Terrorism

[Conspiracy3]

Although no internationally agreed upon definition has been reached, most define terrorism as the use of terror or violence to promote a political, social, or religious agenda. By this definition US anti-terror policies are extremely hypocritical. Take the Iraq war as an example. The Bush administration invaded Iraq to, among other reasons, "bring democracy to the Iraqi people," using violence and terror to promote a political Ideal. The same policy was used in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Costa Rica, Germany, and many other nations. So I ask you: Is the US government a state sponsor of terror? If so the only way for the Bush administration to follow its own policy is to bomb the US.

If a suicide bomber blows up a crowded market to promote his religion is that terrorism?
If the US launches a missile into that same market to promote democracy is that terrorism?
If Bill Aires blows up a bathroom, only to damage properly (not to harm people) to promote peace is that terrorism?
If the US bombs a Vietnamese village, with the intent of killing people, to promote capitalism is that terrorism?
If Saudi Arabia attacks Iraq is that terrorism?
If Iraq attacks Kuwait is that terrorism?
Is the Mumbai incident terrorism?
Is Abu Ghraib terrorism?
Is the "war on terror" terrorism?
Is any war terrorism?

By the current terrorism definition the answer to all of those questions (except maybe the Bill Aires one) is yes. My main point is that the US should stop using the term terrorism to promote a political agenda. If they want to attack Afghanistan in an attempt to bring justice to Osama Bin Laden then they should state that as their motive. If they want to invade Iraq for oil then they should state that as their motive. If they want to invade Vietnam to spread democracy, then they should state terrorism as their motive.

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/28/08 11:46 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: If a suicide bomber blows up a crowded market to promote his religion is that terrorism?

Yes, he has used violence to acheive an end, and he is not a representative of a nation that has declared war on the target, so that'd be terrorism to me.

If the US launches a missile into that same market to promote democracy is that terrorism?

If we declared war on them, no, I don't think it's terrorism, it's a war crime though if they can't prove that market was selling armaments to the enemy or something of that nature.

If Bill Aires blows up a bathroom, only to damage properly (not to harm people) to promote peace is that terrorism?

Sure, Bill Aires is an individual doing damage and harm to the system to promote his aims. He's creating a certain amount of fear to achieve his goal.

If the US bombs a Vietnamese village, with the intent of killing people, to promote capitalism is that terrorism?

Now or during the war? If during the war no, because again, we let them know we were coming, they armed up and engaged in armed conflict as well. To me if both sides are engaged in armed conflict, it can't be called terrorism really to me, it falls under the standards and laws established under what constitutes a fairly and correctly fought war (which is a bit laughable in and of itself since war is death, destruction, and horror by it's nature).

If Saudi Arabia attacks Iraq is that terrorism?

Did they declare war? If so, then no, it's an attack for war. Even if they send in troops to attack to me it isn't really terrorism it's the opening salvo in a war. Now if they give funding to a group to do it without their name being attached I'd say it's stickier situationally then, but probably is more akin to terrorism.

If Iraq attacks Kuwait is that terrorism?

If the nation of Iraq, directed by it's leader(s) attacks? I tend to feel it's not really terrorism as nations attack other nations with the plan of conquering, and that usually leads to the declaration of war. So again I tend to feel if it's a nation vs. an individual or group of individuals, it's a different thing.

Is Abu Ghraib terrorism?

No, Abu Ghraib is a war crime, or if you won't go as far as that, it's a human rights violation. Again, different standard to me when a "civilized" nation who should know better does it. Especially if they do it while in a war time condition.

Is the "war on terror" terrorism?

Depends on what tactics are used.

Is any war terrorism?

No. Not every war is terrorism. Many wars have been fought over legitimate ideals and causes. Also while some wars have tactically used things that some terrorists would use, I tend to think it's something different and more definable when we can hold an entire nation and it's leadership responsible for an action during war time, then we can some individual who just represents themselves, or a group.

By the current terrorism definition the answer to all of those questions (except maybe the Bill Aires one) is yes. My main point is that the US should stop using the term terrorism to promote a political agenda.

Agreed 100%. Let's be honest about what we're doing and not hide behind a blanket statement to fool our people and the world and say less then noble motives are noble. But if we do that, everybody else who engages in such practices from time to time also needs to do the same.

