Terrorist are winning.

[Rebiu]

1) The anthrax was not a terrorist plot. It was done by a crazy non-Islamic man acting independantly from any Islamic terror organisation.

The anthrax terrorist was never caught so you we do not know if he was a connected Muslem terrorist. It is funny how the President plays word games to try and cover his failures.

 

2) All the other examples are regarding attacks on foreign targets in the Middle East. Such places have been targetted before and since 9/11.

You call US citizens, soldiers and property foreign targets?

 

The point is that the homeland is now out of reach, or has been since 9/11 at least. This shows that the war against terror has been perfectly successful in moving the front line of the war against terror from the streets of new york to the streets of the middle East.

Most terrorist attacks have been outside the US before 9/11 so nothing was moved. Terror attacks are way up and you say it is a perfect success. Furthermore the previous administration stopped the Millenium terror attacks on the LA Airport before therefore I do not think this represents a Bush accomplishment as the biggest terrorist success occured after that and on his watch.

 

So the first issue is what is 'the war on terror'. Is it Islamic terror, or is it all terror.

The Patriot act makes no distinction.

 

I'm fairly convinced that it is against all terror in principal but with the main focus on Islamic terror.

In other words you want to play word games rather that be caught in you own contradictions.

If you allow non-Islamic terror to count (to prove an attack on home soil), then you must also include the successes against these organisations.

 

These include:The dismantling and almost complete conversion to democratic means of Eta;

Please list the terror attempts by Eta since the War on terror began.

 

The Northern Island peace process in which the IRA has actually decommissioned it's arms and called to also persue their policies at the ballet box.

Please list the terror attacks by the IRA since the War on Terror Began.

 

But we all know the main fight is against Islamic terror. So it is up to the person who started this thread to choose. Are you going to allow examples of non-Islamic terror, in which case one must include both the successes and the setbacks, or are you not?

There was never any ambiguity. You and the President simple want to evade responsibility for you failed rational.

[CraigD]

So the first issue is what is 'the war on terror'.

I suspect I am not alone in finding this widely spoken, but rarely discussed or defined term, and the apparently calculated replacement of the word “terrorism” with “terror”, troubling.

 

By any reasonable definition of which I’m aware, the highest absolute and per-capita number of people experiencing terror – great fear – is occurring in various unstable African countries. The reduction of this, however, is not the focus of “the war on terror” spoken of by US and allied countries.

 

I recall the first time I heard the phrase “war on terror” used in place of the earlier “war on terrorism”, I was struck with a sense of macabre humor, imagining a government crackdown on horror movies and roller-coaster rides, or perhaps a push to improve the treatment of people suffering from severe anxiety.

Read the definitions of Terrorism then ask yourself if we are moving away from the objectives of the terrorist?

As noted in Wikipedia, with over 100 different definitions, this appears not as easy as KAC’s recommendations implies! However, I find the definition given by wikipedia

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals.

an acceptable phrasing of the mainstream consensus.

 

Consideration of this simple definition quickly reveals a serious difficulty, however: absent any mention of specific ethnicity, nationality or even sovereignty, it applies as readily to actions of members of well trained militaries of countries such as the US and UK as it does to the actions of individuals such as Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11/2001 hijackers.

 

The wikipedia definition continues

As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism means to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action.

This appears to directly and effectively address the previous difficulty.

 

:( However, I’m unable to dismiss a nagging suspicion that the tens of millions of Iraqis, uncertain about and afraid of the actions of the US military and the provisional government put in power by it, and the surviving loved ones of the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured by direct US military action and the social disorder following the 3/19/2003 invasion, are experiencing fear and a sense of being coerced equal to or greater than that experienced by hundreds of millions of Americans, Spanish, British, and other “coalition of the willing” nations, and the surviving loved ones of the thousands killed and injured in the 9/11/2002 and subsequent attacks.

 

I’m not sure who’s winning, or not losing, other than that the killed, injured, or frightened are not among them.

[Rebiu]

Nice post CraigD

[IDMclean]

Indeed very nice.

 

As I had pointed out, it is a distinct possibility that we are under the rule of a group of the most powerful terrorist on earth. By choice no less. I don't know what you call CIA but I call them covert terrorist. I have always wondered exactly what was the result of the roaring 20's? For a while there Mobster Rule was up quite a bit.

 

I watched a show on the histroy channel, I do believe it was, that talked about how far reaching the mob had become in the early 20th century. I have to ask, of what was rooted out, how many remained? How many remain today?

 

So as said before, a terrorist by any other name is still a terrorist.

 

We have talked about the US, and it was pointed out by a number of people that terror tactics are perfectly fine for the US to use, but it has been voiced that the same tactics used against us are not. Case and point, US and Nukes. We want to talk War on Terror/Terrorism? Let's talk the most devistating terror attacks ever. Hiroshima and Nagisaki, August 6th and 9th of 1945.

