohamed Atta's behind is very pleasing to me.
teacher said:Nah, knew exactly what I was saying. What God would reward the blowing up of children.
Didn't know that about the virgin thing though. I choose to ignore that information. The thought of a line 72 long behind Mohamed Atta's behind is very pleasing to me.
That part of your post is what I was refering too
peace
Surenderer said:I agree but how about this hypothetical.....suppose a soldier (dont wanna target U.S. specifically because I was one once and that would be wrong) is sitting in a train station and a insurgent sees him and blows himself up......he kills 30 civilians but also the soldier.(original target)....still terrorism?
peace
debate_junkie said:I know this question wasn't directed to me, but I think yes, that act would still be terrorism. Why, because the insurgent is just that, an insurgent and not an "official" soldier engaged in combat.
Surenderer said:I agree but how about this hypothetical.....suppose a soldier (dont wanna target U.S. specifically because I was one once and that would be wrong) is sitting in a train station and a insurgent sees him and blows himself up......he kills 30 civilians but also the soldier.(original target)....still terrorism?
peace
26 X World Champs said:I do not have one friend or colleague that's ever even suggested the possibility.
I think that speaks more to the intelligence of your friends.
Surenderer said:Hey bro,
No actually that question is for anybody but your answer is interesting...just an insurgent? so are you saying that anybody lived in a country that was invaded and fought back you would then be fit the definition of terrorist? What is a "official" soldier?
peace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?