If they want to attack Afghanistan in an attempt to bring justice to Osama Bin Laden then they should state that as their motive.

Agreed. But that is what we basically did. We said we were going over there to get Osama Bin Laden, and to remove the regime (The Taliban) that would support him, and anyone else that has an interest in harming sovereign nations. So I think Afghanistan we were pretty clear about what the objectives and the motives were.

If they want to invade Iraq for oil then they should state that as their motive.

Now you're showing a certain amount of ignorance. It was far more complicated then just "let's go get some oil". There were other factors involved too.

If they want to invade Vietnam to spread democracy, then they should state terrorism as their motive.

Now you're REALLY showing ignorance. Vietnam was about spreading democracy....so that those dirty commies couldn't spread their system a little further. Bad idea? Without question. Use of half-truths to push an agenda that wasn't openly clear? Hell to the yeah. Not understanding the situation leading to horrible and unfortunate mistakes? Without question. But not terrorism in my mind.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/28/08 02:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 12/28/08 11:46 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

Statements saying that terrorism doesn't exist if it is put forth by an organized government with a declaration of war.

If they want to invade Iraq for oil then they should state that as their motive.

Now you're showing a certain amount of ignorance. It was far more complicated then just "let's go get some oil". There were other factors involved too.

Yes, I admit I did oversimplify the situation a lot. There were many other factors. Saddam's genocide back a few years ago, the attempt on Bush's father's life etc. The Kuwait incident.

If they want to invade Vietnam to spread democracy, then they should state terrorism as their motive.

Now you're REALLY showing ignorance. Vietnam was about spreading democracy....so that those dirty commies couldn't spread their system a little further. Bad idea? Without question. Use of half-truths to push an agenda that wasn't openly clear? Hell to the yeah. Not understanding the situation leading to horrible and unfortunate mistakes? Without question. But not terrorism in my mind.

Yes, but my point was that they did so to promote a political ideology. Capitalism and democracy. If a nation is communist does the US really have a right persecute them and forcibly convert them to a capitalist ideology (unless of course they attack us first, but that is a different matter). The US should stick out for our own interests. The interests of the Vietnamese people will be looked after by the Vietnamese.

[Conspiracy3]

One thing I forgot to mention:

Congress never declared war in many cases in which the US has used military force (Korea for instance). Would that be an act of terrorism?

[Shady]

At 12/28/08 03:26 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: One thing I forgot to mention:

Congress never declared war in many cases in which the US has used military force (Korea for instance). Would that be an act of terrorism?

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."- Wikipedia

Not the best source, but that's a true quote.
Unless the offender is attacking SPECIFICALLY for the reason of instilling terror in the target.

If the United States went over to Italy for some reason or another, and decided to launch a genocide against every member of the county and claim the land for their own, then that isn't terrorism, regardless of whether or not we declared war or what we do.

But, if the United States decided to start using car bombs to blow up buildings in crowded places specifically for the reason of terrorizing Italian citizens to get them to bend to U.S will, THEN it would be terrorism.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/28/08 04:14 PM, Nein wrote:

At 12/28/08 03:26 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: One thing I forgot to mention:

Congress never declared war in many cases in which the US has used military force (Korea for instance). Would that be an act of terrorism?

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."- Wikipedia

Not the best source, but that's a true quote.
Unless the offender is attacking SPECIFICALLY for the reason of instilling terror in the target.

If the United States went over to Italy for some reason or another, and decided to launch a genocide against every member of the county and claim the land for their own, then that isn't terrorism, regardless of whether or not we declared war or what we do.

But, if the United States decided to start using car bombs to blow up buildings in crowded places specifically for the reason of terrorizing Italian citizens to get them to bend to U.S will, THEN it would be terrorism.

The entire purpose of war is to instill fear into your enemy. There are only three ways a war can end, a slaughter, a cease-fire, or a surrender. The surrender is the most common way for a war to end. People who surrender to end a war are surrendering out of fear that the nation they are fighting will kill/torture/enslave them.

Torture is using fear and coercion. You instill the fear in them that if they don't tell you information you will torture them even more (although they can just lie). Therefore torture is terrorism.

By the Wikipedia definition many of the examples I have provided are still forms of terrorism.