 

Let's talk about Shock and Awe, the tactic we used in our Invasion of Iraq.

 

Are not all these instances of terrorism in use? Shall we segway into the Cia Terror tactics?

[sebbysteiny]

It seems to me that we all seem to agree the most pressing issue is to agree a definition of terror. Then we can agree a definition of 'the war against terror'.

 

Then we can actually decide if we are winning or losing.

 

But once we agree a definition, I say we must stick to that definition and cannot depart from it simply because some may wish to apply some kind of moral equivilenece between the killers and the killed.

 

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals.

 

I think this is nearly correct.

 

Instead, I say

 

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians with the intention to create fearby groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals.

 

I don't expect too many complaints here. How can something be terrorism if it is not done with the intention to create fear?

 

The above is pretty much the definition that would be agreed by the UN if the Arab states were not so keen to ensure that killing innocent Israelis falls outside the definition of terror.

 

As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism means to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action.

 

I completely disagree. One must distinguish between terror and guerilla warfair. The Viet Cong cannot be considered terrorists by any definition and this belief cannot be reconsiled with the Wikipedia definition.

 

Instead, I think we should concentrate on the fear element. Guerrilla warfair is a genuine attempt at defeating a larger better armed force. Terror is only an attempt to cause fear in that force.

 

So one of the main distinguishing features of terror and legitimate warfair is the intent to cause fear in my view.

 

it applies as readily to actions of members of well trained militaries of countries such as the US and UK as it does to the actions of individuals

 

Absolutely correct in my view. But does not mean we can draw a moral equivilence unless the actions by the US and UK actually conforms with the definition.

 

Implied within the definition there must be a military act to describe as 'terror'. But the US and the UK never deliberately target civilians. Their intention is to either kill those trying to kill innocent people, or to kill those trying to kill them. Their intention is not to spread fear amongst innocent civillians.

 

Yes innocent civilians die in collateral damage. And yes innocent civilians can be scared of war. And yes Iraqis are dying at the hands of insurgents to cause terror.

 

But the only people who have committed a terrorist act according to my above definition are the insurgents in Iraq. The UK and US are squeaky clean on the terror charge.

 

We have talked about the US, and it was pointed out by a number of people that terror tactics are perfectly fine for the US to use, but it has been voiced that the same tactics used against us are not. Case and point, US and Nukes. We want to talk War on Terror/Terrorism? Let's talk the most devistating terror attacks ever. Hiroshima and Nagisaki, August 6th and 9th of 1945.

 

US and Nukes. Is it terror. I say no. The intention by the US was not to spread fear. The point was to demonstrate to the Japanese leadership the futility of continuing their war. But for those nukes, Japan may never have surrendered.

 

The other point of the nukes was to minise the loss of life on the US side. This is completely legitimate self defence. In this repect, the nukes were undisputably effective.

 

Either way, the intention was not fear and so was not terror.

 

I know this might sound socking but killing civilians in war really is okay, at least according to every interntional law and convention on the subject. The existance of even large collateral damage does not in any way constitute terror in my view unless done with the intent to cause fear, and ONLY the intent to cause fear.

 

You could argue that using nukes was a disproportionate use of force. It may be, it may not be. The law on deterrance is not clear. But terror, it is not.

 

Let's talk about Shock and Awe, the tactic we used in our Invasion of Iraq.

 

Cool. Lets talke shock and awe. The strategy was to cause such a large devistating attack on Iraq's armed forces that the moral of the army completely breaks thus saving the lives of Iraqi and Us soldiers.

 

Attacking an army's moral is legitimate in war and has been used for thousands of years. Not only do I think the intent to reduce moral is completely different in all moral respects from the intent to cause fear, the targets are NOT even a civilian population.

 

If you conclude that shock and awe is terror, then I say you have misapplied the definition of terror.

 

I agree that some military tactics that affect civilians disproportionately are war crimes. But that war crime is not terror.

[sebbysteiny]

The destinction between attacking an army to cause fear, and attacking an army to lower moral.

 

Really this comes down to your aim. Are you aiming to break the forces so that they rout. Or are you aiming simply to cause fear with no military aim of actually breaking the force. The former is intention to lower moral; the latter is intention to cause terror.

[IDMclean]

mood: :hihi:

 

First off I want to make clear that I start with the assumption that everything is suspect. Whether a given tactic has been legitimate for the past thousand years does not change it's status. It is possible for a civilization to go for thousands of years doing pretty much the same thing, and for that thing to be wrong.

 

The belief in supernatural dominated much of human history. I think that most hypographers would agree that the supernatural, if it even exists has little to do with reality.

 

My stance due to extended internal and external deliberation is that war is terrorism. The point of war is to:

weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action.

