#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Terrorists need to go to hell
Everyone Else: The Terrorists should all die and go to hell like the duchbags that they truly are.
Terrorists: Why didn't people start killing innocent families sooner? NUKE THE INNOCENT, RAPE THEIR WOMEN!!!
Everyone Else
Side Score: 30
|
 |
Terrorists
Side Score: 28
|
|
4
points
Well if you're Christian then they do believe in your lord, they just call him by a different name. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in the same God and they all believe in Jesus Christ, but only Christianity accepts him as the son of God. The others see him as just a prophet... Why am I telling you all of this? You're just going to respond with some stupid misspelled rant that contradicts anything else you've ever said on this site or even on this debate... oh well. Side: Terrorists
1
point
1
point
Not to insult your loss, but the losses felt by innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan completely dwarfs the losses in 9/11. The amount of civilian casualties in Iraq alone fluctuates between 50,000 to close to 1 million, depending on your source. 2 wrongs don't make a right, if you catch my drift. Side: Terrorists
2
points
1
point
And if we logically compare acts of genocide, the Allies killed about as many civilians during WWII as Hitler did Jews... except in Hitlers case it actually was genocide and in the Allies case it was wartime collateral damage. You have to look at intent. If this was a court of law, that distinction is the difference between manslaughter and murder in the first degree. Or being acquitted on self defense. Nobody defends Hitler in this manner because his actions had malice and the intent to destroy and entire group of people. The Allies, absent that intent and malice, accidentally killed almost as many people as he did trying to stop him, but this doesn't make the actions of the Allies as bad as the actions of Hitler. So I don't see why you're using this logic that could be ill-applied to defend Hitlers actions to attack the actions of the US military. My point is if you compare death tolls on a sheet of paper and ignore the relevant circumstances, yes, the US seems as big an evil as the Taliban. If you look at all the aspects of the entire situation, not the least of which being we wouldn't be in the Middle East in the first place if not in response to 9/11, you see that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are terrorists and that as a whole the US military does not deserve to have that label attached to to. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
The comment I made was referring generally to the US over history (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc), not exclusively to the middle eastern conflicts today. And "terrorist" is just a word. By definition, the allies in WW2 were terrorists. But it doesn't mean that they were wrong in doing what they did. Any connotations from the word are drawn by you, not me. Side: Terrorists
1
point
The comment I made was referring generally to the US over history (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc), not exclusively to the middle eastern conflicts today. Fair enough, I didn't know, but I was watching "Game of Thrones" the other night and Robb Stark said something I think applies here. It went something like "If every man was held accountable for the actions of every distant relative, we would all hang." I don't really see a point in comparing how the US military behaved 70 years ago to how the Taliban is acting now, especially not to excuse the Taliban. And "terrorist" is just a word. By definition, the allies in WW2 were terrorists. But it doesn't mean that they were wrong in doing what they did. Any connotations from the word are drawn by you, not me. Well then in my opinion if the actions of Allied troops fighting to end a genocide define them as terrorists, the definition of the word needs to be changed. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
not the point http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Side: Everyone Else
1
point
There's a difference between civilians dying from collateral damage in war and civilians dying as the direct result of an attack specifically designed to kill civilians and instigate terror. And, compared to other armies and other wars in the past, the US army is actually being pretty clean about their collateral damage, relatively speaking. We don't carpet bomb entire cities just to hit one target, anymore, if you see what I mean. This war has also got to be a pain in the ass from the standpoint of the ordinary soldier because enemy targets hang out almost exclusively in populated civilian areas. My point is I don't think the actions of the US military, which has, in my opinion, been handed a very difficult job, over the course of a several year long occupation are really comparable to the actions of the terrorist shitheads who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. The intent and the malice are all absent from the first. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
There's a difference between civilians dying from collateral damage in war and civilians dying as the direct result of an attack specifically designed to kill civilians and instigate terror. The difference is superficial. A country as technologically advanced as the United States, in comparison to Iraq, is more than capable of ensuring the bare minimum civilian casualties. Not over 100,000. And, compared to other armies and other wars in the past, the US army is actually being pretty clean about their collateral damage, relatively speaking. We don't carpet bomb entire cities just to hit one target, anymore, if you see what I mean. I wouldn't be so sure. Drones are the 21st century carpet bombs. This war has also got to be a pain in the ass from the standpoint of the ordinary soldier because enemy targets hang out almost exclusively in populated civilian areas. While I acknowledge what shitty tactics the Ba'ath army used, I fail to see how the US could let over 1000 civilians die, let alone 100,000. You'll have to excuse my disbelief that the US could let 100,000 people die because they weren't a good enough shot to distinguish between enemy and civilian. My point is I don't think the actions of the US military, which has, in my opinion, been handed a very difficult job, over the course of a several year long occupation are really comparable to the actions of the terrorist shitheads who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. The intent and the malice are all absent from the first. I agree with you that Al Qaeda and the Ba'athist party are all, quite frankly, shitbags. But, that does not excuse the US (and the UK for that matter) of being excessive and terroristic in their use of force to overthrow them. Terrorism is defined as: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Unless you want to dispute that the war in Iraq had no political aims, the US are, by definition, terrorists. Side: Terrorists
1
point
the United States, in comparison to Iraq, is more than capable of ensuring the bare minimum civilian casualties. Not over 100,000. First of all, your death toll is including those killed by Iraqi forces, anti-occupation forces, and "unknown agents." And, indeed, your source notes: "However even from the minority of incidents where perpetrators could be positively identified, it is apparent that 2010's violence profile remains one where “anti-occupation” activity continues to play a central part in the deaths of Iraqi civilians and, most obviously, police or Government-allied targets (police forces members accounting for 1,075 (26.5%) of the deaths recorded by IBC in 2010)" So it's unfair to pin all of those deaths (or even most of them, some years, if you compare the graphs) on the US. But that aside, you're missing the point of my comparison, which has nothing to do with the number of people killed but has to do with the fact that the people who died as a direct result of collateral damage died on accident; their deaths were not the result of a deliberate and direct attempt to instigate fear through grotesque violence. If only the same could be said for the victims of 9/11. I wouldn't be so sure. Drones are the 21st century carpet bombs. My computer doesn't like the link you sent me, but I get your point. We can fuck things up with our weapons, nowadays. But have we, is the question? Have we done anything with our drones (or anything else) on par with the carpet bombing of Dresden? 25,000 people dead in 3 days, and 15 square miles of city leveled. What about something more recent, Grozny in the 90s? 27,000 in a few weeks, the city in ruins, have we done anything like that? We can. Have we? No, we've largely been participating in a campaign of precision strikes. Do civilians die in these strikes? Absolutely. We're firing explosives into urban areas... what do you expect? But we are at least trying to hit our target and only our target, unlike the carpet bombing of the past (and present) which destroys a whole area to hit a single target. You'll have to excuse my disbelief that the US could let 100,000 people die because they weren't a good enough shot to distinguish between enemy and civilian. Not 100,000, I think you'll agree when you check out your source. But besides that, have you ever been shooting? I have, a lot, and I'm pretty comfortable with guns, but I don't think I'd ever be comfortable enough to say in a wartime combat situation I would never accidentally hit something that wasn't my target. I don't think many people, even soldiers, are completely level-headed and perfect marksmen. That, and when what you're shooting is an artillery shell, being a good shot has little to do with it; it's more about hoping friendlies are out of the way. People are very critical of soldiers but seem to forget that they have one of the most difficult, dangerous, and demanding jobs on the planet, when push comes to shove. But, that does not excuse the US (and the UK for that matter) of being excessive and terroristic in their use of force to overthrow them. This seems to be the point you've been driving at; that the US (and UK) military have some alternative motive, that civilian murder is a deliberate tool to intimidate the bad guys. I inferred as much when you said you refused to believe the US is killing civilians on accident. But... really? Again, in comparison to civilian death tolls in the past and present, this war is pretty clean, even if it has been dragging on. And if the senseless murder of civilian targets was really the goal of the military, don't you think we would be doing a better job? Sending cruise missiles into preschools and whatnot? I think if we we're trying to kill civilians, 9 years would have been enough for us to kill off the whole country. So do you really think that the US is in Iraq to kill as many people as possible to create as much panic and terror as possible? No? Then I refuse to accept you branding them as "terrorists." Terrorism is defined as: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Unless you want to dispute that the war in Iraq had no political aims, the US are, by definition, terrorists. As are about 98% of all soldiers who have ever fought in any war, anywhere, ever, and all the people commanding them. I think you'll have to make that definition a little more specific if you want it to mean something. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