[TimeLordX]

To me, a terrorist deliberately seeks to harm as many civilians as possible in the name of their cause/belief system. The US and its allies are not terrorists, as they seek to avoid civilian casualties while inflicting as much damage as possible on the enemy. When dealing with an enemy that has no qualms about hiding among civilians and commandeering civilian vehicles and structures for their own purposes, it is extremely difficult to avoid harming civilians. The US and Israel are making the best of a bad situation.

[Another-User]

Sense I can't find a good definition of terrorism, I'll just make one up. =D
Terrorism: The use of violence, intimidation, or other means of terrorizing a person or population as a means to get people to do something they otherwise wouldn't have.

At 12/28/08 11:46 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: If a suicide bomber blows up a crowded market to promote his religion is that terrorism?

Indeed, they are using violence to get people to agree with a religion.

If the US launches a missile into that same market to promote democracy is that terrorism?

Yes, using violence to get people to accept democracy when they otherwise wouldn't have.

If Bill Aires blows up a bathroom, only to damage properly (not to harm people) to promote peace is that terrorism?

Yes, as he is using voilence/terror to promote an ideal people wouldn't agree to otherwise.

If the US bombs a Vietnamese village, with the intent of killing people, to promote capitalism is that terrorism?

Yes, same reasons as above.

If Saudi Arabia attacks Iraq is that terrorism?

Depends on why. =D

If Iraq attacks Kuwait is that terrorism?

Depends on why. =D

Is the Mumbai incident terrorism?

Sorry, but I don't know anything about why the attack was done, so I can't speak on the matter. =(

Is Abu Ghraib terrorism?

I always thought of it just torture rather than to promote anything, but either way it is disgraceful.

Is the "war on terror" terrorism?

Cerain parts are.

Is any war terrorism?

Depends on the type of war. Religious wars like the crusades are, wars to convert people to a government system is, Genocide is, property wars aren't, and fighting on your own land isn't.

I just wanted to do that part, sorry to post and run though. =(

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/28/08 03:19 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Yes, I admit I did oversimplify the situation a lot. There were many other factors. Saddam's genocide back a few years ago, the attempt on Bush's father's life etc. The Kuwait incident.

Also the strategic capabilities it offered for attacking other middle east trouble spots like Iran. Can't forget that.

Yes, but my point was that they did so to promote a political ideology. Capitalism and democracy. If a nation is communist does the US really have a right persecute them and forcibly convert them to a capitalist ideology (unless of course they attack us first, but that is a different matter). The US should stick out for our own interests. The interests of the Vietnamese people will be looked after by the Vietnamese.

Oh no, I don't think we had any right to be in Vietnam. I think Vietnam was a horrible decision, ditto the war in Iraq. I hate war and to me the only reason to EVER go to war is if you have an enemy that has shown you that they are a threat to your nation, they cannot be negotiated with, they cannot be reasoned with. They want to take you down and there's no other option but to strike at them first. Basically war needs to always be the last resort and the only option for me.

But my point is that military actions are different then being terrorism to me because we have a pretty clear and definite system and set of rules to judge that by. Terrorism tends to get a little more vague, and the reason it tends to get more vague is that it is not something that nations are usually engaged in. Which of course is why the current administration and every administration after will love the idea of it. Terrorism is a great bogeyman specifically because it's a term that can vaguely be applied, they don't have to prove it as concretely as they will a lot of other reasons to attack people, so as long as they play the game correctly and smartly, the term will be of great benefit to America and it's allies as a preemptive attack strategy for years to come.

[bcdemon]

GW Bush really exposed his terrorist campaign when he used the threat of violence and war on a sovereign nation to order their president, Saddam Hussein to relinquish power and get out of Iraq. Not only that, but Bush gave a timeline (48 hours) to his threat.

Actual quote "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing. "

If that doesn't define any and every definition of terrorism then I don't know what does.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/29/08 12:00 AM, bcdemon wrote: GW Bush really exposed his terrorist campaign when he used the threat of violence and war on a sovereign nation to order their president, Saddam Hussein to relinquish power and get out of Iraq. Not only that, but Bush gave a timeline (48 hours) to his threat.

And to think only (I think five) years later Bush opposed definite timetables for withdrawal because he thought there should be no definite time line.