 

I would point out that by war I mean the act of, not the practice of military action; war is not necessarily direct military action.

 

Now I would say you, Sebby, have miss read the wiki definition. It makes explicit that terrorism is an act outside of direct military action. So it already distiguishes between terrorism and guerilla warfair.

 

My point in all the cases I gave is that in each case the point of the action was to:

weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization

 

Nukes, covert opertations, and standing army. All of these things read "Intent to use terror as a weapon to control your actions."

 

Now beyond that I must argue against your definition of:

"with the intention to create fear"

 

How do you quantify and qualify intention? How do you prove such a thing? I could mean the best when I sacrifice myself for the greater good in New York harbor with a 5-10Kton bomb. I have no intention of creating fear, though it surely will be a result of my actions. I may be intent on creating a different political atmosphere, rather than on creating fear.

 

The US would be terrorist under your definition because we intend to create fear for the purpose of nuclear deterence, and through CIA covert operation seek to shift political atmospheres in our favor (either socially or economicly).

 

I don't see the great divide here. The USA uses terror tactics on a daily basis, has used Terror tactics in the past, and plans on continuing to use terror tactics, both at home and abroad. "For peace, justice and freedom for all" They say in their statement of intent.

 

Sebby, I would suggest a bit of reading for you, I think you would find it highly enlightening. It's called "Killing Hope".

[sanctus]

I go back a little to the topic in the start of the thread:

 

Theres nothing anyone can really do about it at this point, short of killing all the Muslim extremists, or allowing the Muslims to kill all the infadels....

 

There are many more options, but all less fun for those who like to play war...for example increase the well-being of all this countries, it would imply that always less people would join those terrorist organization.

 

KAC I like your views Afghanistant and Iraq where nothing but terrorist attacks. And also in the US some here think to have freedom, well it doesn't seem to me, it's more like kac says there is an increase in restrictions to guarantee the freedom...isn't this a paradox? But, I agree there is more freedom than in any dictatorship...

 

Back to title, could it be different? How can be terrorism be won with force and killing? Just look at the cases someone pointed to like ETA an IRA, solutions begun to appear when the brute force was set a little aside. This is quite logic as long as you are oppressed and repressed and have your friends killed you mind less to counterattack (even civilians, as in your view they do nothing and ergo support the repression) and kill. But for doing terrorism with no repression and force it gets much harder to motivate people.

[anglepose]

perhaps to understand the effects on terrorism and potential ways to combat it is to look upon history for answers. Try looking at the way england deals with terrorist threats as england, unlike the usa and many other western countrys, has had to deal with severe terrorist threats for decades in the from of the IRA

this here is a good website to look at and under stand the ways england have dealt with the IRA

MI5 | Northern Ireland-related & Domestic Terrorism

further more the list of ways to prevent terrorists is endless there are even terrorist websites and forums right under our noses on the internet you can even track down the computer posting on many of these extremist IMs and forums as in the case of a women who has found and reported I think 7 extremist looking to become terrorist.

We should be looking at non violent ways to deal with terrorism and not ways to deal with terroism that only cuase more terror among the people of the world.

[CraigD]

My stance due to extended internal and external deliberation is that war is terrorism.

In conversation, I’ve often made exactly this statement. I’m aware, however, that many honest, smart, and introspective people disagree.

 

The root of this disagreement is, I think, one of approach to language, the old prescriptive vs. descriptive dichotomy (though of word meaning, not grammar). Perscriptively, a sound definition of “terrorism” demands to be applied to war and the threat of war, which are plainly a means by which states coerce one another. Descriptively, most people have an intuitive idea of how a terrorist looks and behaves, and how a soldier looks and behaves, and draws a clear distinction between them.

 

For optimum discussion, I think people must recognize and respect both approaches.

 

Personally, I prefer the older term “terrorism” to the newer “terror”, both because the latter seems a “dumbed down” shortening of the former, and because I believe it to be an intentionally politically divisive alteration, a sort of code word used mostly by the US Republican party to acquire political advantage.

[IDMclean]

Indeed. Important perhaps, but I prefer an iterative model of language. A descriptive word can become one governed by prescriptive means.

 

In which case a word can be fused and it's utility can pick up.

 

In this case I am talking about terrorism as methodology which leads change of existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization.

 

An interesting facet of this definition is that the Terrorist are the motivators, the people who actually plan and implement those plans to the political landscape will often enough be the targets of the terrorism attack. Which is consistent of with my view of terrorism and it's goals.

 

What is the point of terrorism? To simply kill without recourse, or consequence? hardly. Terrorism is a methodology that is similar to, but not the same as non-violent resistence or Civil Disobedience. The main difference between the two being that in civil Disobedience eschews violent conflict in favor of non-violent conflict. The similarity is in the goals, not in how those goals are reached. Both attempt to change a political landscape in some manner through direct and indirect action.