o it's unfair to pin all of those deaths (or even most of them, some years, if you compare the graphs) on the US. I redirect you to the Geneva Conventions, which states that the occupying force (ie, the US and allies) has an obligation to protect the lives of the civilians in the country it is occupying. Regardless of whether the deaths are intentional or collateral, the US cannot shirk from responsibility. But that aside, you're missing the point of my comparison, which has nothing to do with the number of people killed but has to do with the fact that the people who died as a direct result of collateral damage died on accident; their deaths were not the result of a deliberate and direct attempt to instigate fear through grotesque violence. If only the same could be said for the victims of 9/11. See above. My computer doesn't like the link you sent me, but I get your point. We can fuck things up with our weapons, nowadays. But have we, is the question? Have we done anything with our drones (or anything else) on par with the carpet bombing of Dresden? 25,000 people dead in 3 days, and 15 square miles of city leveled. What about something more recent, Grozny in the 90s? 27,000 in a few weeks, the city in ruins, have we done anything like that? We can. Have we? Yes. Operation Rolling Thunder. Regardless, the Iraq War is incomparable in scale to WW2, and I do believe that the damage done to Iraq dwarfs the Chechen wars. When the next major war breaks out (which it will), then I suppose we'll see what true damage drones can do. They haven't had a true chance for blood yet. No, we've largely been participating in a campaign of precision strikes. Do civilians die in these strikes? Absolutely. We're firing explosives into urban areas... what do you expect? But we are at least trying to hit our target and only our target, unlike the carpet bombing of the past (and present) which destroys a whole area to hit a single target. Again, I direct you to the Geneva Convention (Convention IV, to be precise). The occupying power is obligated to protect civilians. " firing explosives into urban areas" is not protecting civilians. Unless of course, you believe the United States are above the Geneva Conventions. Not 100,000, I think you'll agree when you check out your source. Once again, Geneva Convention. The occupying forces are obligated to protect the lives of civilians, a job they have failed miserably. I should also point out that 100,000 is but one estimate from one surveyor. Some estimates are lower, some as high as 1 million. But besides that, have you ever been shooting? No. I have, a lot, and I'm pretty comfortable with guns, but I don't think I'd ever be comfortable enough to say in a wartime combat situation I would never accidentally hit something that wasn't my target. I don't think many people, even soldiers, are completely level-headed and perfect marksmen. That, and when what you're shooting is an artillery shell, being a good shot has little to do with it; it's more about hoping friendlies are out of the way. Apologies for being vulgar here, but if they're merely hoping there aren't friendlies in the way, they shouldn't fire the fucking shell. People are very critical of soldiers but seem to forget that they have one of the most difficult, dangerous, and demanding jobs on the planet, when push comes to shove. A job they chose to take up, I might add. No-one is forcing them to join the army (unless the US situation is extremely different to the UK, which I doubt). This seems to be the point you've been driving at; that the US (and UK) military have some alternative motive, that civilian murder is a deliberate tool to intimidate the bad guys. I inferred as much when you said you refused to believe the US is killing civilians on accident. This is quite clearly a straw man. I said: You'll have to excuse my disbelief that the US could let 100,000 people die because they weren't a good enough shot to distinguish between enemy and civilian. I did not once mention any notion of an ulterior motive, nor even that the US were directly killing civilians. My statement was to do with nothing but skepticism of the notion that the US could let 100,000 civilians die by sheer accident. And yes, it is 100,000, as the US is still obligated to prevent anti-occupational forces from killing civilians. Again, in comparison to civilian death tolls in the past and present, this war is pretty clean, even if it has been dragging on. And if the senseless murder of civilian targets was really the goal of the military, don't you think we would be doing a better job? Sending cruise missiles into preschools and whatnot? I think if we we're trying to kill civilians, 9 years would have been enough for us to kill off the whole country. Oh, make no mistake, I'm fully aware of America's military might. They could turn the entire Middle East into a parking lot in an hour, if they so desired. Which is why I don't believe they have an ulterior motive, just that they're bumbling idiots. o do you really think that the US is in Iraq to kill as many people as possible to create as much panic and terror as possible? No? Then I refuse to accept you branding them as "terrorists." Again with the straw man. You may hold your own definition of terrorist, but I'll take the one in the dictionary. As are about 98% of all soldiers who have ever fought in any war, anywhere, ever, and all the people commanding them. I think you'll have to make that definition a little more specific if you want it to mean something. WW2 was an ethnically charged war. WW1 was colonially motivated. Napoleonic wars were colonially motivated. 3 of the biggest wars in history were not terroristic wars. I haven't done the number crunching, but I'm fairly sure those 3 wars combined attribute to a substantial amount of the total soldier count. So your 98% figure is somewhat misleading. In honesty, I would probably call around 25% of soldiers terrorists, by definition. Just off the top of my head, there was Vietnam, Iraq, the Taiping rebellion, Austrian succession. They were all terrorist wars. Really, I don't see why people get so antsy about the word "terrorist". It's a word like any other, "cat", or "blue". Both belligerents of the Iraq War were terrorists, any connotations from this are being drawn by you, not me. Regardless, I would like to clarify something. I have nothing against the average soldier. After all, they're paid to take orders. And the people who give the orders are who I have problems with. Furthermore. I am vehemently opposed to the actions of Ba'athist loyalists and Al Qaeda in Iraq, and unlike the US, I obviously believe they have ulterior motives. My position is simply that the US had no formal justification for a full occupation of the country. Side: Terrorists
1
point
I redirect you to the Geneva Conventions, which states that the occupying force (ie, the US and allies) has an obligation to protect the lives of the civilians in the country it is occupying. Regardless of whether the deaths are intentional or collateral, the US cannot shirk from responsibility. Saying a force has an obligation to protect a certain group is very different than tacking the body count of the enemies of that force killing that certain group to the body count of the force. Let me give an example. Police are obligated to protect citizens, but when a criminal shoots a civilian, we don't say the police murdered the civilian, even though it might have been the policeman's job to protect the civilian. We can say the policeman failed his responsibility, but we cannot say the policeman killed the civilian, because quite simply he didn't pull the trigger, regardless of any binding oath or obligation he man have been under, he did not kill that person. See above. I'll give a CS Lewis example. If you're walking down a bus to take your seat, and you accidentally trip over the foot of a man reading the paper, resting his feet in the aisle, and you sprawl to the floor. He helps pick you up and brush you off and apologizes; chances are you forgive him and walk on. Next time you're on the same bus, a total stranger deliberately kicks your feet from under you while you're walking to your seat, you sprawl to the floor, and he stands above you laughing. Chances are you're going to turn around, pissed, and ask something along the lines of, "What the fuck?" Now, in both of these situations the same end result occurred; you ended up on the floor. But the difference in how you handle the situation comes from the intent of the person who put you there; you would treat an accident very different from a deliberate attack. So I understand you like the Geneva Conventions, but do they really make you unable to discern between first degree murder and manslaughter, or do they just make you not care? Yes. Operation Rolling Thunder. Not with drones and not concurrent. So why reference it? We're talking about our drones in Iraq, and you said they were the carpet bombs of the 21st, so I'm wondering what Iraqi city we have leveled in a few days with drones. The occupying power is obligated to protect civilians. " firing explosives into urban areas" is not protecting civilians. Unless of course, you believe the United States are above the Geneva Conventions. It seems we have to be in order to actually, y'know, fight during a war. For whatever reason the Taliban refuse to march their troops out to a nice open field, far away from civilization, and let us blow them to hell, there. No, they hide out in populated areas and shoot at us, so unless you're suggesting we fight a war by not shooting back I don't know exactly what you expect us to do. But hey, it's not like we're alone in this; every military campaign in history has killed civilians as result of collateral damage. As I said, it would be impossible to fight a war without this happening, so unless you expect the Geneva Convention to stop people from starting wars you cant expect it to stop collateral damage. Also, if I may, I'd like to take a second out to rant a little about this document you referenced me back to 4 times (and ones like it). Documents like the Geneva Convention try to establish rules of war, so everyone back home can sit around reading the rules and keeping score while people half a world away strive to kill one another. I think it's bullshit. Who gives a fuck if you're using a fully automatic shotgun or nerve gas to kill someone? It's probably a shitty way to die, to be sure, but is it really any better that bleeding out through the stump of a leg that just stepped on a landmine? Or burning alive? Point is, war is chaotic and horrific in it's very nature. I don't think that aspect of it will ever really change, and making up rules under some semblance of "fair play" to try to minimize the chaos and the horror usually just ends up complicating and prolonging things. So I'm all for some of the things these documents are trying to accomplish, but when push comes to shove they are abstract pieces of paper trying to police a warzone with nothing but words and good intentions, and I'm not of the opinion that any force in the world should be obligated to obey these papers fully and without question. To do so it to shoot yourself in the foot; a very dangerous and stupid things to do when you already have people shooting at you. Apologies for being vulgar here, but if they're merely hoping there aren't friendlies in the way, they shouldn't fire the fucking shell. We'll we've been asking the terrorists to stop hiding out in schools, mosques, and hospitals and to please clearly label themselves instead of dressing like