Actual quote "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing. "

Using fear and violence to promote a political ideal. The US is a state sponsor of terror, and thus it should be invaded. I'm actually curious about something. If I wrote out a list of many acts the US government has committed but wrote no names, and didn't name the US as a nation, I wonder how many people would consider the nation a state sponsor of terror.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/28/08 11:09 PM, TimeLordX wrote: To me, a terrorist deliberately seeks to harm as many civilians as possible in the name of their cause/belief system. The US and its allies are not terrorists, as they seek to avoid civilian casualties while inflicting as much damage as possible on the enemy. When dealing with an enemy that has no qualms about hiding among civilians and commandeering civilian vehicles and structures for their own purposes, it is extremely difficult to avoid harming civilians. The US and Israel are making the best of a bad situation.

The US intentionally attacks civilians all the time. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were civilian targets. In Vietnam the US bombed the shit out of civilian areas. The same went with the bombing early in the Iraq war.

At 12/28/08 11:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 12/28/08 03:19 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

But my point is that military actions are different then being terrorism to me because we have a pretty clear and definite system and set of rules to judge that by. Terrorism tends to get a little more vague, and the reason it tends to get more vague is that it is not something that nations are usually engaged in. Which of course is why the current administration and every administration after will love the idea of it. Terrorism is a great bogeyman specifically because it's a term that can vaguely be applied, they don't have to prove it as concretely as they will a lot of other reasons to attack people, so as long as they play the game correctly and smartly, the term will be of great benefit to America and it's allies as a preemptive attack strategy for years to come.

In other words, the military has more safeguards and a tighter chain of command therefore it does not commit terrorism. However, I would disagree. If the president is a terrorist the entire military is required to obey his orders unless he is impeached by congress, killed, or medically unfit to lead. The president can wake up one morning spin a globe and bomb wherever his finger lands (for thirty days).

[TimeLordX]

Actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets as they had many factories producing weapons for Japan's war machine. In veitnam they were bombing the Vietcong army. The first targets in Iraq were military targets (specifically radar and communication facilities). If the US attacks civilians , why do we bother developing and using precision weaponry? If that were so, I'd imagine we'd stick to indiscriminate weaponry and tactics.

One aside note: According to the Rules of War, the military CAN attack a civilian structure (i.e. hospital, school, ect.) if that structure is being used by the enemy for purposes (i.e. command center, weapons depot, ect.) other than what that structure was built for. For example, if the enemy is using a church to house communications equipment, that would make it a legit target.

[JoS]

At 12/28/08 11:46 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Although no internationally agreed upon definition has been reached, most define terrorism as the use of terror or violence to promote a political, social, or religious agenda.

Close, most definitions require three things
1. Violence or threat of violence
2. Social, political or religious goals
3. Against civilian targets

Some definitions require a fourth condition, and is accepted through many academic circles, but not as widely as the first three. This is that it be committed by a non-state actor. This means a state cannot commit terrorism.

By this definition US anti-terror policies are extremely hypocritical. Take the Iraq war as an example. The Bush administration invaded Iraq to, among other reasons, "bring democracy to the Iraqi people," using violence and terror to promote a political Ideal.

Ignoring the fourth criteria, this still doe snot meet the definition of terrorism, since the targets were mainly military or dual purpose targets (political leadership falls into a grey area of not quite civilian but not the same as the military).

The same policy was used in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Costa Rica, Germany, and many other nations.

Once again, civilians were not the target in most of these cases. You would have much better luck with agrueing US policies and actions in Nicaragua were terrorist actions. Most notably the placing of underwater mines in the harbours. The US was convicted in absentia in the International Court. Linky

If a suicide bomber blows up a crowded market to promote his religion is that terrorism?

Yes

If the US launches a missile into that same market to promote democracy is that terrorism?

If you accept the fourth condition, that a state cannto commit an act of terrorism since it has the right to use military force to carry out policies, a monopoly on violence so to speak, then no. If not then potentially yes. If they are aiming for a military leader then no. Example would be Israel extra judicial executions, that frequently invovle civilian deaths that happen to be in proximity to the target.

If Bill Aires blows up a bathroom, only to damage properly (not to harm people) to promote peace is that terrorism?

Yes, regardless of the lack of injuries or deaths, it is still the use of violence.

If the US bombs a Vietnamese village, with the intent of killing people, to promote capitalism is that terrorism?