 

That is why I equate War to Terrorism, because in both cases the goals and methodology are practically the same. Both having more in common than not. The only difference that might be acceptable, though I will state is not acceptable in my opinion, is a difference of scale.

 

Much like your preference of Terrorism and Terror, CraigD, I hold that the use of "War" instead of "Terrorism" is simply political in nature.

 

War has been established by practice and doctrine to be an acceptable excersise of a given nation, or at least more so than terrorism.

 

This of course leads one, like myself, to the conclusion that such things are merely double speak produced to make what we (as in we the country of USA) are doing look legitimate and moral, when it really is not.

 

Lead by example is what I say, and our country's example is one of terrorism, and fascism. Not in totallity, I will not condemn the whole of the system for the malfunction of some of it's parts; I will condemn the malfunctioning parts for their affect on the whole of the system.

[sebbysteiny]

Terrorsim vs legitimate collateral damage.

 

Although I can fully understand and respect why they say it, it is my view that any attempt to equate terrorists with armed forces trying to stop terrorists is amongst one of the most nasty and evil arguments to have come from the left. The perversness of the world view that comes from making this kind of equivilience cannot be overstated. If one accepts it, the most ugly of crimes can now be justified and the most innocent of victims can be described as war criminals as shown below.

 

Act 1) Janjuide militia commit genocide against those from Sudan by systematically going into every house trying to kill as many Black Muslims as possible. Janjuide militia fire in the air and scare the victims.

 

Act 2) Black Muslim sees Jenjuide militia and fires into the air to stop them from killing their family and the entire village. Some of the militia are scared.

 

Both acts have caused some people to be scared. So they have both caused terror. Therefore both the perpetrators of the genocide and its victims are 'terrorists' which creates a moral equivilence.

 

I could easily have made another example which focusses specifically on terror and anti terror measures and formed an equally perverse moral equivilance.

 

Again, I can understand and respect people for how they argue as above, but it is a line of reasoning I find sickening beyond belief.

 

The problem is that distinguishing between a terrorist and a soldier or even completely innocent victims intellectually is not a simple task.

 

My stance due to extended internal and external deliberation is that war is terrorism.

 

I have also given extended internal and external deliberation. I reach the polar opposite conclusion. I have found that, just because it is intellectually not simple, does not make it intellectually impossible to distinguish. With a bit of searching, once CAN find a very clear and extremely important distinction.

 

This distinction is enough for one person to hit a person who approaches him on a street with a baseball bat repetitvely, kill that person with the intention to kill, and then to be convicted of first degree murder, and another person to do exactly the same whist his case does not even go past the hurdle of being sufficient for prosecution.

 

The principal is absolutely key to all decent legal systems. It is Mens Rea.

 

Since mens rea is unanimously considered as important as Actus Reus by almost legal systems in distinguishing between criminals and innocent people, I say it must also be used to distinguish between moral and immoral actions.

 

If one only considers the Actus Reus, then one can easily come to morally repugnant conclusions of equivilence between perpertrators and victims. When you consider the Mens Rea as well, I have found the moral compass of what is right and wrong in the world becomes distincly clearer.

 

That is why I equate War to Terrorism, because in both cases the goals and methodology are practically the same.

 

I believe this is the argument from fallacy logical fallacy.

 

It takes far more than similar goals and methodology to distinguish between the perpertrators and the victims. I have not denied similarities, but I say that similarities mean almost nothing. I can breath. I have human flesh. So does a mass murderer. But the existance of similarities does not make an equiviliance.

 

Instead, I say it is the absence of differences that really matters here. And here, there are clear differences. Namely, the Mens rea in it's enitrety.

 

How do you quantify and qualify intention? How do you prove such a thing? I could mean the best when I sacrifice myself for the greater good in New York harbor with a 5-10Kton bomb. I have no intention of creating fear, though it surely will be a result of my actions. I may be intent on creating a different political atmosphere, rather than on creating fear.

 

Surprisingly easily. The criminal courts of all decent legal systems have been doing so beyond reasonable doubt every time they convict somebody.

 

The intention of your bomb is to 'cause political change by creating fear'. To argue that you do not intend fear is not supportable since there is no other reasonable way killing innocent civilians on a tube can create political change.

 

What is the point of terrorism? To simply kill without recourse, or consequence? hardly.

 

I agree with some of your thinking but I think this is not fully correct. This is true for almost all terror groups.

 

But with Islamic terror, the main target of the war against terror, this is not true.

 

Resulting from my detailed research on the subject, I think Islamic terrorists principal aim is to convert or kill all non-muslim human beings. Killing is their main aim and you can see it in the unique fingerprints of their attacks.

