Terror alert: Will it affect your attendance?

[Joe Vancil]

The "type of government," provided it's a sovereign nation (recognized by the U.N.), does not matter in the least.

In other words, an Iranian or North Korean soldier is, by definition, a combatant rather than a terrorist, since they are responsible to their government.  In an isolated attack outside their role as a solider, they technically could be a terrorist, but not while acting as a soldier for their government.  In that case, mechanisms are in place for how they are treated.

Likewise, in my opinion, mercenaries who are not under the direct control of the government *ARE* terrorists.

In other words, if you're fighting a war, do it as a country and use your soldiers.  Outside of that, that's terrorism.

I'm not "excusing any soldiers" as long as they were following orders of their government - I'm simply placing the blame where it belongs - on the government that gave the orders.  There are certain actions, which, even if ordered, cannot be excused (in other words, war crimes).  However, in such a case, the soldier is not alone in his guilt.

[WayOutWest]

Actually, I'm going to throw this out in definition of a terrorist, Skander:  if you're a commissioned soldier of a nation's army, NO, you are not a terrorist.  A country - a recognized national entity that can respond to inquiry or accusation - can be held responsible for your action.  You are responsible to your superiors, in visible fashion, and lay claim to the sovereign protection of your national government. 

Attack your own government, as a rebel, and you're treasonous.  Attack outside of your own government, and you're a terrorist.

Typical Christian POV Joe.  Let just pin a big ole "Conversion" medal on the Spainards for their work in the new world.  It only took tens/hundreds of thousands of lives to show those stupid natives the blesssed light of Jesus.  I mean they didn't really slaughter that many natives to teach them Jesus's love right?

Please explain the difference between dropping a "smart bomb" in the middle of a civilian village that kills women and children and blowing up a bus killing women and children?  Please explain it to me so someone can tell those stupid outraged parents of the village kids why it's totally different because they were not killed on a bus by a suicide bomber.

While we're at it why don't we give the Nazi's a pass since it was an official war and they ONLY killing Jews.

[rickortreat]

I agree with Joe. If you're acting under orders and in a uniform, you're not hiding your intent. You're still killing people and causing destruction, but you're not killing innocents, but military targets (which is why the Nazi's don't get a free pass)

As for Skander, he's right that the Jews have Gaza contained, but the war started because they were still lobbing rockets into Israel, and electing terrorists as leaders.  Let's review the facts. The Israelis forced the jews living in Gaza to leave and ended the occupation on their own. Gaza was left to the Palestinians to govern with Israel on one side and Egypt on the other. Hamas overthrew Fatah and assumed control over Gaza, but their unwillingness to negotiate with Israel and their unwillingness to agree to Israel's right to exist made it difficult to relax their restrictions. It's one thing to live with a hostile nation on your border quite another to tolerate them lobbing rockets into your territory!

Hamas was not a partner for peace and is untrusted by the Egyptians and Palestinians in the West Bank. They didn't do anything to stop Gazans from attacking Israel or kidnapping soldiers. In fact they were supporting the rocket builders and doing nothing to improve the quality of life for their own people.  Rather than establishing borders they built tunnels underground to avoid any control by their neighbors. If they want to have a war then they can fight it out, but that's not what they wanted. Instead they wanted to continue to try to send rockets into Israel while crying about their miserable lives, hoping to buy time to prepare and get stronger. Eventually Israel had enough and went in, after Hamas and their targets, not civilians. Kind of hard considering Hamas was sending in rockets from public buildings and schools, hiding behind civilians.

Interesting that no shots were fired in the West Bank don't you think? Same people, same predicament totally different outcome!  The difference between a semi-responsible government, and an irresponsible one.

And stop putting words into my mouth! I've already stated that I think most Muslims are not terrorists and there is nothing intrinsic about the religion that puts it into conflict with anyone else. With that said, where do Muslim nations have a common border with non-Muslims where there is peace?  Pakistan and India, Israel and Lebanon and Syria, In southern Chad and Sudan where Christians are being brutalized by their respective governments. Russia and it's southern states. China and it's far western provinces. Pakistan and Afghanistan are being undermined by terrorists from within.  Where are Muslims working for peace and prosperity for themselves and those around them?  Only place that it's working is Turkey where they have had a non-secular government since Ataturk replaced the Sultans.

Iranian regulars are sovereign soldiers. But Iran also supports Hamas and Hezzbolah in places they have no right or legitimate interest. Iran is terrorizing it's own people as well, citizens are being rounded up and raped, if CNN reports are to be believed, and since the victims came forward on their own, I tend to believe them.  And Iran is governed by a religious theocracy!

Sorry but Islam doesn't get an automatic pass.  Not when there is conflict everywhere where there are people with different religions coexisting, Muslims on one side and anyone else on the other.  In Bosnia, the Serbs are to blame, not the Muslims.

And WOW, lets not forget that those "Christian" Spaniards were descended from Muslims and Jews forcibly converted to Christianity by the Inquisition. So what the native tribes experienced was something the Spaniards themselves experienced a few centuries earlier. 

