America about to shamed before the world on Italian Satellite TV

yep

they don't really count as countries

 

States can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity (such as genocide), not terrorism. And the use of nukes on a town is not necessarily a war crime, no.

 

It does when it penetrates armor. The self-sharpening property of DU can largely be attributed to its pyrophoric nature. Upon high speed impact with metal, DU will spontaneously ignite, producing extreme heat and bright flame. My problem with DU, however, is different from those of you guys. I am talking about the resultant fine aerosol DU particles, both radioactive and toxic, and very difficult to clean up. But that's for the topic of a DU thread, so I just stop here (hey Rox game is only minutes away).

 

Allow me to enlighten you about the Sacking of Louvain in WWI. It was done by someone thinking very much like you (whatever saves German soldier's lives) and was as counterproductive as your stand here.

The fact that you cling to the technicality of nomenclature is absolutely amazing to me. I have no other way to put it. It shows a fundamental disregard of logical thought for polemic rationalizing. Look up napalm in a dictionary. In the accepted English language, altering the ratio of the ingredients doesn’t disqualify it as napalm. I trust the OED on maters of nomenclature more than I do “W” or some DoD PR hack.

 

What's the difference (morally speaking) between war crimes and terrorism? I am not debating technicalities here, I am debating the 'end result'.

So the Holocaust was not an act of terror? How about the Serbian genocide?

To sum up my question: Is it, in your opinion, not 'immoral' to target civilians for the purpose of achieving a political/military objective? Is the 'acting party' what you depend on to establish a 'moral' vs. an 'immoral' distinction?

Let me give you a hypothetical example: Hamas strikes an Israeli restaurant and kills tens of innocent civilians, and in retaliation an Israeli F16 strikes a restaurant full of Palestinians to avenge their death. What's the distinction between these two incidents (as it pertains to their morality/legality)?

 

If you're talking about the use of Mk77 then your analogy is off base at best. It was used against fortified military positions - not civilians. Comparing the two is sensational, as was your false claim that we'd violated a treaty we never signed. Please 'enlighten us' with a retraction.

Yep, a lot of people around here have a problem with specificity when I suits them. Join the crowd. Considering your appeal to a convention rather than common usage, its not suprising you'd switch your stance when the floor falls out beneath you.

 

The actor is the difference.

Not an act of terrorism, no. It was a crime against humanity, and was the Serbian genocide.

Not necessarily.

Both are immoral I would say. Neither serves any objective. With Serbia, for instance, the decision was made for NATO to strike and hurt the population because that was the only way to get them to remove support for Milosevic. NATO did so and the population coughed him up. I don't think that's immoral. In Germany and Japan (during WWII) the people gave legitimacy and power to the governments much in the same way. So I don't see their involvement as immoral.

I won't pretend these aren't difficult questions, however. Or questions that might be reconsidered.

 

Please elaborate on when it's moral to target civilians in order to achieve an objective, i.e. the "ends justify the means".

Thus war crimes are NOT immoral, as long as there is an 'objective' being pursued?

I couldn't disagree more with your views, because IMO that's dangerous moral relativism that seeks to 'justify' what would normally be repulsive crimes based entirely on the context/actor, which allows for permanent 'double-standards' and convenient excuses for such double-standards. Basically, this means that you can not possibly hold someone to account on various 'crimes' or 'aggressions' based on social/cultural/historical justifications.

BTW, Al-Qaida makes a similar argument to yours in that they are attacking the U.S. to achieve an objective, and since the American people back up their government's policies, they are complicit in those actions (especially since this is a democratically-elected government).

Thanks for your honesty though, although I entirely disagree with your position.

 

While most definitions of terrorism don't include acts by a state - I think that it's semantic and doesn't really address what the spirit of terrorism is.

Still, there's a lot more to what a terroist act is and yall should know some attributes. The Halocaust was not terrorism - because it was genocide. The goal wasn't to inflict fear - it was simply to wipe out. Was dropping the bomb an act of terror upon Japan? No - because you are talking about two states at war at each other with the goal to end a war. But if a state say bull-dozed homes to inflict political damage upon the other side - then yeah, I think that may classify as an act of terror to a limited degree.

Basically these are the attributes of Terrorism:

1. The target must be wholely civilian. It doesn't matter if it's to maximize casualties or not. The intended target must be innocent civilians. Not killing civilians when you are bombing a military vessel. The attack on the U.S.S Cole was not an act of terrorism.

2. The objective is to provoke fear and intimidation amongst the target audience (gov't, society, or group in a society). They are usually deliberately timed to garner wide publicity and create public shock, outrage, and of course fear. They are also may be intended to provoke excessive reactions from gov't.

3. The motive is intened to acheive political or religious goals including the spread of mayhem or destablilization, and lower public confidence.

4. Finally and obviously, it must be an unlawful act of violence or threat of violence.


All four of these are the make-up of a terrorist act, which is why many things people accuse the U.S. of doing (or other nations) isn't terrorism. That doesn't make them ok - but let's make sure everyone understands what terrorism is before talking about it.

So while there are those who will try to defend terrorists by calling the states they attack to be "terrorist states" - this is nothing but an attempt to lift groups like Al Qaeda to the same level as responsible nation-states and make it seem like it's no worse to blow-up skyscrapers then inflict collateral damage.

This is why what Al Qaeda does and it's justifications don't hold water, as you can see, it clearly meets the four guidelines and thus is very clearly an act of terrorism.

 

First of all, there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes "terrorism", but a basic starting point would be the "intentional targeting of civilians", and that CAN NOT be legitimized or justified based on the "objectives".