 

In my view, Islamic terrorists have the mens rea of genocide and the only thing stopping them from killing us all is their lack of means. In this way, I can see a lot of sense in saying that, unlike most terrorist attacks from other organisations, acts of terror by Al-Quaeda are also acts of genocide.

 

First off I want to make clear that I start with the assumption that everything is suspect. ... It is possible for a civilization to go for thousands of years doing pretty much the same thing, and for that thing to be wrong.

 

Agreed. But something as basic as attacking moral of an army is from first principals completely justified every time until a time society believs that winning a war is morally wrong.

 

Has anybody played any of the Total War series? If you had, you would know there is very little difference between saying 'Army A beat army B' and saying 'Army A routed army B by destroying their moral to the point that they broke'. So until winning a war is morally wrong, actions aimed at lowering moral are boyond criticism.

[IDMclean]

So until winning a war is morally wrong, actions aimed at lowering moral are boyond criticism.

 

Sebby in case you haven't read my other posts on the subject of violent action, I am a strict moralist and violence in my picture is not moral. That isn't limited to simply physical violence, but five types. Mental, Emotional, Spiritual, Social, and Physical.

 

War is not moral. Warfare of the kind you are talking about requires not only violence but necessitates killing. Which is my point. In my eyes our standing army is not only immoral, but against the intent of our founding document. Our (America's) consititution has a part under the powers of congress strictly forbiding a standing army, which those in Washington D.C. has conviently ignored, and the public has forgotten.

 

I will say it again, because you seemingly missed it. War is equal to terrorism because both use the same methods to meet the same ends, the only difference comes in justification, as you have shown above. One is considered legitimate, and the other is not. In my eyes that justification can not be made, in that both are wrong, even if at some point they methods imployed become necessary for the defense of a country.

 

Standing armies by their very nature are aggressive, imperialistic constructs. With one means, to conquer and control, either at home or abroad. I can see no argument that can be made in which this can be justified as moral.

 

As for Fallacy of Fallacy? Violent military action is objectively morally reprehensible. There are other routes available on the road to peace, Violent warfare is not one of them. Violence creates and justifies more violence. I would encourage you, Sebby, to read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s essay on the Ways of Meeting Oppression. I believe that it would be most enlightening of my perspective.

 

Long have I held that the USA government (not in totality but in majority, and contemporarily) could be charged with crimes against the world. In my eyes, long have I held that the USA government is the world's largest criminal syndicate. No better, morally or legally than your average Mob boss.

 

Though no court would take such a case, even in view of the guilty mind and the guilty act.

 

Is not killing, even a single person a crime? If killing but one person is a crime, then what is killing thousands or even millions? How about theft? Social security retirement funds are but one example. Extortion? I am no lawyer in that I have not studied the whole of our law, or the law of the world, but I know that crimes have been commited and I know that more than likely they will go without proper due course, without justice.

 

I maintain, that the USA's actions in responce to the events of 9/11 are criminal, morally reprehesible, and terroristic in nature. I maintain that the USA has unjustly used it's defensive capabilities, and caused much undue harm both to itself and to those abroad, particularly of the Islamic states. I maintain that not only has the USA commited these immoral acts, but has done so with the intentionality. Even if some of the intention was in fact for the good. Ignorance of the law and moral code of conduct, does not make a legal and moral defense.

 

The use of a nuclear bomb goes far beyond that of a defensive measure. It is an act which I brand as an atrocity of war, and unacceptable beyond words.

 

In short, I would not only say that the terrorist are winning, I would say that our own government, on it's current course and from it's history would appear to be the terrorist that we fight so hard to beat. So yes, Sebby, in a way you are right. We are indeed winning. We just don't happen to be the side you think we are.

 

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Gandhi

"There are none so blind as those who will not see!" -DoctorD

[sebbysteiny]

I found your post very interesting and I completely respect your viewpoint.

 

It seems clear to me you have made some assumptions about morality that I disagree with. Further, I'm not sure your analysis reaches the correct conclusions from your OWN assumptions.

 

War is not moral.[/Quote]

 

I believe that war is not immoral and is sometimes even completely moral. You however do not. This makes you a pacifist, which is a very respectful position.

 

The reason I cannot accept the above pacifist assumption is that it completely denies a nation's right of self defence and although you have argued that there are 'alternatives' to violent resistance, I do not believe those alternatives are fit for purpose of giving any resistance at all to regimes that respect strength more than they do human rights. So sometimes using an army is the only option and denying it blankly is identical to denying a nations right to self defence.

 

Warfare of the kind you are talking about requires not only violence but necessitates killing. Which is my point. In my eyes our standing army is not only immoral, but against the intent of our founding document. [/Quote]

 

Yes war necessitates killing. In your eyes, this is immoral. That's fine. You view anything you want from your eyes. But you can't say that it goes against the US constitution either in actuallity or in intent. Both the literal meaning and the intent of the document are fundamental to its legal interpretation making this now beyond the ambit of 'your eyes'. No judge, court or credible political party has every alleged that it is illegal for America to use an army. Until that changes, arguing that using an army is contrary to the US constitution cannot be correct no matter whose eyes you look at.