See scenario number 2.

If Saudi Arabia attacks Iraq is that terrorism?

No, that is war.

If Iraq attacks Kuwait is that terrorism?

Again, war not terrorism.

Is the Mumbai incident terrorism?

Yes.

Is Abu Ghraib terrorism?

No, military targets (arguably, but I would say most people would say they are). Also condition 4 is applied and condition 2, social or political goals. There were no broad reaching goals, just people who got their rocks off by treating humans like garbage, and a chain of command that didn't really care.

Is the "war on terror" terrorism?

No, its a policy, not a concrete act. Again also number 4.

Is any war terrorism?

No, there is a fine line between war and terrorism. Also condition 4.

By the current terrorism definition the answer to all of those questions (except maybe the Bill Aires one) is yes.

Actually quite the opposite, the Bill Aires is definitely terrorism. Most of the others have some ambiguity to them, or outright are not terrorism by the most common academic definitions. Yours is an incomplete definition.

Sugegsted reading, The No Non-sense guide to terrorism

[bcdemon]

Considering there are so many different variations on the definition of terrorism, I would say that if were talking about the USA, then the FBI definition should be used.

"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Bush used unlawful force and violence against persons and property to coerce the Iraq government to quit and leave the country. Bush used unlawful force and violence against the Afghan people to coerce the government to give up power. And Bin Laden isn't wanted for 9/11, so that excuse for invading is a wash.

[JoS]

At 12/30/08 09:24 AM, bcdemon wrote: Considering there are so many different variations on the definition of terrorism, I would say that if were talking about the USA, then the FBI definition should be used.

"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Key word is unlawful. states have the right to use military force in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Furthermore the invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN, and the while the War in Iraq is of questionable legal status depending on how you interpret UN resolutions. No member nation has brought up the question of the legality of the war to the UNSC which would be responsible for interpreting this, nor has the UN General Assembly sought the opinion of the ICJ, nor has any member nation requested the ICC probe the Iraq war. The UNGA sought the ICJ opinion on the Israel wall, despite protests from permanent members of the UNSC.

So unless you show me an UN Resolution that calls the war illegal or a ruling by the ICJ or ICC even holding hearing on the matter, you don't really have much ground to stand on.

Bush used unlawful force and violence against persons and property to coerce the Iraq government to quit and leave the country. Bush used unlawful force and violence against the Afghan people to coerce the government to give up power. And Bin Laden isn't wanted for 9/11, so that excuse for invading is a wash.

Wrong, the Afghanistan invasion was clearly sanctioned by the UN, so calling it an unlawful use of force as you have done is misrepresenting the facts. While there have been civilian deaths in the war in Afghanistan, they are not outright targeting civilians, they are targeting "military forces".

The reason the FBI website only lists the embassy bombing sis because he has been convicted by a grand jury for them, but there has yet to be a grand jury for 9/11. He was added to the list after his conviction by the grand jury. He is also wanted in Libya and Interpol has a warrant out for him, all prior to 9/11. So once again you misrepresent the facts.

Explanation here.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/30/08 12:20 AM, JoS wrote:

At 12/28/08 11:46 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: If Saudi Arabia attacks Iraq is that terrorism?

No, that is war.

What is the difference between war and terrorism?

At 12/30/08 09:24 AM, bcdemon wrote: Considering there are so many different variations on the definition of terrorism, I would say that if were talking about the USA, then the FBI definition should be used.

"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Bush used unlawful force and violence against persons and property to coerce the Iraq government to quit and leave the country. Bush used unlawful force and violence against the Afghan people to coerce the government to give up power. And Bin Laden isn't wanted for 9/11, so that excuse for invading is a wash.

He isn't wanted by the FBI for 9/11, but the FBI isn't in charge of that. He is wanted by other federal agencies for the attacks. Considering the staggering amount of people that want Osama dead in the US, Europe, the Mid East, and North Africa (and other nations that want him dead to maintain alliances with the previously mentioned) the FBI is the least of his troubles.

At 12/30/08 10:05 AM, JoS wrote:

At 12/30/08 09:24 AM, bcdemon wrote: Considering there are so many different variations on the definition of terrorism, I would say that if were talking about the USA, then the FBI definition should be used.