civilians, but I'll be damned they keep doing things their own way. My point is in a warzone you don't always get to know what's going on; sometimes you're just hoping for the best, often with your own life and the life of your countrymen hanging in the balance. And, admittedly, you've never fired a gun, much less artillery, so you have no idea what it's like to be in the position you are being so critical of. A job they chose to take up, I might add. No-one is forcing them to join the army (unless the US situation is extremely different to the UK, which I doubt). Obviously. But I'm glad they took the jobs they did. We need people to fill those very challenging positions. But I respect them and understand they have to make some of the most difficult decisions in some of the most dangerous situations you'll find in any career, and I cut them some slack. You seem to be demanding absolute perfection from every grunt in the army because some piece of paper says they shouldn't make mistakes. This is quite clearly a straw man. Well it wasn't to me when I wrote it. Genuinely. Generally if you refuse to believe someone did something on accident it does to say you believe they did it on purpose. Am I wrong in thinking that? You clarified and said your statement only had to do with your disbelief that the US let civilians die on accident. Well, if they didn't do it on accident, what did they do it on? What else is there but "on purpose?" Admittedly my speculation about why you think the US is killing civilians on purpose was just that: speculation. Which is why I don't believe they have an ulterior motive, just that they're bumbling idiots. I think if collateral damage is the result of bumbling idiocy you would still call it an "accident." Also, perhaps they're not bumbling idiots, perhaps they're just average people of average intelligence but in extremely trying situations. Which brings me back to one of my main themes: why are you so sure you (or anyone else) would be doing so much better if put in the shoes of a US soldier? Again with the straw man. You may hold your own definition of terrorist, but I'll take the one in the dictionary. It's not really a straw man. Purposefully killing people to generate fear is terrorism; you think the US military is acting like a bunch of terrorists and not accidentally killing civilians. If they are terrorists, and they are killing people on purpose (all according to you) how is my statement a straw man? And for sure. Good to know. I'll make sure to refer to all soldiers and all respective nations as terrorists when talking to you, from now on. It will get awfully confusing... but oh well. WW2 was an ethnically charged war. WW1 was colonially motivated. Napoleonic wars were colonially motivated. 3 of the biggest wars in history were not terroristic wars. I haven't done the number crunching, but I'm fairly sure those 3 wars combined attribute to a substantial amount of the total soldier count. So your 98% figure is somewhat misleading. WWII was ethnically charged, but it also had to do with politics. WWI was colonially motivated, but it also had to do with politics. The Napoleonic wars were colonially motivated, but they also had to do with politics. The War on Terror is politically motivated, but it also has to do with a lot of other things, like religion and vengeance. My point here is once you get to the stage where a national faction declares war on another, you know politics are involved, somewhere. If the government (a political entity) has a hand in the actions of the military (which it almost always does, as the government theoretically controls the military) then the military is a force (a force exclusively designed for violence) guided by political aims. Which, according to you and the dictionary, makes the government and the military in my example both terrorist organizations. The problem is I've just described the way most modern armies interact with their governments. Which brings me back to the definition of terrorism being way too fucking vague and ambiguous. Really, I don't see why people get so antsy about the word "terrorist". It's a word like any other, "cat", or "blue". I would be okay with someone falsely calling me a "cat" or "blue." I would not be okay with someone calling me a name synonymous with "murdering swine." Even if you shake off the connotations, it's a nasty word; you kill people to create fear, that's what it means. In that regard I'd actually rather be called a murderer; it's basically the same thing except not as bad. If accidentally hitting a civilian with a stray bullet puts you in the same tier of shitheads who fly planes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians on purpose and with malice, all I can say is the Allies committed genocide in WWII when they tried to free the Jews, and they should be considered just as bad as the Nazis. Regardless, I would like to clarify something. I have nothing against the average soldier. No, you just have something against 25-98% of soldiers in history. Or if you don't, you should, because you should be opposed to people who murder others to create terror, and according to you that's a quarter of all soldiers in history. I think higher, but whatever. And the people who give the orders are who I have problems with. I appreciate your clarification, but perhaps you could have gotten to this part, sooner? You've dedicated a fair amount of space (perhaps most) to being extremely critical of the actions of ordinary foot soldiers. Because I have problems with the people giving orders, too, and I think we might find more points we agree on if we talk about that. Furthermore. I am vehemently opposed to the actions of Ba'athist loyalists and Al Qaeda in Iraq, and unlike the US, I obviously believe they have ulterior motives. I figured you would be. Trust, I'm not like the creator of this debate; I do not mean to imply that if you don't support the US you must support the terrorists. My position is simply that the US had no formal justification for a full occupation of the country. See? I knew we'd have some common ground, once we got down to it. I don't think the US has a good reason to be occupying so much of the Middle East, either. Let me tell you, though, post 9/11, America wanted blood. People always forget that shortly after the towers fell and for a while after that Democrats and Republicans we're able to agree on something, for once: vengeance. I think that part was good. 9/11 was an atrocity and it was only right we should find out who did it and handle the situation. But from that point on it was pretty much a shit-show of bad decision after bad decision, right up to the present day. So while I cannot support our actions I cant support our intentions, which is perhaps why I so vehemently reacted to you labeling the army as terrorists; it's a direct attack on the intentions of the force. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
Saying a force has an obligation to protect a certain group is very different than tacking the body count of the enemies of that force killing that certain group to the body count of the force. Let me give an example. Police are obligated to protect citizens, but when a criminal shoots a civilian, we don't say the police murdered the civilian, even though it might have been the policeman's job to protect the civilian. We can say the policeman failed his responsibility, but we cannot say the policeman killed the civilian, because quite simply he didn't pull the trigger, regardless of any binding oath or obligation he man have been under, he did not kill that person. Have I said that the US murdered 100,000 people? If I have, I apologise, but I don't recall doing so. And you said it yourself; he has failed his responsibility. That's all I'm saying in regards to the US. Now, in both of these situations the same end result occurred; you ended up on the floor. But the difference in how you handle the situation comes from the intent of the person who put you there; you would treat an accident very different from a deliberate attack. So I understand you like the Geneva Conventions, but do they really make you unable to discern between first degree murder and manslaughter, or do they just make you not care? Your analogy (or should I say, CS Lewis' example) is misleading. In the analogy, the harm done is completely minimal, and thus the intent is irrelevant to most people. However, say the stranger tripped you up, then accidentally killed your wife who was standing next to you. You would be just as pissed if he did it by accident than if he did it on purpose. As the damage level increases, the care for intent lowers.Oh, and that analogy isn't to be taken literally, I'm well aware that it's difficult to "accidentally kill someone's wife", but hopefully you get the idea. And the Geneva Conventions, to me, are a superior text to the US law system. I mean, I can just reverse your question to "I understand you like the US law system, but do they really make you unable to understand that the US is obligated to blah blah blah...". Not with drones and not concurrent. So why reference it? We're talking about our drones in Iraq, and you said they were the carpet bombs of the 21st, so I'm wondering what Iraqi city we have leveled in a few days with drones. Looking back, I misread your original quote to mean have the US ever done the equivalent of Grozny, with or without drones. My apologies. However, my point still stands about drones not being given a true opportunity yet. It seems we have to be in order to actually, y'know, fight during a war. For whatever reason the Taliban refuse to march their troops out to a nice open field, far away from civilization, and let us blow them to hell, there. No, they hide out in populated areas and shoot at us, so unless you're suggesting we fight a war by not shooting back I don't know exactly what you expect us to do. There is a difference betwixt shooting back and firing explosives into urban areas. But hey, it's not like we're alone in this; every military campaign in history has killed civilians as result of collateral damage. As I said, it would be impossible to fight a war without this happening, so unless you expect the Geneva Convention to stop people from starting wars you cant expect it to stop collateral damage. Actually, it was really not until Guerrilla warfare became popularised that civilian casualties became a major part of war. The monarchical wars of Renaissance Europe were particularly "civilised" in comparison to today's wars. Regardless, the Geneva Conventions at least provide a guideline for the participants. Without it, I believe war would be a lot more bloody than it is now. Also, if I may, I'd like to take a second out to rant a little about this document you referenced me back to 4 times (and ones like it). Documents like the Geneva Convention try to establish rules of war, so everyone back home can sit around reading the rules and keeping score while people half a world away strive to kill one another. I think it's bullshit. Who gives a fuck if you're using a fully automatic shotgun or nerve gas to kill someone? It's probably a shitty way to die, to be sure, but is it really any better that bleeding out through the stump of a leg that just stepped on a landmine? Or burning alive? Point is, war is chaotic and horrific in it's very nature. I don't think that aspect of it will ever really change, and making up rules under some semblance of "fair play" to try to minimize the chaos and the horror usually just ends up complicating