 

In short, until your eyes dictate law, I find it impossible to avoid that your eyes cannot say what is and is not legal.

 

war is equal to terrorism because both use the same methods to meet the same ends, the only difference comes in justification, as you have shown above. One is considered legitimate, and the other is not. In my eyes that justification can not be made, in that both are wrong [/Quote]

 

Even from your assumptions this does not follow. Murder is wrong. Shop lifting is wrong. That does not mean that murder and shop lifting are morally equivilant.

 

I conclude that war is not immoral; terror is. But I find it impossible to see how a Pacificst can conclude moral equivilence. Unless they completely ignore the unavoidable implications of mens rea, they must conclude that war is wrong, but terror is worse.

 

Moral equivilence certainly does not follow.

 

I think that your Pacifist credentials are a distraction for the real root of your moral equivilence: that you have completely disregarded the moral implications of mens rea.

 

This brings you out of the ambit of a pacifist and, in my view, into the ambit of the morally bizaar.

 

Not that I blame you, because the mistake is easy to make. Not everybody has studied law after all.

 

But I believe that ignoring mens rea in moral equivilance is the moralistic equivilent of dividing by zero. Any conclusions drawn after making that step will have no correlation with morality.

 

my eyes, long have I held that the USA government is the world's largest criminal syndicate. No better, morally or legally than your average Mob boss.[/Quote]

 

Again, your eyes cannot dictate law and the law is different from your personal morality.

 

Is not killing, even a single person a crime? [/Quote]

No. Not if there is no intention to kill or injure, or if the intention is one of self defence.

[wine]

So far no attacks in London.

 

Maybe "their" War On Terror is actually reversed,

and they're just trying to scare the **** out of us.

 

Hey you, citizen.

Be afraid,

for our invisible government

will shelter you

in the home land

of commerce.

[IDMclean]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

Wikipedia: Standing Armies, Armies, Militia, Military of the United States, United States Army.

 

If you'll note the bolded portion, It is in my eyes (in my observation), that a standing army is against the consitution. A standing Militia for the sole purpose of the defense of our nation is fine, and I do not deny a nation the right of self-defense. Even as a pacifist myself. To say otherwise is to misrepresent my position, and to construct of my argument a strawman.

 

You'll further note that it is to raise and support armies, not provide and maintain. As I understand it from previous discussions, and literature (particularly of the legal nature), it is and was the intent of the founding fathers to have the ability to raise and support an army in the times of war, but not to have a standing army, as the expressed purpose of a standing army is to place under the yoke other nations. Something that the founding fathers were keen to avoid.

 

My contention is with standing army, for the explicit purpose of "preemptive strike doctrine", which when abused as the United States has consistently done, leads to imperialistic practices. In order to understand my position, one needs to read a seperate source. Of which I will defer to an annotated version of the Constitution and will defer to the interperation of the clauses their in. You'll note their in the bit about the standing army. It is a position held by various legal entities around the US and the world. As far as I understand it, and this is coming from some one concerned with the morality and precedence of a given system.

 

In short, when I say in my view, I mean in my observation. It does not discount that my observations are true, to my knowledge. You can only call on the various parts of the law and have it mean something if it is in regard to the morality, and social acceptability of a given act. Hence my assertion that War (the act of invasion, mass murder, command and conquer) is immoral, in base, practice and doctrine.

 

This is to distiguish War from the act of defense. To mistake War for defense is a large mistake to make indeed.

 

I believe that war is not immoral and is sometimes even completely moral.

 

I would ask, how it is that war is moral? Defense of the nation, that is moral. As defense of one's person is moral.

 

Now I do not deny the privilage, or right of a nation for it's defense however. I do contend that once violence has broken out, the conflict has already been lost.

 

If you have read my posts regarding World War II, you'll note that I do not buy into the concept that any side was right, or that the Allies "won". It is my observation, in my eyes, that the Allies ultimately lost the conflict, even if they won the war.

 

My proof of this is simple to observe. Two of the most prosperous countries in the world are Germany and Japan. Germany set out to alleviate it's economic issues at the start of the first world war, and the second world war. At the conclusion of the second world war, Germany had achieved that as part of the country's surrender conditions. The result of which is that Germany has not needed nor been allowed to support an army, for it's defense is assured by the Allied nations. This has lead to economic growth, and the assent out of the economic depression that had led Germany to war in the first place.

 

That is Germany met it's needs because of it's part in the war. It achieved it's ends, despite losing the war. So it won the conflict, in my observation.