The Holocaust wasn't intended to "terrorize"? You've got to be kidding me! If the ONLY objective was to wipe out the Jews, the Germans wouldn't have enjoyed torturing the Jews before killing them; they didn't instantly put a bullet through every Jew they met.

The bombardment of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki was not intended to "inflict terror"? You've got to be kidding me! The WHOLE point was to terrify the local populations to the point that they would decide to surrender immediately rather than meet the fate of their fellow countrymen, i.e. death. THAT is "inflicting terror".

And no, you're right, a nation-state using the world's deadliest weapons to systematically carry out mass destruction is not the same as a wanna-be group like Al-Qaida, it's much worse, because that nation-state has more power to inflict pain and destruction than any terrorist group ever could.

Whether you want to call it "War crimes" or "terrorism", both are very much on equal ground as far as atrocities go. I am not hung up on technicalities, and technicalities don't justify "murder" however you look at it. There are no excuses whatsoever to targeting civilians PERIOD, whether it's done by a non-state organization or a nation-state; the end result is the same (There is a reason why we have International Law which forbids the targeting of civilians, regardless of cause/objective).

What makes 'war crimes' more appalling is that they are more common/legitimized/excused than terrorism, because it's very difficult to hold nation-states to account on that front if they have any type of clout in the international community. Heck, Milosovic is still not convicted (at least not that I know of) and no one is holding/held the Syrian/Israeli/Uzbek/former Iraqi leaderships (for ex) for the crimes against humanity they have committed (No one did much when Saddam slaughtered people during a rebellion, it was years later and for entirely different reasons, so Saddam's fate now is not a consequence of his crimes against his own people).

"Crimes against humanity" is a common ground between "war crimes" and "terrorism", and they are synonymous in my book (not because I am ignorant of what each means, but rather because they are much more similar in 'intent' and that's, quiet frankly, all it comes down to).

BTW, the people in Hiroshima or Nagasaki or carpet-bombed Dresden in WWII were NOT "collatoral damage", but were intentionally targeted to achieve an objective in an 'ends justify the means' type of approach.

Targeting civilians for WHATEVER reason is deplorable and criminal, and a crime against humanity, and cannot be justified from a 'moral' standpoint (if you were a moralist). Do you disagree?

 

A point most people seem to overlook.

 

Dresden was an industrial city know to be manufacturing everything from gun sights to metal. It was fully mobilized into the German war machine, and secondly, it was on advisement by the Russians that German troops were moving through and also would use the city as a last stand. They wanted it cleared for their advance. Finally, there was no conventions regarding war at that time - and WWII was the ugliest war in history. I don't think Dresden qualifies as a war crime, or terrorism.

Hiroshima and Nagaski: people forget that Japan just wouldn't surrender. 67 cities were bombed prior to that. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo. Again, both Hiroshima and Nagaski were industrial targets. Even after Nagaski - Japan's military did not want to surrender - it was only because the Emperor finally decided to end it. They didn't decided to surrender after Hiroshima. These were not done to terrorize the Japanese people - it was done to end a war as quickly as possible.

The German's policy wasn't to inflict terror upon Jews - it was to wipe them out. There's a difference between Genocide and Terrorism.

Since that time, the world (including the U.S.) has re-defined what is acceptable in war, and today, fire-bombing of cities isn't acceptable by the Geneva Conventions. So the definition of what was a war crime today can't be applied to that time period. Otherwise you would call Genghis Khan a war criminal.

Targeting Civilians not involved in military affairs is wrong. But let's stick to definitions that are proper. If you go out and kill innocent civilians on a rampage - that's not terroirsm -it's homicidal mania.

I see what you're trying to do though...you want to classify all these things as terrorism so that these radical islamic groups aren't singled out. I know you're sensitive about that stuff being a Muslim - but you know, these guys who strap bombs on themselves are a threat to everyone here, but they are a double threat to you - because they are damaging the image of Islam and you should be the first to step up and condemn it instead of saying what they do and say it's no different from any other military action.

 

nope there isn't - but i put up what nearly all definitions have in common. So this is a poor excuse.

 

You have been sounding like a broken record for last few days....

If you would look past your agenda, you would notice that the talk currently was focused on the military action. But you had to drag your same old rant into this thread. I have seen Tiger condemn terrorist acts by muslims. What you accuse of others can be said of you too. When innocents die, it doesnt matter how you twist it, they are still dead for wrong reasons. The muslims ought to condemn the terrorists just like we need to see what we are doing wrong on our front. You want the other side to bend over but you dont yourself to be held accountable.

Yeah carry on.

 

Were we shamed before the world on Italian Satellite TV yet?

 

Shame on the US. Yes, the US has been shamed before the world. Only the dittoheads and US militarists fail to see this. Legalistic hairsplitting doesn't change this.

 

Americans do much much more to fight against our military killing civilians then the Islamic world does to prevent terrorism. Personally, i don't like how you keep trying to put Al Qaeda on par with the U.S. military.

 

you say this but you follow it with

seriously. how can you say those two statements side by side?

i dont think most muslims are paying taxes to al-qaeda and electing obl as its president. whereas most americans are paying taxes (even illegal ones ) and are able to vote for bush.

 

New Yorker;

Dresden was a resort town, of little to no military value. That's the reason it was pretty much untouched when we fire bombed it. The Germans asked US and Britian for a seperate peace so they could just fight the Russian, our answer to that was Dresdan.

Also most of the bombing of the cities in Germany and Japan was to stop war production, either by actually hitting the factories or by killing the workers in that factory. But to say that civilians were not targeted in WW2 is foolish. In an industrial society the worker in the factory is sometimes more important that the factory.