and prolonging things. So I'm all for some of the things these documents are trying to accomplish, but when push comes to shove they are abstract pieces of paper trying to police a warzone with nothing but words and good intentions, and I'm not of the opinion that any force in the world should be obligated to obey these papers fully and without question. To do so it to shoot yourself in the foot; a very dangerous and stupid things to do when you already have people shooting at you. I would rebut this, but I feel it's another debate for another time. We'll we've been asking the terrorists to stop hiding out in schools, mosques, and hospitals and to please clearly label themselves instead of dressing like civilians, but I'll be damned they keep doing things their own way. My point is in a warzone you don't always get to know what's going on; sometimes you're just hoping for the best, often with your own life and the life of your countrymen hanging in the balance. And, admittedly, you've never fired a gun, much less artillery, so you have no idea what it's like to be in the position you are being so critical of. I'm not criticising the ones firing the shell, I'm criticising the ones giving the orders to fire the shell. And maybe this is an entirely separate moral issue, but I feel it to be relevant. I believe that, if you suspect there are terrorists in a mosque or whatever you absolutely should not fire on it. Would I be correct in saying that you would? Obviously. But I'm glad they took the jobs they did. We need people to fill those very challenging positions. But I respect them and understand they have to make some of the most difficult decisions in some of the most dangerous situations you'll find in any career, and I cut them some slack. You seem to be demanding absolute perfection from every grunt in the army because some piece of paper says they shouldn't make mistakes. If we were fighting for a "noble cause", I would be much more sympathetic. If this were WW2, then I would potentially excuse the odd civilian casualty, for the "greater good" (I use these terms loosely, they're dangerous in the wrong hands). But Iraq is not a noble cause. It is a war fueled by nothing but emotion, and one against a country that had no way of seriously harming the US. 9/11 was tragic, but let's be brutally honest; it's small fry. In the grand scheme of things, a couple of buildings and a few thousand people is really quite insignificant. I truly apologise if that is harsh or offensive, but I think if we look purely numerically, I'm right. Well it wasn't to me when I wrote it. Genuinely. Generally if you refuse to believe someone did something on accident it does to say you believe they did it on purpose. Am I wrong in thinking that? You clarified and said your statement only had to do with your disbelief that the US let civilians die on accident. Well, if they didn't do it on accident, what did they do it on? What else is there but "on purpose?" Admittedly my speculation about why you think the US is killing civilians on purpose was just that: speculation. If this were face to face, it would make much more sense. I think you interpreted it to mean: How could the US let 100,000 people die on accident? When it was supposed to mean: How could the US let 100,000 people die on accident? It's just problems with text and emphasis, I suppose. It's not really a straw man. Purposefully killing people to generate fear is terrorism; you think the US military is acting like a bunch of terrorists and not accidentally killing civilians. If they are terrorists, and they are killing people on purpose (all according to you) how is my statement a straw man? The statement Do do you really think that the US is in Iraq to kill as many people as possible to create as much panic and terror as possible is a straw man, albeit a speculative one. And for sure. Good to know. I'll make sure to refer to all soldiers and all respective nations as terrorists when talking to you, from now on. It will get awfully confusing... but oh well. When talking to me, I'd love that. It would be nice for that word to lose its taboo. WWII was ethnically charged, but it also had to do with politics. WWI was colonially motivated, but it also had to do with politics. The Napoleonic wars were colonially motivated, but they also had to do with politics. The War on Terror is politically motivated, but it also has to do with a lot of other things, like religion and vengeance. Those wars I listed were not directly caused by politics. And if one wants to take the route of "well colonialism is a political view, therefore politics caused it", then I could just as easily blame all wars on hydrogen. My point here is once you get to the stage where a national faction declares war on another, you know politics are involved, somewhere. If the government (a political entity) has a hand in the actions of the military (which it almost always does, as the government theoretically controls the military) then the military is a force (a force exclusively designed for violence) guided by political aims. Which, according to you and the dictionary, makes the government and the military in my example both terrorist organizations. The problem is I've just described the way most modern armies interact with their governments. Which brings me back to the definition of terrorism being way too fucking vague and ambiguous. But it's quite clear to see when politics directly causes war (Taiping rebellion) and politics indirectly causes war (the Crusades). And if you think the word is too ambiguous, then use something else. I don't mind. I just feel it was a bit dim of the US to call for a "war on terror". Seems a bit redundant, don't you think? I appreciate your clarification, but perhaps you could have gotten to this part, sooner? You've dedicated a fair amount of space (perhaps most) to being extremely critical of the actions of ordinary foot soldiers. Because I have problems with the people giving orders, too, and I think we might find more points we agree on if we talk about that. I apologise if it came off that way, but yea, I really don't have too many problems with the average soldier. I question their decision to join, but hey, if that's their thing, I'm not gonna stop them. I feel that we actually agree, but for completely different reasons, which is what we're actually debating about. Still, it seems as though we've found some common ground. Oh, and this should say clarify, but I'm too lazy to go back and change it now. Side: Terrorists
1
point
Continuing to pick holes in the definition of "terrorism," (this part isn't specific to any one part of the post) what would you call someone who uses violence and intimidation to generate fear in the name of/for/because of their religion? Have I said that the US murdered 100,000 people? If I have, I apologise, but I don't recall doing so. And you said it yourself; he has failed his responsibility. That's all I'm saying in regards to the US. No, the apologies are mine. You didn't explicitly state that. You did, however, imply it with statements like "the US could let 100,000 people die because they weren't a good enough shot to distinguish between enemy and civilian." That implies that it's not only the fault of the US that the civilians died, but that it was actually US soldiers who shot them. Your analogy (or should I say, CS Lewis' example) is misleading. In the analogy, the harm done is completely minimal, and thus the intent is irrelevant to most people. True enough. But even if the end result was the death of a loved one, the strength of emotion would grow proportionally but I still think you would feel differently if they died on accident and not on purpose. For example, if your loved one was biking home and got hit by a car in a freak accident, you might be mad at the driver, but nowhere near as mad as if the same driver deliberately chased your loved one and ran him/her down with his car, killing them. You might resent and hate the driver in the first example, but you'd be calling for blood and justice in the second example. This actually happens. I mean, I can just reverse your question to "I understand you like the US law system, but do they really make you unable to understand that the US is obligated to blah blah blah...". You could, but it would be pointless; I was borrowing the concepts of first-degree murder and manslaughter from the US legal system, but they are in no way exclusive or original to the system, nor do they require the US legal system to be implemented in order to be used the way I used them in my argument. However, my point still stands about drones not being given a true opportunity yet. I agree, but I think that's a point for both of us, since I'm arguing that the US has been reasonably reigning in its destructive ability in favor of precision strikes. There is a difference betwixt shooting back and firing explosives into urban areas. Not if your target is also firing explosives in urban areas. Which happens pretty damn often. Actually, it was really not until Guerrilla warfare became popularised that civilian casualties became a major part of war. I stand partially corrected. Things like carpet bombing resulted in high civilian casualties, and carpet bombing is not a part of Guerrilla warfare. But you're right in saying that when it was two armies in tailcoats lining up on a field in the middle of nowhere to shoot at eachother a bit, civilian casualties where probably pretty low. Although we're also including all civilian casualties that result from things like famine, disease, and increased crime rate, which I'm sure increased during wartime, even back in the day. Regardless, the Geneva Conventions at least provide a guideline for the participants. Without it, I believe war would be a lot more bloody than it is now. War should be bloody. That motivates us to not enjoy it, and to not prolong it too much. The more horrific war is the more reason there is to end it, and seeing as trying to eliminate horror from war is an impossible endeavor, it seems more reasonable to be to let it be as horrific as possible. Also, how many genocidal maniacs have ever given a damn about slips of paper written up by old men in Europe? If someone wants to be a tyrannical, warmongering, sadistic shithead, he's not going to follow the rules about it. I would rebut this, but I feel it's another debate for another time. Most of it's not relevant, here, either. We were just on the subject and I had to vent. Thanks for listening. =D I'm not criticising the ones firing the shell, I'm criticising the ones giving the orders to fire the shell. Sometimes that's one in the same. I believe that, if you suspect there are terrorists in a mosque or whatever you absolutely should not fire on it. Would I be correct in saying that you would? No. Not on a suspicion. However, if a few terrorists are leaning out the window of a mosque shooting at me and my comrades, you bet your ass I'm going to shoot back, and probably toss a few grenades in for good measure. And if we could confirm it was just the terrorists in there I'd suggest we just level the building from a few miles away. No need to pussyfoot about it. In the grand scheme of things, a couple of buildings and a few thousand people is really quite insignificant. I truly apologise if that is harsh or offensive, but I think if we look purely numerically, I'm right. And one harbor in Hawaii is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it sure as hell motivated us to do something. I don't agree with 99% of