 

The point of that, is that war is not what most think it to be. As I have asserted, you Sebby, should read MLK Jr.'s Ways of Meeting Oppression. You'll note Violent Opposition is one of the ways of meeting opression, where the oppressed becomes the oppressor, and in doing so loses the conflict.

 

That is, violent opposition is admission of defeat. When we went to war with the Arab states, as recourse to the events of 9/11, we lost the conflict right there. As such the conflict can not be won, as it has already been lost. All that has happened is that we have become the boogy men we sought to oppose.

 

What is my point in all this? It is historically proven, time and time again that war, and winning a war, does not lead to peace. It does not lead to solution of the problems which lead to the war. That is War is not a solution. It is a problem. It is a sickness of which, it can not be the cure.

 

As such, Terrorism can not be cured by terrorism. The only disernable difference between War and Terrorism is as I have said Scale. In terrorist attacks maybe a few thousand die. In war? a few hundred thousand to a few million. How then is Terrorism the lesser of the two? In both cases people fight, violently, and die, violently. In neither case is the problem addressed and in neither case is a mutually agreeable solution found and met.

 

You say that Terrorism is the greater of the two evils, war being lesser? In war more people die than in terrorism. How then is war the lesser evil? How then is war moral or justifiable?

 

Also for your information, I do not dictate law, but influence the development and enforcement of it. It is part of my function in the USA society:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

No judge, court or credible political party has every alleged that it is illegal for America to use an army.

 

I hope you do not mean this in the way that I take it, because if you do I find that to be in serious error of judgement. Just because it has never been alleged, does not validate or invalidate the claim. I am not the only person, nor am I the first, who has made the claim that America's standing army is illegal and immoral by our government's own consitution.

 

These doctrines of mine aren't simply my opinion, but my informed critical falsifiable observation that these things are true. From extended lifetime study of law, ethics, history, psychology, games, and much much more.

 

So when I say "in my eyes", I mean in my informed critical falsifiable observation. Not in my opinion. The two are easy to confuse, but important to distinguish.

 

I do not claim in any of this infaliability, or impunity. However, Nor do I claim anything but what is. In war, people die, and violence (and with it terror) is the traditional tool. Terrorism only differs in the scale of statistics, and by that I mean the number of people who die and are harmed. This I am sure is rather obvious to anyone who has studied any amount of terrorism, or war. Both are simply atrocities carried out on justification.

 

Neither is Moral however. To prove this I invoke the golden rule and the ethic of reciprociousity, and ask if it is acceptable for any other nation to invade the USA for any purpose, or to overthrow the Bush Regime, or our standing governmental body? Even if it is for world "peace".

[sebbysteiny]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

You see, the way it reads to me is not

a standing army is against the consitution

but that funding an army for a term longer than two years is.

 

And funding an army for a term of two years and then passing another bill funding it for a further two years etc is not the same legally as funding an army for a term of 4 years.

 

Since every year (or maybe 2) George Bush gets his budget and with it, his armed forces budged, ratified by Congress, I don't think there is any danger of illegality.

 

But then, it does not really matter what it looks like to me or you. Although I have had legal training, the real opinion that matters is that of the courts. Have there ever been a case on the matter? If not, then the opinion that really matters would be that of specialist lawyers and accademics. If most of them feel there is even a small possibility that the supreme court will rule standing armies illegal, then your view will have merit. Otherwise it does not. It's simply a matter of research, not debate.

 

I read your links and none of them talked about the legality issues. So perhaps some better links on this might be helpful. But if there are an absence of cases, then it seems to me to suggest strongly that the law allows standing arumies. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the US has been acting illegally for the past 300 years or so for doing something almost every other nation has done, is doing and will continue to do.

 

I do not deny a nation the right of self-defense. Even as a pacifist myself. To say otherwise is to misrepresent my position, and to construct of my argument a strawman.

 

Lets not be so fast with scaring the crows.

 

You have not directly denied a nations right of self defence. But you have placed such strong moral restrictions that it is in practice impossible under your moral code for nations to defend themselves against some threats.

 

So you are in actuality denying a nations right of self defence as this right is incompatible with your moral code.

 

I would ask, how it is that war is moral?

 

Well, the obvious answer is WW2 when Britain and France declared war on Germany after Germany had invaded 2 of its neigbours.

 

If you have read my posts regarding World War II, you'll note that I do not buy into the concept that any side was right, or that the Allies "won". It is my observation, in my eyes, that the Allies ultimately lost the conflict, even if they won the war.

:hyper:

 

My proof of this is simple to observe. Two of the most prosperous countries in the world are Germany and Japan. Germany set out to alleviate it's economic issues at the start of the first world war, and the second world war. At the conclusion of the second world war, Germany had achieved that as part of the country's surrender conditions. The result of which is that Germany has not needed nor been allowed to support an army, for it's defense is assured by the Allied nations. This has lead to economic growth, and the assent out of the economic depression that had led Germany to war in the first place.

