Can we call them terrorists yet? 40 replies

Please wait...

Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago
rich19;3357508The terrorists don't just "waltz in and start killing people for the hell of it" either.

yes yes. Taken out of context ... well anyone can do that ..LOL They do the texas two step .. sorry




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago

" This Serendipity website is based on a libertarian (in the sense of J.S.Mill) perspective and is opposed to Fascism, Zionism, Capitalism, the New World Order and all who secretly work to cause wars for their own advantage."

lawl.




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago

This entire article is trying to link the US with terrorism by providing funding to a sovereign government. The US provides funding to hundreds of countries around the world. We even provide grants to Palestine before the local terrorist group took over the country. We provide food and medicine to north Koreans to prevent them from starving to death. It is not the US or any other countries business what people in that country do unless it effects the sovereignty of its neighboring countries or preforms actions constituting genocide.

If you start accusing the US of actions done by multinational corporations then your unjustly placing the responsibility for millions of deaths around the world on the US. Multinational corporations are defined as multinational because they have no allegiance to any country.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago

pssht, you and your "logic" I deny your reality and substitute my own




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#25 13 years ago

WiseBobo;3357530" This Serendipity website is based on a libertarian (in the sense of J.S.Mill) perspective and is opposed to Fascism, Zionism, Capitalism, the New World Order and all who secretly work to cause wars for their own advantage."

lawl.

That website proposes that the WTCs were brought down by a laser beam...

I better go put on my tinfoil hat and duct tape my doors close. Anything that comes out of that website is obviously incredibly biased.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago
GuineaPig;3357320It looks like MA only supports conservative uprisings

-Conservatives oppose rapid change, and generally favor the status quo, so by definition there is no such thing as a "Conservative Uprising".

Do you think that the British should have used death squads to mass kill Americans during the Revolutionary War?

Since both sides followed the rules, and the fighting was carried out almost entirely by uniformed armies, of course not.

After all, the rebels were sorces of disorder...

The context of "disorder" I am using is the disruption of a state by a non-state entity (Source: Neither Shall the Sword, by Chet Richards) The definition of a source of "Order" varies a bit however. Richards believes it can be any organization or force that opposes these forces of disorder, whether or not it is a state. However, Thomas Barnett believes that only a true state can be classified as a source of order, and we should only ally ourselves with those. Some examples of "Order" under this definition. -United Kingdom, along with its government and military. -North Korea (I didn't say it had to be a friendly source of order) -Black Water (Non-state entity) Sources of disorder: -Mexican Bandits -Former Taliban State (Harbored Al Quaeda, a non-state enemy) You get the idea.;)




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago
MAI see. So your family was killed by a group of men with a chainsaw?[/quote] Err, no.
So we're really not in much position to critique people who have.
Why not? Terrorism, regardless of who commits it, and regardless of the reasons, is always deserving of criticism.
You have it backwards - disorder poses a threat to Columbia.
Fascism posed a threat to Colombia. This "disorder" is imaginary. It's a scapegoat. Just like there was "disorder" in E. Timor that provided the pretext for Indonesia to wage a "heartless but effective" war of conquest there, this "disorder" is merely another pretext that allows for the US to protect corporate profits in South America.
Isolationism is a legitimate viewpoint.
I'm not an isolationist. I meant that, when I put disorder in quotation marks, to be sarcastic. "Disorder" is even more ambiguous and arbitrary than "terrorist." When we can define disorder, we can slap the label on anything we want, be it the Indonesian invasion of E. Timor, or this.
Really doesn't matter what their motive is. The state would have been destroyed, and then God himself probably couldn't have put it back together again any time soon.
Society

matters, not the state. If the state is using paramilitary groups to murder dissenters, the people have a right to fight back, or at the very least speak up, without having to fear Death Squads breaking into their homes in the middle of the night. If fascism is "order" and anything looking to counter it, anything at all, is "disorder," then disorder is what we should be looking for. Trade unions are not "sources of disorder," and murdering and intimidating them into backing down from US based multinationals is terrorism, and it is not in any sense justifiable. "Order" in this case is merely submission to private tyranny and state fascism. Yet, I suppose anything is legitimate so long as it does not threaten the Stability of the Almighty State™, eh?

This is getting too absurd... Am I correct in this assumption? "Order" is good, and "disorder" is bad? This logic requires us to condemn the Warsaw ghetto uprising and praise the Nazi efforts to crush it, you know.