"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Key word is unlawful. states have the right to use military force in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Furthermore the invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN, and the while the War in Iraq is of questionable legal status depending on how you interpret UN resolutions.

Not only is UN approval questionable, but it (along with US congress approval) was made as a direct result of false information fed to it by the Bush administration (WMDs.) If proof as to whether or not the deception was deliberate then the use of force is unlawful. Even if the Bush administration really did think there were WMDs the evidence to show it was so lacking I'm surprised they trusted it.

[JoS]

At 12/31/08 08:38 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 12/30/08 12:20 AM, JoS wrote:

At 12/28/08 11:46 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: If Saudi Arabia attacks Iraq is that terrorism?

No, that is war.

What is the difference between war and terrorism?

My Penguin Dictionary of International Relations defines war as "direct, somatic violence between state actors"

At 12/30/08 10:05 AM, JoS wrote: Key word is unlawful. states have the right to use military force in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Furthermore the invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN, and the while the War in Iraq is of questionable legal status depending on how you interpret UN resolutions.

Not only is UN approval questionable, but it (along with US congress approval) was made as a direct result of false information fed to it by the Bush administration (WMDs.) If proof as to whether or not the deception was deliberate then the use of force is unlawful. Even if the Bush administration really did think there were WMDs the evidence to show it was so lacking I'm surprised they trusted it.

Bush is not the only one who thought they had WMD, many countries through their own intelligence came to similar conclusions. In fact even Saddam's generals believed they had WMD up until the war started.

A recent study found that Al Gore would have likely invaded Iraq as well, although he may have used a different tactical plan (ie more troops to start with). he would have faced the same pressures and would ultimately have been forced for political reasons to adopt the same basic strategy, war. Full report here.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/31/08 01:31 PM, JoS wrote:

At 12/31/08 08:38 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 12/30/08 12:20 AM, JoS wrote:

At 12/28/08 11:46 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: If Saudi Arabia attacks Iraq is that terrorism?

No, that is war.

What is the difference between war and terrorism?

My Penguin Dictionary of International Relations defines war as "direct, somatic violence between state actors"

By that definition Afghanistan isn't a war and the war in Iraq is already over.

Also, Saddam Hussein was often labled a terrorist even though he was in a government.

At 12/30/08 10:05 AM, JoS wrote: Key word is unlawful. states have the right to use military force in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Furthermore the invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN, and the while the War in Iraq is of questionable legal status depending on how you interpret UN resolutions.

Not only is UN approval questionable, but it (along with US congress approval) was made as a direct result of false information fed to it by the Bush administration (WMDs.) If proof as to whether or not the deception was deliberate then the use of force is unlawful. Even if the Bush administration really did think there were WMDs the evidence to show it was so lacking I'm surprised they trusted it.

Bush is not the only one who thought they had WMD, many countries through their own intelligence came to similar conclusions. In fact even Saddam's generals believed they had WMD up until the war started.

All of that intelligence was gathered as a direct result of the interrogation of one man in Egypt (some came from other sources, but still as a result of this interrogation). The torture of one man isn't reliable enough to start a war.

A recent study found that Al Gore would have likely invaded Iraq as well,

You can't ever truly know what might have happened.

although he may have used a different tactical plan (ie more troops to start with). he would have faced the same pressures and would ultimately have been forced for political reasons to adopt the same basic strategy, war. Full report here.

Can you give me a second link? I googled what you said and I cannot find any other report to corroborate the one you linked to.

[JoS]

At 12/31/08 04:54 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: By that definition Afghanistan isn't a war and the war in Iraq is already over.

You would be correct, but it isn't terrorism either. Its an insurgency.

Also, Saddam Hussein was often labled a terrorist even though he was in a government.

This is relevant how? Others misusing labels and terms in no way should affect the strength of my argument. I do not use the fact people have compared George Bush to Hitler to discredit you.

Also he was not in a government, he was a government.

All of that intelligence was gathered as a direct result of the interrogation of one man in Egypt (some came from other sources, but still as a result of this interrogation). The torture of one man isn't reliable enough to start a war.

I am sorry, I forgot you had access to all pre-war intelligence. Sorry Mr Tennet.

If you are referring to Curveball, he only provided information on biological weapons. Intelligence on missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons were derived from other sources.

A recent study found that Al Gore would have likely invaded Iraq as well,

You can't ever truly know what might have happened.