 

That is Germany met it's needs because of it's part in the war. It achieved it's ends, despite losing the war. So it won the conflict, in my observation.

 

This sounds to me to be Ad hoc designed to save your main pacifist views from being destroyed by the WW2 anomoly. But if Ad hoc's are used too often, they become a logical fallacy.

 

But your argument absolutely hinges on your own definition of the goals of Nazi Germany. In short, you have defined yourself out of the problem in my view.:)

 

The goals of Nazi Germany was not economic prosperity. That was, if anything, a byproduct.

 

Nazi goals include, but are not limited to:

the expansion of Germany;

to expand the geographical scope of the arian race;

the ethnic cleansing or genocide of all races displaced by Nazism;

the ethnic cleansing or genocide of the Jews;

the elimination of Communist states;

the ethnic cleasing or genocide of citizens of communist states;

the replacement of a democratic Europe with a Nazi dictatorship.

 

I say ethnic cleansing or genocide because when the war began, I think the Nazis may have only intended ethnic cleasing. But they may also have intended the genocides they later committed from the beginning also.

 

Every time I breath, I am reminded of how we won the war and the conflict.

Every time I prey in the Synagogues, I am reminded of how we won the war and the conflict.

Every time I vote, I am reminded of how we won the war and the conflict.

Every time I see the courts upholding human rights, I am reminded of how we won the war and the conflict.

Every time I see Germany upholding human rights and democratic law, I am reminded of how we won the war and the conflict.

 

Your idea that Germany's prosperity = Germany's victory sounds extremely strange to me. This is especially true given that one of the principal aims of the allies in winning the peace as well as the war was to make Germany AND Japan economically strong to give these highly military nations a viable alternative to war. And the allies success in winning the peace does not make a German victory in WW2 in any way that I can see.

 

That is, violent opposition is admission of defeat.

Erm, Do not compute. It is an admission of the defeat of diplomacy, but not of defeat. And sometimes, even losing a war is not a defeat as shown by the Romans vs Hannible's Carthaginian army. Instead, I say violence is the last line of defence.

 

What is my point in all this? It is historically proven, time and time again that war, and winning a war, does not lead to peace.

Talking purely in terms of effectiveness, it is undeniable that war does not always lead to any real resolution of the conflict.

 

But it is equally undeniable in my view that war sometimes can lead to exactly that resolution. I again will cite WW2 as an example of when both the war and the peace were complete victories for the Allies hence the stable Western world we know today.

 

As such, Terrorism can not be cured by terrorism.

Logical fallacy of equivocation on the word 'terror'. Terror is quite different from war even if they both cause people to be scared or terrorised according to its literal meaning in the English dictionary.

 

You say that Terrorism is the greater of the two evils, war being lesser?

 

I say that is true even if you are a pacifist. I'm not a pacifist so I just say that war is not necessarily an evil though I don't deny that it has very bad consequences.

 

In war more people die than in terrorism. How then is war the lesser evil? How then is war moral or justifiable?

 

I always have a problem with morality by numbers. By your logic, the most evil thing to do, worse even than murder, is to drive a car on the grounds that more people die on the roads than they do by road.

 

And your logic, just as the above logic, falls apart, yet again because .....

 

YOU HAVN'T CONSIDERED MENS REA AT ALL.

 

I have said that failing to consider mens rea is the moralistic equivilent of dividing by zero which allows you to reach all sorts of bizaar conclusions and equivilences.

 

Also for your information, I do not dictate law, but influence the development and enforcement of it.

 

But alas, until you have enough influence in an American court of law, your influence is so small as to be practically non existant. If you can get a bill passed in law in your Parliament, then perhaps you can have sufficient influence, but I'm not sure you will ever get sufficient support :confused: .

 

To prove this I invoke the golden rule and the ethic of reciprociousity, and ask if it is acceptable for any other nation to invade the USA for any purpose, or to overthrow the Bush Regime, or our standing governmental body? Even if it is for world "peace".

 

Wow. I've been using the rule of reciprociousity all the time to test arguments, but I never knew it was an official 'golden rule' :computerkick: . Cool. I must be doing something right.

 

Okay, reciprociousity. If Bush was incharge of weopons of mass destruction (which he is) AND Bush had already shown a willingness to use them for agressive purposes against other states or his own people (which he has not) AND if there was a strong case that the war was winnable (which there is not) AND there is a reasonable case that the peace is winnible or at least will be better than the status quo (which there is not) THEN would it be right to invade? Well, yes.

 

But alas, America does not have any of the 'rogue state' requirements necessary to justify such a war.

 

So under reciprociousity, Saddam was a valid target; America was not.

 

Of course, if you choose to ignore the obvious fundamental differences between America and Saddam, you can conclude almost anything you like.