By Third World Standards, yes.
Then what are you doing condoning it?
A strange statement. What do you mean "this isn't an argument"?
Saying "this is the way it is, so deal with it," is not an argument.
Incorrect. Man is a beast. That's the whole point of society - to tame him into a civilized creature.
If you want to discuss this elsewhere, I'd be happy to.
This isn't some popular uprising againt evil, this is a movement comprised of men with guns who desire power, and are motivated by a strong ideology. They are no different from the "Death Squads" you hate.
I am referring to plain folk, trade unionists, human rights activists, political dissenters. These are the people that are being kidnapped and chainsawed so that US based corporations can protect profits.
Business motives indeed. Pure motives are quite rare.
So? ... We are done here, then. If you acknowledge that there were/are business interests at work, then I cannot believe you are naive enough to think that "containment" was even a concern here.
Homer's Illiad.
Are you joking?
Because condemning ourselves would be a very silly thing to do.
It's not "us." We aren't the ones doing this. Condemning the government is a necessary thing to do.
Al Quaeda is a source of disorder, while the Columbian death squads are a source of order.
Well, sorry, I'm using the US Army's definition of terrorism, not yours. If order is submission to fascism, then I suppose I have to advocate disorder.
(And some of these countries have nukes, and we definitely don't want those falling in the wrong hands)
Pfft: too late.
Is it the necessary thing? I believe so.
An idea! If we didn't create and/or fuel anti-Western sentiments, we wouldn't have to deal with them later on.
JillWell Locomotor...nothing is fair in love and war. You should realise that by now. There is no such thing as a perfect and fair world.[/quote] What does this have to do with anything? It's not as though this "fact" looms over the heads of those in Washington and periodically possesses them, forcing them to do these things. These are rational men, with clear aims, and they accept brutal means to their ends. The least we can do is accept this situation for what it is.
My question to you is.....what are you gonna do about it?
Gimme a break, I'm 18. I'm just trying to educate right now. ;)

MerrickDSNo you can't call them a terrorist yet. We ( as a country ) do not do this to instill fear in other countries. We do not walk around looking to see the terror in peoples eyes because we can do it. Terrorist:a person capable of committing an act of violence to induce Terror or fear. Terrorism: the act of violence that instill terror and fear in an individual or group. The Usa has never to my knowledge just waltzed in and started killing people for the hell of it and to watch the fear pop up in the faces of people.[/quote]What the hell are you talking about? That is not terrorism. For instance: "al-Qaeda is an armed Sunni Islamist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate."

And remember: I'm using the US Army's definition of terrorism, not yours.

We ( as a country )
I am not comdemning us. We have absolutely no influence over situations like these.
WiseBobolawl.

Well, I don't condone all the conspiracy crap. So just ignore that stuff. If you want a more "legitimate" source, I'd be happy to give some. That shouldn't be necessary though.

And: haven't you anything better to add to the discussion? Attacking irrelevencies within my sources is pointless and irritating. [quote=Bob L. Scratchy]It is not the US or any other countries business what people in that country do unless it effects the sovereignty of its neighboring countries or preforms actions constituting genocide.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Death Squads commit genocides, albeit on smaller scales than we are used to observing. Either way, it is terrorism. The US supports their actions. Logic follows: if A supports B, and B commits C, then A supports C.

And, remember: I am using the US Army's definition of terrorism, not yours or MA's, or MerrickDS's, or mine (I'd be far too harsh :rolleyes:).

If you start accusing the US of actions done by multinational corporations then your unjustly placing the responsibility for millions of deaths around the world on the US. Multinational corporations are defined as multinational because they have no allegiance to any country.

:lol: What? I am referring to companies like Coke Cola, which are US-based multinationals. [quote=Afterburner]That website proposes that the WTCs were brought down by a laser beam... I better go put on my tinfoil hat and duct tape my doors close. Anything that comes out of that website is obviously incredibly biased.

Okay, ignore the effing website. It is basic history, and I'd be happy to point out some books or whatever, if anyone is interested. Either way, stick your pointless ad hominems up your ass and contribute something, or please don't even post. [quote=MA]Conservatives oppose rapid change, and generally favor the status quo, so by definition there is no such thing as a "Conservative Uprising".

He meant right-wing. You know what he meant.

(I didn't say it had to be a friendly source of order)

I don't get this: so, do you acknowledge the state-fascism that took (takes) place in Colombia? You acknowledge that the US funded it in order to protect their business interests? Yet, you argue that we should support counterrevolutionary efforts that threaten this (apparent) "order?" Even better, you think it's appropriate that trade unionists, human rights activists, and political dissidents are kidnapped and brutally murdered, because, for some crazily ambiguous reason, they threaten this "order?"




Reno

The professional.

50 XP

22nd March 2006

0 Uploads

1,312 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago
Locomotor;3358573 Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Death Squads commit genocides, albeit on smaller scales than we are used to observing. Either way, it is terrorism. The US supports their actions. Logic follows: if A supports B, and B commits C, then A supports C. And, remember: I am using the US Army's definition of terrorism, not yours or MA's, or MerrickDS's, or mine (I'd be far too harsh :rolleyes:).