Its not as hard as one might imagine. Take into account his views and policies as Vice-president, combine it with the pressures on the president for action and you can figure out the most likely outcome. Al Gore was very pro-military and hawkish when it came to foriegn policy and had advocated under Clinton military action against Iraq.

although he may have used a different tactical plan (ie more troops to start with). he would have faced the same pressures and would ultimately have been forced for political reasons to adopt the same basic strategy, war. Full report here.

Can you give me a second link? I googled what you said and I cannot find any other report to corroborate the one you linked to.

I don't quite understand what you need a second source for? Are you asking for a link to a news website that will cite the study I linked, since I gave you the link to the full copy of the report published by a Canadian research think tank. Or do you simply want me to send you a link to another study that has the same conclusion.

I googled Al Gore Would Invade Iraq and got a lot of matches. Here is a link to the National Post
here.

The report was released about a week ago.

Now I would like to see a link to anything written by a credible expert saying that Gore would definitely not have invaded Iraq. And I don't mean some statement from Gore or a left wing hippy-blog.

[AntiangelicAngel]

"Terrorism" is a slur used to belittle one's enemies, especially when one possesses extensive coercive apparatuses. Acts deemed "terrorism" themselves are the application of a coercive apparatus, just labeled as such through other coercive means, such as media.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/31/08 07:22 PM, JoS wrote:

At 12/31/08 04:54 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: By that definition Afghanistan isn't a war and the war in Iraq is already over.

You would be correct, but it isn't terrorism either. Its an insurgency.

Also, Saddam Hussein was often labled a terrorist even though he was in a government.

This is relevant how? Others misusing labels and terms in no way should affect the strength of my argument. I do not use the fact people have compared George Bush to Hitler to discredit you.

I never said that the label was correct, I was just pointing out how the justification for war given by many US politicians, especially Bush, is ridiculous. How is Bush anything like Hitler though? They both have very different political philosophies. I could understand comparing bush to Hoover or some other leaders of the period, but as much as I dislike Bush he is nothing like Hitler.

Also he was not in a government, he was a government.

L'etat c' est moi

Whether he was the government or part of a government he still met the fourth category that you (or was it someone else?) mentioned earlier.

All of that intelligence was gathered as a direct result of the interrogation of one man in Egypt (some came from other sources, but still as a result of this interrogation). The torture of one man isn't reliable enough to start a war.

A recent study found that Al Gore would have likely invaded Iraq as well,

You can't ever truly know what might have happened.

Its not as hard as one might imagine. Take into account his views and policies as Vice-president, combine it with the pressures on the president for action and you can figure out the most likely outcome. Al Gore was very pro-military and hawkish when it came to foriegn policy and had advocated under Clinton military action against Iraq.

A lot has changed since the Clinton administration. During that time Dick Cheney opposed action in Iraq. Dick Cheney was probably the strongest proponent of the current Iraq war.

although he may have used a different tactical plan (ie more troops to start with). he would have faced the same pressures and would ultimately have been forced for political reasons to adopt the same basic strategy, war. Full report here.

Can you give me a second link? I googled what you said and I cannot find any other report to corroborate the one you linked to.

I don't quite understand what you need a second source for? Are you asking for a link to a news website that will cite the study I linked, since I gave you the link to the full copy of the report published by a Canadian research think tank. Or do you simply want me to send you a link to another study that has the same conclusion.

I googled Al Gore Would Invade Iraq and got a lot of matches. Here is a link to the National Post
here.

The report was released about a week ago.

Now I would like to see a link to anything written by a credible expert saying that Gore would definitely not have invaded Iraq. And I don't mean some statement from Gore or a left wing hippy-blog.

I don't think any source that says what could have happened if the election turned out differently would be credible. There is no way to know what would have happened, the best you can do is just a fairly inaccurate guess.

[JoS]

At 12/31/08 10:47 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

Also he was not in a government, he was a government.

L'etat c' est moi

Whether he was the government or part of a government he still met the fourth category that you (or was it someone else?) mentioned earlier.

I wasn't really making a serious point. It was more of cynical humor. He wasn't in the government, he was the government. It sucks because it can be difficult to put emphasis's in here.

A lot has changed since the Clinton administration. During that time Dick Cheney opposed action in Iraq. Dick Cheney was probably the strongest proponent of the current Iraq war.