the way the war on Terror has been handled, but I do think something needed to happen in response to 9/11 and there is evidently some relationship between our assailants and the Middle East. I don't know what we should have done, but are you suggesting we should have shook the attack off as "quite insignificant?" Also, not offended. I don't blindly love my country enough to be offended. How could the US let 100,000 people die on accident? Okay, I get the misunderstanding. So... how could the US let so many people die? The statement Do do you really think that the US is in Iraq to kill as many people as possible to create as much panic and terror as possible is a straw man, albeit a speculative one. If it was a standalone argument, perhaps, but in context I don't think it is. I'm asking a question. I.e. Do you think the US is [insert definition of "terrorism" here]? No? Then we can conclude the US is not ["terrorism"]. Those wars I listed were not directly caused by politics. I bet any case you could make to try to show the War on Terror was directly/exclusively caused by politics I could turn around and apply to just about any war, ever. In reality, all wars are caused by a multitude of factors, with politics being a common ingredient in every war. And if one wants to take the route of "well colonialism is a political view, therefore politics caused it", then I could just as easily blame all wars on hydrogen. And you accuse me of building straw men. Geez. I think I laid out my case more complex than that. When talking to me, I'd love that. It would be nice for that word to lose its taboo. I don't really think it's all that taboo. Sure our presidential administration is too spineless to use the word, more often than not, but it's still thrown around pretty frequently in the media. Though I cannot speak for the UK. But it's quite clear to see when politics directly causes war (Taiping rebellion) and politics indirectly causes war (the Crusades). But neither would have been possible without political aims. Regardless, in every war, politics is a factor, and if it's a factor, you can say they're fighting for that reason (among others, but still) which means the definition can be applied. If politics influenced the war directly or indirectly they still influenced it to happen, and the war is being fought in part for political aims, and since war is intrinsically violent and we've just established all wars have political aims, apparently everyone involved in every war ever is a terrorist. If we stick to the definition you provided. It should also be noted you also said the war in Iraq was fueled by emotion. And i agree. I also agree politics fueled it. I also think religion played its part, along with a whole boatload of other factors. And if you think the word is too ambiguous, then use something else. I don't mind. I think the word would work just fine if the definition wasn't so ambiguous. What other word could I use to describe people who kill people for the sake of creating terror? Horrists? Fearists? Jackasses? But hey, the definition you provided certainly isn't the only one. Wikipedia says, in regards to terrorism, " In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." Going by that, the acts of the US in Iraq are not intended to generate fear, they are not perpetrated for religious reasons, they obviously have political origins, arguably have ideological goals, and are not designed to kill civilians. The US military only meets one, maybe one and a half of five of the definitive traits of a terrorist. So maybe I could just stick with the word and use a more specific definition; it's not like the one you pulled up is the definition. I just feel it was a bit dim of the US to call for a "war on terror". Seems a bit redundant, don't you think? If you can't differentiate between war and terrorism, yeah, I guess it does seem a bit redundant. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
what would you call someone who uses violence and intimidation to generate fear in the name of/for/because of their religion I would use the term "extremist". No, the apologies are mine. You didn't explicitly state that. You did, however, imply it with statements like "the US could let 100,000 people die because they weren't a good enough shot to distinguish between enemy and civilian." That implies that it's not only the fault of the US that the civilians died, but that it was actually US soldiers who shot them. I don't see how inaction (letting someone die) implies action (killing someone). For example, if your loved one was biking home and got hit by a car in a freak accident, you might be mad at the driver, but nowhere near as mad as if the same driver deliberately chased your loved one and ran him/her down with his car, killing them. You might resent and hate the driver in the first example, but you'd be calling for blood and justice in the second example. This actually happens. So then is it any wonder that many people resent and hate the US for their actions in Iraq? You could, but it would be pointless; I was borrowing the concepts of first-degree murder and manslaughter from the US legal system, but they are in no way exclusive or original to the system, nor do they require the US legal system to be implemented in order to be used the way I used them in my argument. I feel that that whole argument in general is just a double edged sword. If not the US legal system, then law in general, or whatever, the point remains. I agree, but I think that's a point for both of us, since I'm arguing that the US has been reasonably reigning in its destructive ability in favor of precision strikes. Sure. Not if your target is also firing explosives in urban areas. Which happens pretty damn often. 2 wrongs don't make a right. War should be bloody. That motivates us to not enjoy it, and to not prolong it too much. The more horrific war is the more reason there is to end it, and seeing as trying to eliminate horror from war is an impossible endeavor, it seems more reasonable to be to let it be as horrific as possible. War should not be existent. But seeing as most people reach for the gun before thinking, that obviously won't happen. So why make it any more horrible than it has to be? I don't buy that reason, in fact, I believe it to have the opposite effect. The horrors of war can only prolong wars. If WW2 had no holocaust, it would have been over sooner. But because there was a holocaust, the allies had to free the prisoners, taking a longer amount of time. The Vietcong and the US used all sorts of terrible methods in Vietnam, which extended the war considerably. Need I go on? Also, how many genocidal maniacs have ever given a damn about slips of paper written up by old men in Europe? If someone wants to be a tyrannical, warmongering, sadistic shithead, he's not going to follow the rules about it. Most of the genocidal shitheads' countries aren't party to the convention anyway. But the countries that are party to it tend to have less genocidal shitheads and cleaner wars. Sometimes that's one in the same In which case I'm critical of both sometimes. No. Not on a suspicion. However, if a few terrorists are leaning out the window of a mosque shooting at me and my comrades, you bet your ass I'm going to shoot back, and probably toss a few grenades in for good measure. And if we could confirm it was just the terrorists in there I'd suggest we just level the building from a few miles away. No need to pussyfoot about it. If it were just terrorists, then yea, I'd see it as acceptable to just level the building. But I think this is just a fundamental moral difference between us. And one harbor in Hawaii is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it sure as hell motivated us to do something. I don't agree with 99% of the way the war on Terror has been handled, but I do think something needed to happen in response to 9/11 and there is evidently some relationship between our assailants and the Middle East. I don't know what we should have done, but are you suggesting we should have shook the attack off as "quite insignificant?" Firstly, there's no real comparison between Iraq and imperial Japan, in that Japan posed a significant threat to the US. Iraq does not. And with regards to 9/11, Iraq was not responsible. Even Bush admits this now. So, in my opinion, what should have been done was a secret hunt of the men responsible. Not the invasion of an entire country in order to find non-existent weapons and hunt down the perpetrators in as clumsy a way as possible. There were other options. Okay, I get the misunderstanding. So... how could the US let so many people die? I don't know, you tell me. I would go with mere clumsiness, I have no reason to speculate beyond that. If it was a standalone argument, perhaps, but in context I don't think it is. I'm asking a question. I.e. Do you think the US is [insert definition of "terrorism" here]? No? Then we can conclude the US is not ["terrorism"]. Then you should have worded it like that, but whatever. I bet any case you could make to try to show the War on Terror was directly/exclusively caused by politics I could turn around and apply to just about any war, ever. In reality, all wars are caused by a multitude of factors, with politics being a common ingredient in every war. Yes, but some are more political than others. Iraq was caused more by politics than any other factor, be that religion or ethnicity or whatever. Vietnam was caused more by politics. The Crusades were caused more by religion. So while one can link everything back, some links are stronger than others. And you accuse me of building straw men. Geez. I think I laid out my case more complex than that. Note the use of the words "if" and "one". As in, this was not directed to you, it was a hypothetical directed to anyone who thought that. But neither would have been possible without political aims. Regardless, in every war, politics is a factor, and if it's a factor, you can say they're fighting for that reason (among others, but still) which means the definition can be applied. If politics influenced the war directly or indirectly they still influenced it to happen, and the war is being fought in part for political aims, and since war is intrinsically violent and we've just established all wars have political aims, apparently everyone involved in every war ever is a terrorist. If we stick to the definition you provided. But as I said, some links are stronger than others. All wars have political aims, but not all wars have direct political aims. The US wants to establish democracy in the middle east. That's a direct political aim. Hitler wanted to exterminate the untermenschen. That's not a direct political aim, that's an ethnic aim made possible by politics. It should also be noted you also said the war in Iraq was fueled by emotion. And i agree. I also agree politics fueled it. I also think religion played its part, along with a whole boatload of other factors. Yes, as do I. But politics was nonetheless the driving force. The war would still have happened if religion didn't exist. It would not have happened if politics didn't exist. I think the word would work just fine if the definition wasn't so ambiguous. What other word could I use to describe people who kill people for the sake of creating terror? Horrists? Fearists? Jackasses? If you want. But hey, the definition you provided certainly isn't the only one. Wikipedia says, in regards to terrorism, " In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." Then hey, good for you, use that one. If you don't like the definition I posted, then all you had to do was get another. Going by that, the acts of the US in Iraq are not intended to generate fear, they are not perpetrated for religious reasons, they obviously have political origins, arguably have ideological goals, and are not designed to kill civilians. The US military only meets one, maybe one and a half of five of the definitive traits of a terrorist. So maybe I could just stick with the word and use a more specific definition; it's not like the one you pulled up is the definition. Of course not. So you have that one, I'll take my one, and we could stop debating semantics? If you can't differentiate between war and terrorism, yeah, I guess it does seem a bit redundant The US didn't call for a war on terrorism, they called for a war on terror. To me, war is terrifying. The statement was really just a double entendre. I'm well aware that war and terrorism aren't synonymous, I just didn't think it would be taken so literally. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