[jemagee]

"If you're acting under orders and in a uniform"

Sorry...there's right and there's wrong and if one feels the orders are wrong one should stand up, be it germany, bosnia herzegovina (sp?), or any numerous 3rd world dictatorships that are 'governments' that practice genocide or repression of their citizens by killing.

Evil is still evil - whether it has a uniform or not.

[westkoast]

"If you're acting under orders and in a uniform"

Sorry...there's right and there's wrong and if one feels the orders are wrong one should stand up, be it germany, bosnia herzegovina (sp?), or any numerous 3rd world dictatorships that are 'governments' that practice genocide or repression of their citizens by killing.

Evil is still evil - whether it has a uniform or not.

Youre back!  Nice to get a regular poster back.  Let's hope you don't get banned AGAIN lol

Maybe I am wrong but I didn't take what Joe said as him okaying killing others in a uniform.  I think he was just pointing out that others view it differently

[jemagee]

I understand that he's saying it's viewed differently and I'm trying in my bassackwards way to say that whether or not it's 'supported by a government' doesn't make it right or wrong or 'not' terrorism.

There's a term we hear often - state sponsored terrorism - now - if it's sponsored by a recognized government and done by a branch of their military (in uniform or not - cause covert ops are still military ops) and the soldiers of this UN recognized government blow up a military base of US soldiers in Lebanon - is that terrorism or not because it was 'an order'.

"Just following orders" gives people an excuse to commit atrocities without taking responsibility - and that's bigger than trying to argue the semantics of what is and isn't terrorism.

Terrorism is also in part perception - in certain parts of the world - acts by the US government are seen as terrorist acts and vice versa...go back to the Nazis - many saw the extermination of the jews as a fine idea, others ignored it, and some cared...but don't think they didn't know about it before the public - because they did.

There's a famous quote about 'good people doing nothing' - what's worse to me is when 'good people' do 'awful things' but claim they didn't have a choice because they were just following orders.

Whether or not Joe personally okays what certain militaries may do - he's giving them a justification as long as it's a 'recognized government' in my opinion.

[WayOutWest]

And WOW, lets not forget that those "Christian" Spaniards were descended from Muslims and Jews forcibly converted to Christianity by the Inquisition. So what the native tribes experienced was something the Spaniards themselves experienced a few centuries earlier. 

Ya rick, that makes it soooo much better.   

That's one step removed form "doing it to them before they do it to us".

[Joe Vancil]

Please explain the difference between dropping a "smart bomb" in the middle of a civilian village that kills women and children and blowing up a bus killing women and children?  Please explain it to me so someone can tell those stupid outraged parents of the village kids why it's totally different because they were not killed on a bus by a suicide bomber.

While we're at it why don't we give the Nazi's a pass since it was an official war and they ONLY killing Jews.

The difference between one and the other is a public declaration of intent that can then be taken in a formal direction.

If the United States announces that it's bombing country Z, then by all means, let country Z fight back.  That's only fair.

Terrorists simply refuse to acknowledge the rules of war - and yes, there are rules of war.  They simply do not take the responsibility for their actions in the public light.  They hide behind a cloak of anonymity, so that they can cry "foul" at the first sign of retribution.  I, for one, don't buy into that philosophy.

If the bombing is done of U.S. military installations, by governments, then I'm reasonably okay with that - it's an act of war.  I can always go bomb their military installations back.  However, what is the appropriate response to a terrorist, who has no official army, who has no method by which to launch a complaint, who has nothing to bind him to the Geneva convention or any other rule of war?  What response do the victimized have in such a case?

That difference is something that could make me consider withdrawing from the Geneva Convention.  If my enemies are not forced to abide by it, why should I?

[jemagee]

If the bombing is done of U.S. military installations, by governments, then I'm reasonably okay with that - it's an act of war.  I can always go bomb their military installations back.  However, what is the appropriate response to a terrorist, who has no official army, who has no method by which to launch a complaint, who has nothing to bind him to the Geneva convention or any other rule of war?  What response do the victimized have in such a case?

And what about when the military installation that you want to bomb is in the middle of a neighborhood or set up next to a school...is that kind of collateral damage ok with you?

I'm not anti military action - I just think a little more wet work is in order these days...

And I can't agree with any kind of blanket statements like the ones you are making - there's nuance...there's the idea of right and wrong.

The difference between a rebel and a freedom fighter is just perception

[Joe Vancil]

Sorry for splitting last reply into two messages.  I can't stand the way my screen is dealing with the scroll bar.

The Nazis are the *EXACT* reason we have terms such as "War Crimes."  There are *RULES* to fighting a war.  The Nazis broke those rules.  That's why their leaders were tried and executed.

In other words, Hitler's actions of killing the Jews fall outside his actions of, for instance, shooting down British and American aircraft or sinking their ships.  The latter is the ugliness of war.  The former are war crimes.  He *MIGHT* *HAVE* escaped with his hide if his targets were only foreign combatants.  (After all - the Japanese emperor did.)

[jemagee]

And yet Joe - genocide continues to happen - daily - government sponsored genocide - I think the last one to stand trial was milosevic?