If you would like to seriously debate this issue I would ask you make a new thread so we can keep this one on topic. I would be mroe than glad to post my rebuttal in there.

[mikailus]

Any acts of violence against harmless civilians is terrorism.

[SmilezRoyale]

The term terrorism is, unfortunately, a very loose word. In my opinion it refers to using violence to create fear to spark political action that occurs by an entity that is NOT a standing army. So long as the forces are a standing army the acts they commit are not terrorism, Even if the standing army isn't associated to any political power.

now of course with various definitions and what not it is possible to label different acts in history as being terrorist. But to be honest whether or not they are terrorist by the flexible definition of the word is meaningless because regardless of whether or not an act is or is not terrorism the act itself has not changed in it's nature; the number of people killed and the reasons why they were killed remain unchanged. If one wishes to assess the legitimacy of a violent course of action and whether or not it was justified or cruel one should not start by deciding whether or not it constitutes as 'terrorism', instead you should examine the motives, the means, and the results.

[JoS]

At 12/31/08 11:35 PM, mikailus wrote: Any acts of violence against harmless civilians is terrorism.

A drunken bar fight against an unwilling opponent or mugging would constitute terrorism.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/31/08 11:48 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The term terrorism is, unfortunately, a very loose word. In my opinion it refers to using violence to create fear to spark political action that occurs by an entity that is NOT a standing army. So long as the forces are a standing army the acts they commit are not terrorism, Even if the standing army isn't associated to any political power.

What's the difference between a standing army and an ordinary terrorist cell?

now of course with various definitions and what not it is possible to label different acts in history as being terrorist. But to be honest whether or not they are terrorist by the flexible definition of the word is meaningless because regardless of whether or not an act is or is not terrorism the act itself has not changed in it's nature; the number of people killed and the reasons why they were killed remain unchanged. If one wishes to assess the legitimacy of a violent course of action and whether or not it was justified or cruel one should not start by deciding whether or not it constitutes as 'terrorism', instead you should examine the motives, the means, and the results.

True, but the issue is how can you get your nation behind you when you start a war. That is where words with negative connotations like terrorist, fascist, Nazi, and communist (not saying communism is bad just saying that it has a negative connotation) come in. My thread doesn't say people should be labeled as such, but just says that labeling someone a terrorist is often hypocritical.

[Conspiracy3]

At 1/1/09 09:20 AM, JoS wrote:

At 12/31/08 11:35 PM, mikailus wrote: Any acts of violence against harmless civilians is terrorism.

A drunken bar fight against an unwilling opponent or mugging would constitute terrorism.

That is why in my definition, and every other definition I heard, one of the conditions is that the violence is used to promote a political/social/religious agenda; be it Islam, Christianity, democracy, capitalism, communism, atheism, or nudism.

[JoS]

At 1/2/09 05:19 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/1/09 09:20 AM, JoS wrote:

At 12/31/08 11:35 PM, mikailus wrote: Any acts of violence against harmless civilians is terrorism.

A drunken bar fight against an unwilling opponent or mugging would constitute terrorism.

That is why in my definition, and every other definition I heard, one of the conditions is that the violence is used to promote a political/social/religious agenda; be it Islam, Christianity, democracy, capitalism, communism, atheism, or nudism.

I posted my definition of terrorism earlier. My post was to illustrate the problem with the definition put forth by mikailus that any form of violence is terrorism.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/1/09 01:30 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 12/31/08 11:48 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The term terrorism is, unfortunately, a very loose word. In my opinion it refers to using violence to create fear to spark political action that occurs by an entity that is NOT a standing army. So long as the forces are a standing army the acts they commit are not terrorism, Even if the standing army isn't associated to any political power.

What's the difference between a standing army and an ordinary terrorist cell?

lol none, no clear line really exists. :D

True, but the issue is how can you get your nation behind you when you start a war. That is where words with negative connotations like terrorist, fascist, Nazi, and communist (not saying communism is bad just saying that it has a negative connotation) come in. My thread doesn't say people should be labeled as such, but just says that labeling someone a terrorist is often hypocritical.

Yes well titles are powerful things.... but in the end they depend upon their definition, and definitions often stick to too many things that the definition writers didn't intend for it to stick to.