I don't see how inaction (letting someone die) implies action (killing someone). If you say that 100,000 people died because US solders shot them, that goes to say the US soldiers killed someone. Lots of someones. So then is it any wonder that many people resent and hate the US for their actions in Iraq? Not really. But is it any wonder that many people want blood and justice post 9/11? I feel that that whole argument in general is just a double edged sword. If not the US legal system, then law in general, or whatever, the point remains. Well no, not really. You're pointing to a specific legal document and saying that the US should adhere to that specific legal code. I'm just borrowing a few concepts for the sake of discussion - concepts that happen to exist in the US legal system, among others. Saying I'm talking about the US legal system because I'm using these concepts would be like saying you must be talking about the Geneva Convention because you mentioned civilian casualties. 2 wrongs don't make a right. If we didn't fire explosives in urban areas we would be unable to wage war effectively. War involves firing explosives. I don't think firing explosives in war is intrinsically wrong. But because there was a holocaust, the allies had to free the prisoners, taking a longer amount of time. The Vietcong and the US used all sorts of terrible methods in Vietnam, which extended the war considerably. Need I go on? I feel another debate coming on. Know I was talking about my concern that war will become so PC that war will no longer be a bad thing... not when we're all using non-lethal weapons, checking up on our targets after we've shot them, and posting up our POWs in 4 star hotels. But looking at this now it's not really relevant at all... we can keep talking about it, but it was really just a lot of future speculation based on the path we've been taking. Most of the genocidal shitheads' countries aren't party to the convention anyway. But the countries that are party to it tend to have less genocidal shitheads and cleaner wars. My point here was that putting rules on war is like putting rules on criminals... except war is harder to police. If it were just terrorists, then yea, I'd see it as acceptable to just level the building. But I think this is just a fundamental moral difference between us. Wait - you wouldn't shoot back if they were shooting at you and you couldn't confirm it was just enemies in the building? You said we had a fundamental difference but you agreed with how I handled one of the hypothetical situations, so I assume you disagree with the second... Well, the military has a special term for soldiers who don't shoot back when fired upon; KIA. Firstly, there's no real comparison between Iraq and imperial Japan, in that Japan posed a significant threat to the US. Iraq does not. But if you look at the numbers, I'm right. I don't know, you tell me. I would go with mere clumsiness, I have no reason to speculate beyond that. This was kind of my whole point in digging up what goes into those statistics. If you look at it you see that the US is responsible for a disproportionally small amount of civilian casualties, and the vast majority of civilians (most years) were killed by anti-occupation forces and unknown agents. In other words, the people the US is fighting against and the people the US knows nothing about and has nothing to do with are the ones killing civilians, more often than not. Then, when you look at the small remainder, especially given the close confines of the warzones, you can actually be impressed by the accuracy and tact of the US military. With such a small number, it's perfectly reasonable to chalk the collateral damage up to perfectly normal human error - error you, me, and professional soldiers alike are all prone to. Then you should have worded it like that, but whatever. That was almost exactly how I worded it the first time; I was worried I wasn't clarifying it much for you since I copied it pretty much word-for-word from the original. Looks like I just had to repeat myself. Yes, but some are more political than others. Iraq was caused more by politics than any other factor, be that religion or ethnicity or whatever. Vietnam was caused more by politics. The Crusades were caused more by religion. So while one can link everything back, some links are stronger than others. Agreed. But as politics are a defining factor in all war, which is by definition violent, all wars have been wars or terrorism, in your book. That's where I disagree. Note the use of the words "if" and "one". As in, this was not directed to you, it was a hypothetical directed to anyone who thought that. How very coincidental, then, that the hypothetical "one" might propose was a caricature of the very point I made above it. Very odd you would write an argument against mine under the quote of mine you are disputing but then not direct it at me. All wars have political aims, but not all wars have direct political aims. It doesn't matter if they're direct or indirect; that's not part of my argument, anyways, nor is it part of your definition. The point is all wars have political aims, as you've just said, and obviously all wars are violent, so the combatants and commanders of all wars are terrorists, which completely devalues the word and renders it worthless. The war would still have happened if religion didn't exist. One could argue that point around in circles. What else but religion can convince people to blow themselves up for... whatever? And lasting resentment in the middle east against the west over the Israeli/Palestine issue, which is one that has it's basis in religion. That, and pretty much everyone we're fighting over there belongs to one religious fundamentalist group or another. The US didn't call for a war on terrorism, they called for a war on terror. To me, war is terrifying. The statement was really just a double entendre. Don't play dumb. You're more than smart enough to figure out if the US declares a "War on Terror" shortly after a terrorist attack on their country, the "Terror" part refers to terrorism. And even if you we're not smart enough to get that, which you are, the US has more specifically labeled it's enemies this war as "terrorists" and "terrorism" at other times. Side: Terrorists
1
point
If you say that 100,000 people died because US solders shot them, that goes to say the US soldiers killed someone. Lots of someones. What? I didn't say that. I said 100,000 people died because the US let them, not that the US shot them. Not really. But is it any wonder that many people want blood and justice post 9/11? No. But they targeted the wrong party. Well no, not really. You're pointing to a specific legal document and saying that the US should adhere to that specific legal code. I'm just borrowing a few concepts for the sake of discussion - concepts that happen to exist in the US legal system, among others. Saying I'm talking about the US legal system because I'm using these concepts would be like saying you must be talking about the Geneva Convention because you mentioned civilian casualties. Again, the argument is non-specific to US law. Let's just say "law". Then the argument can be reversed to that. If we didn't fire explosives in urban areas we would be unable to wage war effectively. War involves firing explosives. I don't think firing explosives in war is intrinsically wrong. Nor do I, but I'm still opposed to firing explosives at schools and mosques. Wait - you wouldn't shoot back if they were shooting at you and you couldn't confirm it was just enemies in the building? You said we had a fundamental difference but you agreed with how I handled one of the hypothetical situations, so I assume you disagree with the second... Well, the military has a special term for soldiers who don't shoot back when fired upon; KIA. Most likely not, purely through fear and inability to act rationally under extreme pressure. But if you look at the numbers, I'm right. Sure, but the comparison is false. This was kind of my whole point in digging up what goes into those statistics. If you look at it you see that the US is responsible for a disproportionally small amount of civilian casualties, and the vast majority of civilians (most years) were killed by anti-occupation forces and unknown agents. In other words, the people the US is fighting against and the people the US knows nothing about and has nothing to do with are the ones killing civilians, more often than not. Then, when you look at the small remainder, especially given the close confines of the warzones, you can actually be impressed by the accuracy and tact of the US military. With such a small number, it's perfectly reasonable to chalk the collateral damage up to perfectly normal human error - error you, me, and professional soldiers alike are all prone to. However, in my own view, convention or no convention, the US is responsible as the occupying force to maintain minimum civilian casualties, caused by the US or anti-occupational agents. You clearly don't think this, so this is another dead end. How very coincidental, then, that the hypothetical "one" might propose was a caricature of the very point I made above it. Very odd you would write an argument against mine under the quote of mine you are disputing but then not direct it at me. How coincidental of me to explicitly use language to show that it was not directed at you, but to other people who I have encountered in the past? It doesn't matter if they're direct or indirect; that's not part of my argument, anyways, nor is it part of your definition. The point is all wars have political aims, as you've just said, and obviously all wars are violent, so the combatants and commanders of all wars are terrorists, which completely devalues the word and renders it worthless. I will revise my definition, just for you. "Terrorism is blah blah blah for direct political aims". You should feel honoured ;) One could argue that point around in circles. What else but religion can convince people to blow themselves up for... whatever? And lasting resentment in the middle east against the west over the Israeli/Palestine issue, which is one that has it's basis in religion. That, and pretty much everyone we're fighting over there belongs to one religious fundamentalist group or another. Politics, ethnicity, power, money. All things that would convince someone to blow themselves up. Don't play dumb. You're more than smart enough to figure out if the US declares a "War on Terror" shortly after a terrorist attack on their country, the "Terror" part refers to terrorism. And even if you we're not smart enough to get that, which you are, the US has more specifically labeled it's enemies this war as "terrorists" and "terrorism" at other times. Ouch, Chad with the ad hom! ;) Not sure why you're taking that statement literally still, when I said it was a double entendre, ie, a joke. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