Why is it only a 'crime' when the guy is out of power...why aren't they called to task as criminals WHILE it's happening (there was some sort of PBS documentary recently about this very thing I think) - the world court is as toothless and febrile as the UN

[Joe Vancil]

I understand that he's saying it's viewed differently and I'm trying in my bassackwards way to say that whether or not it's 'supported by a government' doesn't make it right or wrong or 'not' terrorism.

Being supported by a government via their military makes it *NOT* terrorism.  If anything, it's a war crime, and the law of such governed by the appropriate treaties.

There's a term we hear often - state sponsored terrorism - now - if it's sponsored by a recognized government and done by a branch of their military (in uniform or not - cause covert ops are still military ops) and the soldiers of this UN recognized government blow up a military base of US soldiers in Lebanon - is that terrorism or not because it was 'an order'.

That's the wrong definition of "state sponsored terrorism."  State-sponsored terrorism occurs when the government influences those outside of the direct chain of command to perform acts of war.  It is the idea of, "Well, what can you expect me to do?  I'm not in charge of them!"

"Just following orders" gives people an excuse to commit atrocities without taking responsibility - and that's bigger than trying to argue the semantics of what is and isn't terrorism.

Incorrect.  There are rules of war an engagement.  Not following those is a commission of war crimes.

Terrorism is also in part perception - in certain parts of the world - acts by the US government are seen as terrorist acts and vice versa...go back to the Nazis - many saw the extermination of the jews as a fine idea, others ignored it, and some cared...but don't think they didn't know about it before the public - because they did.

"Terrorism is also in part perception" is a cop out that ignores the treaties in place.  The idea that someone is too big for you to defeat through convetional military methods does not legitimize the violation of the rules of war.  Had Osama bin Laden, acting as a representative of his government, flown his military planes into our army bases, that's an act of war - not terrorism.  In the same case, flying them into the World Trade Center is a war crime.  Doing it without a government in place is terrorism.

There's a famous quote about 'good people doing nothing' - what's worse to me is when 'good people' do 'awful things' but claim they didn't have a choice because they were just following orders.

Actually, in the case of war crimes, both individual and government are liable.  In the case that that "horrible act" is bombing the military base, the Geneva convention protects the soldier.  Without that, let's say that soldier is shot down while conducting the bombing.  Without the Geneva convention, he's simply a criminal...and can be executed according to whatever law is in place in the country wherein he is captured.  And he was, literally, "just following orders."

Whether or not Joe personally okays what certain militaries may do - he's giving them a justification as long as it's a 'recognized government' in my opinion.

Actually, I'm just following the treaties in place to handle these kind of situations.  I'm doing what is EXPECTED, and what I have COMMITTED MY GOVERNMENT to do.

[Joe Vancil]

And what about when the military installation that you want to bomb is in the middle of a neighborhood or set up next to a school...is that kind of collateral damage ok with you?

YES, it is.  Housing military operations in such a location is a violation of treaty in the first place.

I'm not anti military action - I just think a little more wet work is in order these days...

And this is where I agree with you.

And I can't agree with any kind of blanket statements like the ones you are making - there's nuance...there's the idea of right and wrong.

Oh, I'm not advocating the idea that every war is justified.  Just that when it is conducted, there are rules, and they're pretty well spelled out.

The difference between a rebel and a freedom fighter is just perception

Agreed.  Yet both are engaged in the same activity:  TREASON.  That is covered by internal law of the country in question.  Are you advocating the idea that anyone operating with Al Queada inside the borders of the U.S., for instance, be tried for treason (with the potential death penalty in effect, due to the way the law is currently written)? 

[jemagee]

Being supported by a government via their military makes it *NOT* terrorism.  If anything, it's a war crime, and the law of such governed by the appropriate treaties.

And here's where we disagree - to me you're looking too literally at the word and not the actions, the ideas, if a government sends its military out on some sort of raid to inspire terror - then it's terrorism - it is the intention to strike fear.

The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein terrorized its own populace - the iranian government still terrorizes its populace.

By saying they aren't - you minimize the impact of their evil cause its legitimized by their existence as a government...at least that's how I see it

[Joe Vancil]

Jem,

In those cases, NO, it is not terrorism, but a WAR CRIME - meaning the governement, the individuals in command, and the individuals following orders are *ALL* to blame, and at the INTERNATIONAL STAGE.

I'm sure you're going to point out that no one is doing anything about these WAR CRIMES...and I'd agree.  And to me, that means the UN is being a corrupt, lazy-@$$.

The LITERAL and LEGAL definitions here are EXTREMELY important.  They tell us who is responsible for the perpetration, and more importantly, who is responsbile for the prosecution and punishment of the actions.

The problem is that you don't recognize the legal distinction between "war crime" and terrorism.  You've been led to believe the language of the MEDIA rather than the language of the LAW.  You're playing for the public condemnation;  I'm playing for the LEGAL PROSECUTION.  I could care less what the public thinks, because they can be manipulated to buy into anything.  I'm concerned about the COMMITMENTS WE MAKE AND SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE TO KEEPING.  The public *MIGHT* excuse a war crime.  And that's something we cannot allow.