Your holding the united states responsibile not for the actions of another government, but for the actions of ratical groups inside in that country. That is stretching quite a bit. If i wanted to i could go get some of my friends, move to mexico, and become a deathsquad killing anyone i saw walking down the street. I suppose you would blame the US for that too uh?

It is that local government and only the local government which is held responsible for acts committed by their populations. What your doing is called passing the buck.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago
Locomotor;3358573Err, no.

Then why are you claiming you know the "harder side of life"? You don't know squat about poverty. You are one of the richest people on the face of the planet. 3/4 of the entire population of the Earth would gladly switch places with you.

Why not? Terrorism, regardless of who commits it, and regardless of the reasons, is always deserving of criticism.

Then what do you do if all sides involved fight this way? The Marxists and the Paramilitary fight exactly the same way, yet you call one "freedom fighters" and the other "fascists". In my book they're both scum. So it is simply a matter of seeing which is convenient scum.

Fascism posed a threat to Colombia.

I have heard nothing of fascist guerrillas. Is this a new movement? If you're referring to the state, that makes no sense. How can a state pose a threat to itself? Dictatorships are far preferable to chaos, and much easier to deal with.

This "disorder" is imaginary.

The Marxist Guerrillas, Drug Cartells, and gangs are all imaginary? Whoo! That's a relief!

It's a scapegoat. Just like there was "disorder" in E. Timor that provided the pretext for Indonesia to wage a "heartless but effective" war of conquest there, this "disorder" is merely another pretext that allows for the US to protect corporate profits in South America.

Whatever.

I'm not an isolationist. I meant that, when I put disorder in quotation marks, to be sarcastic. "Disorder" is even more ambiguous and arbitrary than "terrorist." When we can define disorder, we can slap the label on anything we want, be it the Indonesian invasion of E. Timor, or this.

I've already explained the definition, and provided you with a source. Just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean you can call it "ambiguous". Then again, just about everything that occurs in human affairs is pretty ambiguous, so completely by accident, you are right in a way.

Society matters, not the state.

The state makes decent society possible. Though as Richards also pointed out, some non-state groups can bring about an equally good organization. But right now those are quite rare. So like I said earlier, just keep things together for another 20 years.

If the state is using paramilitary groups to murder dissenters, the people have a right to fight back, or at the very least speak up, without having to fear Death Squads breaking into their homes in the middle of the night.

Welcome to reality.

If fascism is "order" and anything looking to counter it, anything at all, is "disorder," then disorder is what we should be looking for. Trade unions are not "sources of disorder," and murdering and intimidating them into backing down from US based multinationals is terrorism, and it is not in any sense justifiable. "Order" in this case is merely submission to private tyranny and state fascism. Yet, I suppose anything is legitimate so long as it does not threaten the Stability of the Almighty State™, eh?

You're learning.:p

This is getting too absurd... Am I correct in this assumption? "Order" is good, and "disorder" is bad? This logic requires us to condemn the Warsaw ghetto uprising and praise the Nazi efforts to crush it, you know.

Apples and oranges. The "state" was at the peak of its power, at the top of its game. They weren't on the verge of collapse like they are now. That was a 3GW environment, now its 4GW and beyond.

Then what are you doing condoning it? Saying "this is the way it is, so deal with it," is not an argument.

For now, until something better is discovered or appears. You see, that's the thing with the real world. You can't just call everything bad and refuse to deal with it. You have to deal with it, even if that means associating with unsavory people. I hope you don't apply your philosophy to your personal life. I refuse to make friends with anybody who has lied, cheated, committed adultery, or broken the law.

I am referring to plain folk, trade unionists, human rights activists, political dissenters. These are the people that are being kidnapped and chainsawed so that US based corporations can protect profits.

Like the Phoenix program. They're making the war against the Marxists more difficult, so they conveniently disappear. Shocking yes. Effective yes.

So? ... We are done here, then. If you acknowledge that there were/are business interests at work, then I cannot believe you are naive enough to think that "containment" was even a concern here.

I can't believe you are naive (stupid?) enough to think that man's mind and motives are that black and white. There are greedy motives in everything you do. Bring a meal to the old lady down the street? You're just doing that to impress people on how good you are. Help the girl move into the apartment down the hall? You're just doing that so you can ask her out tomorrow. Help your boss with unpaid overtime? You're just doing that to get that pay raise. Of course you'll reply But but I had GOOD reasons for those things too!. But that's my point exactly. Everything a person or group does has a tangle of motivations. Some good, some greedy, some dreadful, and some just impulsive.

Are you joking?

That was a war of honor. A hopeless struggle with no conceivable greedy purpose.

It's not "us." We aren't the ones doing this. Condemning the government is a necessary thing to do. Well, sorry, I'm using the US Army's definition of terrorism, not yours. If order is submission to fascism, then I suppose I have to advocate disorder.