What? I didn't say that. I said 100,000 people died because the US let them, not that the US shot them. You've clarified this point since, but you did originally say that 100,000 died because the US soldiers are shitty shots/too shitty to be able to distinguish friend from foe. That implies that the civilians died from shots fired from guns being held by US soldiers i.e. the soldiers killed them. Again, the argument is non-specific to US law. Let's just say "law". Then the argument can be reversed to that. No, it cant. I'm borrowing concepts from a law. Like the concept of murder. Murder doesn't need to be attached to any specific legal system to be a standalone concept with its own definition. You are arguing that a specific legal system is superior to another. I'm not even talking about legal systems I'm talking about a concept that can be found in legal systems. Lets go back. You said: "And the Geneva Conventions, to me, are a superior text to the US law system. I mean, I can just reverse your question to "I understand you like the US law system, but do they really make you unable to understand that the US is obligated to blah blah blah..."." So you'd have to reverse the question to, "I understand you like the concepts of first degree murder and manslaughter, but do they really make you unable to understand the US is obligated to..." Does that question even make sense in context? I don't think it does. Perhaps I'm missing something. Most likely not, purely through fear and inability to act rationally under extreme pressure Well yeah theres a chance I might break down and have a panic attack, too, but this is a hypothetical; if you could maintain a level-head and act rationally in that situation, would you shoot at an enemy shooting at you even if the enemy was hiding in a mosque? If you wouldn't, would you also assert not shooting back is the most reasonable thing to do? However, in my own view, convention or no convention, the US is responsible as the occupying force to maintain minimum civilian casualties, caused by the US or anti-occupational agents. You clearly don't think this, so this is another dead end. You're half right. I don't think soldiers fighting to kill bad guys should be held responsible for the people the bad guys kill in the process of the soldiers trying to stop the bad guys. There can't be a US soldier present to throw himself into the path of every bullet (and there are many) that the bad guys shoot at civilians. I don't think the Allies are responsible for the Holocaust, either. I also think it's pretty fucked up that if an IED laid by anti-US terrorists explodes in a crowded market place and kills a handful of US soldiers and a bunch of civilians, you think it's the US soldiers fault. But I think the US is already insuring minimum civilian casualties. Less civilians have died in Iraq total in 9 years than the number of civilians regularly killed in a few days during a battle in WWII. Or Vietnam. Or Grozny. And, as I've already pointed out, while we might burden our soldiers with the body-counts of their enemies, we can't reasonably expect them to be able to prevent civilian casualties 100%. That doesn't ever happen in any country, even during peacetime. If criminals and terrorists want to kill civilians they're going to do it, and there's nothing the US can do to stop them most of the time. But, if you look at the numbers, they do seems to be preventing it as often as they can. How coincidental of me to explicitly use language to show that it was not directed at you, but to other people who I have encountered in the past? More on this in a second. I will revise my definition, just for you. "Terrorism is blah blah blah for direct political aims". You should feel honoured ;) I feel honored, but I've already moved on to a new definition. Politics, ethnicity, power, money. All things that would convince someone to blow themselves up. So in the bit you are refuting here I never specifically addressed my argument to you. I said "one could." However, because what I was writing specifically addressed your argument, even if it wasn't specifically addressed to you, you naturally and reasonably assumed I was talking to you (being in a debate with me and just me probably helped that, too). But I wasn't, technically speaking. However I think it's kind of a dick move to argue like that, especially when (as you've just seen) it's a very easy mistake to make, and furthermore that bit doesn't really belong in my post if it's not directed at you, anyways. Aaaaanyways that was a trap to make my point. Sorry for toying with the situation. To get on to refuting your post, who the hell blows themselves up for money or power? If someone said to you, "if you blow yourself up I'll give you a billion trillion dollars," would you do it? What about if someone said, "if you blow yourself up I'll make you King-Dictator of the planet," would you do it? No. Because in order to kill yourself for your beliefs the reward for killing yourself has to come after your dead, and that realm of post-death magic mumbo-jumbo is exclusively the realm of religion. As such, the suicide bombing community is almost 100% religious. 9/11 would not have been possible (the way it happened) without religion. They might have taken over cruise-missiles or something to blow up the twin towers, but they would not have ecstatically killed themselves in anticipation of luscious virgins in the afterlife. And (I don't have a whole lot of statistics to support this, but its a general feeling I've received from talking to people) it seems like a lot of the reason the Middle East resented the West pre-9/11 was Israel. Israel is a country that owes its very existence to religion. The origins of the conflict have their roots in religion, among other things. Ouch, Chad with the ad hom! ;) Is it still ad hom if I refuse to accept that you are the person I am painting in my ad hom? Not sure why you're taking that statement literally still, when I said it was a double entendre, ie, a joke. Probably because we're not talking face-to-face and I can't hear your tone. From where I was sitting it seemed more like you were calling the War on Terror a joke, not joking about the War on Terror. Side: Terrorists
1
point
So you'd have to reverse the question to, "I understand you like the concepts of first degree murder and manslaughter, but do they really make you unable to understand the US is obligated to..." Sure, you're right. But seeing as we've now moved on from the Geneva Convention, this is kinda pointless. Nonetheless, point taken. Well yeah theres a chance I might break down and have a panic attack, too, but this is a hypothetical; if you could maintain a level-head and act rationally in that situation, would you shoot at an enemy shooting at you even if the enemy was hiding in a mosque? I honestly have to say I don't know. It's such an abstract possibility for me that it's hard to imagine what I'd do. I'm pretty committed to a life of pacifism, but I've never been in a life or death situation. Sorry if this sounds like a cop out, but I really don't know. I also think it's pretty fucked up that if an IED laid by anti-US terrorists explodes in a crowded market place and kills a handful of US soldiers and a bunch of civilians, you think it's the US soldiers fault. Important distinction; not the US soldier's, but the country who put them there. The government, if you will. But I think the US is already insuring minimum civilian casualties. Less civilians have died in Iraq total in 9 years than the number of civilians regularly killed in a few days during a battle in WWII. Or Vietnam. Or Grozny. And, as I've already pointed out, while we might burden our soldiers with the body-counts of their enemies, we can't reasonably expect them to be able to prevent civilian casualties 100%. That doesn't ever happen in any country, even during peacetime. If criminals and terrorists want to kill civilians they're going to do it, and there's nothing the US can do to stop them most of the time. But, if you look at the numbers, they do seems to be preventing it as often as they can. I feel they could do better though. Obviously it's not on the scale of WW2, because that was a massive war. And if you're referring to the Chechen wars with Grozny, I could be wrong, but I think the civilian casualty in Iraq is higher. So in the bit you are refuting here I never specifically addressed my argument to you. I said "one could." However, because what I was writing specifically addressed your argument, even if it wasn't specifically addressed to you, you naturally and reasonably assumed I was talking to you (being in a debate with me and just me probably helped that, too). But I wasn't, technically speaking. However I think it's kind of a dick move to argue like that, especially when (as you've just seen) it's a very easy mistake to make, and furthermore that bit doesn't really belong in my post if it's not directed at you, anyways. If we're really being dicks, my statement Politics, ethnicity, power, money. All things that would convince someone to blow themselves up wasn't indicative of person, and is sensible out of context, so one could also say that that was not a rebuttal to your statement, despite the obvious giveaways. And yes, I'm being sarcastic here. To get on to refuting your post, who the hell blows themselves up for money or power? If someone said to you, "if you blow yourself up I'll give you a billion trillion dollars," would you do it? What about if someone said, "if you blow yourself up I'll make you King-Dictator of the planet," would you do it? No. Because in order to kill yourself for your beliefs the reward for killing yourself has to come after your dead, and that realm of post-death magic mumbo-jumbo is exclusively the realm of religion. As such, the suicide bombing community is almost 100% religious. 9/11 would not have been possible (the way it happened) without religion. They might have taken over cruise-missiles or something to blow up the twin towers, but they would not have ecstatically killed themselves in anticipation of luscious virgins in the afterlife. Oh yea, I don't dispute religion is the key factor in killing yourself. I'm just saying there are possible alternatives. And (I don't have a whole lot of statistics to support this, but its a general feeling I've received from talking to people) it seems like a lot of the reason the Middle East resented the West pre-9/11 was Israel. Israel is a country that owes its very existence to religion. The origins of the conflict have their roots in religion, among other things. Yea, I don't dispute that. I was just listing alternatives. Is it still ad hom if I refuse to accept that you are the person I am painting in my ad hom? You're a witty one you are. Side: Everyone Else
1
point
Also you should check out a debate I just made. It kind of reminds me of your Devils Advocate series, so maybe you'll get a kick out of it. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: Everyone Else
|
2
points
Someone watches How I Met Your Mother. Anyway, define terrorist. A terrorist can easily be an American soldier raiding someones house, raping the women, then killing its occupants. Maybe an American Soldier using a school as target practice. Maybe a terrorist is an American sticking a burning cross in front of his African neighbors house and throwing burning shit through his window. A terrorist could be a brainwashed militant hellbent on destroying the west. Both are equally bad. Though I suppose maybe American soldiers dancing in to Vietnam, covering everyone there in agent orange, napalming its schools.. Let me just explain this for people who say "wut?" There is much photographic evidence showing the after effects of this. Little 6 year old girls tripping over the limbs of their now dead friends as they rty to run away, confused as now they too have had their arms blown off and have effectively no back, as it has been completely burned off using agent orange. And whose grandchildren will still be born with hideous deformities. And the Americans still bitch they had their asses kicked. That is terrorism! Of course I am completely against the Taliban, and the sooner they are gone the better. However, going to Afghanistan, shooting up its residents and complain when your murdering bitching 'heroes', who wanted to play with guns, get killed. Heroes are people who save lives, not people who take them. You haven't helped at all in Afghanistan, if anything you're just adding fuel to the fire. But oh no. Your soldiers want go kill people. They think it's cool to kill people. 10 Afghanistan civilians are killed, no mention in the news. One American soldier is killed, and it's all "Burn the Qu'aran." There are countless examples of Americans terrorising countries, but it's Ok isn't it, because " It's the GODDAMN USA BITCHES!" You know, the amount the USA spends on its army, is more than the amount every country in the world spends on its army added together. And you want it BIGGER! Ridiculous! the USA is a terrorist nation. Of course it has fast cars, Hollywood, nice big houses and lots to eat. But it just can't wait to get involved in some other countries political problems. When I say this though, I know all you diehard assholes out there are going to complain at me and I get lots of downvotes, but I must say this does not account for every American citizen in America. Only the vast, vast majority would be quite happy to shoot a mentally retarded man in the head because he committed a crime! Or keep possible innocent 15 year olds with bullet holes in them so big you can fit a coke can through it and clog it up in Guantanamo bay. ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ Side: Everyone Else
2
points
"Your soldiers want go kill people. They think it's cool to kill people." Based on what? You generalize based on your own misguided views. Based on what you have stated, you dint even understand the nature of the Afghan war; its not against the country rather the insurgency. What does that mean to a U.S. soldier? everyone looks like the enemy because the insurgents can disguise themselves which will obviously lead to higher numbers of civilian casualties. Most Americans do not enjoy war, much-less enjoy killing people, to even believe most are capable of such animosities is nearly more of insult to humanity. There are countless examples of Americans terrorising countries, but it's Ok isn't it, because " It's the GODDAMN USA BITCHES! Its not nearly as bad as what Britain did during their stint in power is it? You know, the amount the USA spends on its army, is more than the amount every country in the world spends on its army added together. And you want it BIGGER! Considering this statement, it seems likely you understand the worlds geography as western Europe, China, Japan Canada and maybe a few other countries because it is the next 10 countries put together. In terms of GDP, America spends 1.5% of its GDP while the next country, China spends 1.2%. So it is fairly obvious that the large allocation of funds to the U.S. military is in large part, a result in having the worlds largest economy. Oh, and actually, Obama and I, we actually believe the U.S. allocates to many resources to the defense budget and actually wish to reduce defense spending, but considering the bubble you confine your narrow mind, you wouldn't know that. Of course it has fast cars, Hollywood, nice big houses and lots to eat You just characterized a reason why the world hates the U.S., but don't worry, it is part of ones human condition to hate the "best". "When I say this though, I know all you die hard assholes out there are going to complain at me" Before you characterize me as a "die hard asshole" i just think you should know I moved from England to the U.S. in 1999. " Only the vast, vast majority would be quite happy to shoot a mentally retarded man in the head because he committed a crime!" Yes, actually so many U.S. citizens support needless death that England, along with a host of other E.U. nations, became our allies and support our views! Or keep possible innocent 15 year olds with bullet holes in them so big you can fit a coke can through it and clog it up The Americans in that photo, you blind bastard, are removing the bullets from the kid and providing other of forms of medical attention. A perfect example that MOST Americans posses levels of empathy clearly void from your mind and few American extremists. Side: Terrorists
Yes during the time of the Empire Britain did not treat the nations that fell under their jurisdiction as well as they should that is historical fact but is irrelavent to this debate. It is also historical fact that America have been funding and aiding Terrorists for years, look up Operation Cyclone which was when America funded the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Also Americans funded the IRA for years and allowed leading members of Sinn Fein Visas to enter the United States (against the wishes of Britain) to raise funds, some allies the Americans turned out to be. Side: Everyone Else
Yes during the time of the Empire Britain did not treat the nations that fell under their jurisdiction as well as they should that is historical fact but is irrelavent to this debate. How is it at all irrelevant? It proves that the U.S. is not the anomaly Europeans so blissfully believe it is, rather following the path of worlds superpower. look up Operation Cyclone which was when America funded the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups I wonder what the cost would be for plagiarizing wikipedia? Don't act like you have an in depth understanding when clearly you copy and pasted then added a little of your own elaboration to someone else's work. Yet, you clearly did not understand this was how the United States fought the Soviets in that war, in fact, that gorilla tactic is not at all unusual, especially in a nuclear world. Actually, here is what KGB General Aleksandr Sakharovsky once said: "In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."(of the Soviet Union). Heres another from KGB chairman Yury Andropov: "a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States." The U.S. may have used terrorism, but not nearly to the extent of its father, the Soviet Union. The scary thing is, there are many European countries sponsoring the same thing, continually believing the U.S. is alone in its self interested support for terrorism is purely ignorance. Side: Terrorists
When this debate was set up it was done in a USA vs Terrorists style that is why I said what Britain did in Colonial times was irrelevant, the debate creator has since changed it to Everyone Else Vs Terrorists. I never said that America were doing anything others have'nt done before but if they are following in other nations footsteps you would have thought they would have avoided the mistakes others have made. Also two wrongs dont make a right so just because another nation does something bad does not justify the USA or anyone else doing the same. Side: Everyone Else
Also two wrongs dont make a right so just because another nation does something bad does not justify the USA or anyone else doing the same. I never made the case that the actions were at all justifiable, rather to the contrary; that guilt and disappointment accompany my thoughts as I think of myself as a supporter of terrorism only by paying taxes to my government. The point I intended to make was: a person whose disdain of the U.S. is based on federal support for terrorism, is adherently ignorant to the actions of common industrialized nations. Side: Terrorists
Like I said the creator of this debate originally set it up in the style of USA vs Terrorism and was making the USA sound whiter than white some of us were just trying to point out to him that this was far from the truth he has since changed it to everyone vs terrorists. Side: Everyone Else
hough I suppose maybe American soldiers dancing in to Vietnam, covering everyone there in agent orange, napalming its schools.. Let me just explain this for people who say "wut?" There is much photographic evidence showing the after effects of this. Little 6 year old girls tripping over the limbs of their now dead friends as they rty to run away, confused as now they too have had their arms blown off and have effectively no back, as it has been completely burned off using agent orange. And whose grandchildren will still be born with hideous deformities. And the Americans still bitch they had their asses kicked. You clearly are ignorant to the horrors of war. Americans are not the only ones to torture the civilians of their enemy's, it is the nature of warfare. The problem is, people like you only see what they wish rather than look through the roots of history only so they can satisfy their own disgusting beliefs. Here is some of the Viet Cong war crimes http://vnafmamn.com/ and then maybe a few example of the Japanese of ww2 which were nearly as bad as the Nazis, except rather than Jewish, the Chinese were literally test subjects of Japanese hate experiments: http://www.eubios.info/EJ106/EJ106C.htm Side: Terrorists
Exactly, you've got it. I am Japanese, I came to america about 11 years ago, and the first thing i discover is that i should have stayed in Japan, but no, my parents thought that the land of freedom was the perfect place to go. well my uncle volunteered to be a soldier and had his right side blown off by a grenade, then several gallons of explosives (gasoline, oil, gunpowder, nitro, C4, etc) was place in his house, which was then filled with dung, and then A SUICIDE BOMBER RAN INSIDE, THE PLACE BLEW UP AND FLAMING COW SHIT LIT UP THE FREAKING SKY!!! Side: Everyone Else
2
points
I alway's found it interesting that the USA were always happy to fund terrorism whilst it was happening in other countries but as soon as it happened in America they expect everyone to feal sorry for them and get behind them whilst I feel sorry for anyone who has lost family and friends to any terrorist act it is hard to feel sorry for the USA as a nation as they have funded terrorists for years. Side: Everyone Else
I alway's found it interesting that the USA were always happy to fund terrorism whilst it was happening in other countries but as soon as it happened in America they expect everyone to feal sorry for them and get behind them How is this different from any other nation in the world? This level of ignorance only epitomizes the identified reason for the worlds hatred of America; they are the superpower. Side: Everyone Else
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