Then I suggest staying out of Columbia. American boy found dead, arms and head cut off...

Pfft: too late.

I was referring to specific nuclear arsenals in pakistan and Israel, which for now are safe.

An idea! If we didn't create and/or fuel anti-Western sentiments, we wouldn't have to deal with them later on.

Figures. Osama is waging the Jihad simply because the Americans are "imperialists". Right. Osama said he wants to take Spain back. Perhaps we should give it to him, so we won't fuel "anti-Western sentiments".:rolleyes:

He meant right-wing. You know what he meant.

In that case, he obviously didn't read my post. It doesn't matter if a state is left-wing or right-wing, as long as it meets the current agenda. (For example, if Putin turned out to be a good ally in a hypothetical expedition, that would be fine with me.)

I don't get this: so, do you acknowledge the state-fascism that took (takes) place in Colombia? You acknowledge that the US funded it in order to protect their business interests? Yet, you argue that we should support counterrevolutionary efforts that threaten this (apparent) "order?" Even better, you think it's appropriate that trade unionists, human rights activists, and political dissidents are kidnapped and brutally murdered, because, for some crazily ambiguous reason, they threaten this "order?"

North Korea is a state, yes. But its not a friendly one, which is not helping any of our interests.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#30 13 years ago
Bob L. ScratchyWhat your doing is called passing the buck.[/QUOTE] I blame the US not for committing genocide and terrorism (not in this case at least), but for supprting those that did (do). Like I said: "Logic follows: if A supports B, and B commits C, then A supports C." [QUOTE=MA]You don't know squat about poverty.

Well, my household is below the poverty line, but I know what you mean. I misread earlier. :)

Then what do you do if all sides involved fight this way?

I condemn them both, then. Had you read (which you now have), you'd know that I am upset because thousands of normal, innocent people - trade unionists, human rights activists, etc - were/are being killed. The insurgancies are another issue.

The Marxist Guerrillas, Drug Cartells, and gangs are all imaginary? Whoo! That's a relief!

Not that. I mean that those I have been talking about do not constitute "disorder." Drug cartels (you do know that the CIA is a huge drug pusher, don't you? Even Clinton admitted that.) and crap like that do need to be dealt with. What I have a problem is when our government uses legitimate disorder to hide the fact that they're backing the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.

Whatever.

:thumbsup:

I've already explained the definition, and provided you with a source. Just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean you can call it "ambiguous".

Okay, let's stop insulting eachother. :) I trust you understand my meaning, though? Today we call terrorists what we called freedom fighters only a couple decades ago. Anyone can be a terrorist (Food Not Bombs, for instance), so long as the United States government calls them one. That's how pretexts work. That's why congress allowed Bush to invade Iraq, because, all of a sudden, this fumbling, weak, exhausted little country thousands of miles away becomes the "greatest threat to freedom and democracy" we've ever faced. It's called propaganda.

The state makes decent society possible.

Maybe, maybe not. In this case however, that's the opposite of reality.

Welcome to reality.

Do you've a point? Again, saying "this is the way it is, deal with it" is not an argument. All I am doing here is condemning what is going on. You should try it.

Apples and oranges. The "state" was at the peak of its power, at the top of its game. They weren't on the verge of collapse like they are now. That was a 3GW environment, now its 4GW and beyond.

Sounds like a copout to me, but okay.

Shocking yes. Effective yes.

Okay, so now what? I don't condone it, you do?

There are greedy motives in everything you do. Bring a meal to the old lady down the street? You're just doing that to impress people on how good you are. Help the girl move into the apartment down the hall? You're just doing that so you can ask her out tomorrow. Help your boss with unpaid overtime? You're just doing that to get that pay raise.

I disagree. Self-interest maybe, greed no. It's all about what you value: and not everyone values money and fame (me for instance :)). I'd suggest Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness here, but I hate her. :)

Some good, some greedy, some dreadful, and some just impulsive.

No war is the result of impulsiveness. Either way, you kinda dodged my point: power corrupts the best, as Bakunin said, and the US government was not concerned with the "disorder," they were concerned with protecting business interests.

That was a war of honor. A hopeless struggle with no conceivable greedy purpose.

It was a massive war fought over the kidnapping of a single woman. Fuck "honor": a whole lot of people died.

American boy found dead, arms and head cut off...

I'm an adult. :cool:

I was referring to specific nuclear arsenals in pakistan and Israel, which for now are safe.

Depends on how you define safe, I suppose.

Figures. Osama is waging the Jihad simply because the Americans are "imperialists". Right.

Well, it's a complicated issue, as you know. But I don't want to get into that.

that would be fine with me

Well, that's too bad.

North Korea is a state, yes. But its not a friendly one, which is not helping any of our interests.

Hmm? I'm still talking about Colombia here.