Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Agreed on the fact that evil and good are subjective, especially in a context such as this. With so much gray area, a clear distinction is nearly impossible.

At 12/16/06 02:15 PM, Neoptolemus wrote: The fact of the matter is one cannot simply state that "all terrorists are evil etc etc" as that is obviously not true. Firstly, it is false due to the fact that both good and evil are subjective terms which differ greatly from person to person.

Barring all that, I will invent a hypothetical scenario. Your people (the Doobies) are being ethnically cleansed from certain portions of the country and are being thrown in jail and tortured by the majority Oobahs. You decide the Oobah majority government is wrong and evil and decide to stand up to them in order to consolidate your own people under one banner where they wont be exploited. To do this, you decide it is best to incite open warfare between the Doobie and Oobah people (like Al Qaeda in Iraq has tried to do, incite a Civil War between Shia and Sunni). So you start bombing culturally significant Oobah landmarks and bomb tightly packed Oobah civilian areas; there is much bloodshed. Retaliation happens and then counter retaliation; there is much bloodshed.

While your goals may be noble (if that is the only goal, self determination, and not just wanting to kill innocent Oobah in revenge of your own peoples deaths), you tactics are beyond abhorrent, they are evil beyond measure. But where does that leave you: noble goals but evil tactics?

It makes you evil. Why? You are taking the easiest (and most deadly) route. You may hate the people who are causing your peoples struggles but when you group an entire people together as the problem (and, with their deaths, solution) for your own peoples woes, you take the easiest and most evil route.

There is a reason you dont see many GOOD men: IT IS HARD!! But the evil men will do anything, selling out their religion and mortgaging you, your people, and everyone elses lives to further their goals. They will even intimidate and kill the good men that they perceive as standing in their and their missions way. Which is why we see so many of these evil men and their absolutely evil tactics.

At 12/16/06 12:25 PM, random8982 wrote: The term 'terrorist' is in the eye of the beholder. To Americans, George Washington was a liberator, a freedom fighter, and a hero. To Great Britain, he was a terrorist leading a rebel insurrection.

I have never bought that. The Revolutionary War had two armies both battling it out against each other, not a scattered guerilla resistance fighting an occupier. If anything, it was closer to a civil war than a guerilla resistance. So no, George Washington was a military leader and a military leader only, not a terrorist. You may want to label him that but none of his actions lend credence to that label.

alright think this through (i am an american patriot) someone is moving in on your country and you have no army but you have thousands of people willing to die to defend their nation goverment or country whatever ok so you decide to sacrifice a few of them to destroy say an important building of the enemy's like say two giant towers you do this and the people rally up even more to aid you altough more of the world get behind the other guy now they have more troops and armys and wepons and so on but you have people that can flee over there and operate from there side to do more damage now years later when you are captured you hear the enemy people calling you a terroist and you dont understand when they invaded first and you called them a terroist who is right who is the terroist now you all might think its the first guy or the second guy but its not there is no such thing as a terroist its a word the government uses to describe someone who is willing to die to protect something be they freedom fighters or gureillas whatever this topic is huge so i know you probably wont belive what i say and i dont care but let me ask you this when they attacked us didnt you want to get a plane and hit his big ass palaces even that thought could make you a "terroist" so shut up that they are evil or good they are doing what they belive and what they are taought from their parents and their dictators they dont know anyhing else so they do what they think is right and trust me if 43 virgins were waiting for you you'd blow a whole in the world wouldnt you

At 12/16/06 02:01 AM, mutsakman wrote: Terroists in my eyes are evil and good. Some come on our side and tell us secrets. Others try to kill us. Which side do you think they're on.

Don't mistake evil for insanity, lol.

and to those who think evil is easy its not you think it is because of the freedom we have we can do anything but and we abide by laws that make us "good" and "holy" but the enemy thinks that we are evil because of our ways and think their good so they are the rightous by the way this is part of the reason the crusades happened

Ok Demosthenez pretty much owned everyone as far as I'm concerned. But he left a few things open:

At 12/16/06 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: If they're evil or not depends on which side you're on. I am sure most of the terrorists have a legitimate reason for their acts

Is there any legitimate reason to specifically target civilians and cut innocent people's heads off then video tape it? Nobody can claim a legitimate goal when they are using illegitimate means in the process.

Bin Laden didn't like the idea of USA placing troops in Saudi Arabia, which is a clear violation of their religion (as far as I know, if I'm wrong please correct me).

First of all, the US didn't just place troops in Saudi Araba. The Saudi government ASKED the US to protect and bring troops and equipment to their country. Which we did according to our defense oaths with the Saudis. Therefore Bin Laden should have attacked the Saudis. But that wasn't the only thing Bin laden used to justify his attacks, he also said on many occasions that the US is the only obsticle in the way of the establishment of an Islamic empire Caliphate.

Bin Laden sees the US as the only true threat to his goal, and most of the Islamic world's goal of spreading Islam to every 'nation, race, and tongue'. That is why impotent countries like yours aren't the main target, because you're just seen as part of the American Christian empire of sorts. Islamists see no distinction between states and religions.

Also, I Koran has a few instances of encouraging people to fight against infidel invaders. But before 9/11, the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic state so Bin Laden 'waging war' on those grounds is illegitimate in every sense.

:So does Bin Laden have a right to declare [religious] war on the USA? It's debatable.

Bin Laden isn't the member of a state, he has no legal authority anywhere. He isn't a Islamic religiously ordained leader either therefore he has no right to declare war or issue a Fatwah.

And that ISN'T debatable. Because if he were to wage war, he'd have to obey the rules of war, which he doesn't.

At 12/16/06 12:17 PM, goozebump wrote:

At 12/16/06 10:57 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: Of course terrorists are evil. What kind of a stupid ass question is that???

Well lets see. We invaded two countries, killed alot of innoncence. In our eyes we were bringing them "Freedom" and doing the moral thing. In their eyes, we are the terrorist.

Um we invaded two countries AFTER we were attacked. Hell, the first attack on the US by Islamic terrorists was more than 20 years before the US even had troops in the region.

Does it matter if a state or a group kills an innocent civilian. Why is it only called "Collateral damage" when the militaryd oes it, but "Terrorism" when someone does?

Because the terrorists INTENTIONALLY cause the death of civilians, not only do they personally target them and kill them, but they use them as human shields SO THAT the states that fight them cause collateral damage and the terrorists can create out-of-context propaganda against these states.

For instance, little would someone like you know that more than 3 times as many Palestinians have died from their own countrymen since 1948 than from Israelis. Little would you know that the civilian deaths in Afghanistan were almost entirely a result of Taliban and Al-Qaeda's methods.

If the terrorists actually fought openly instead of dressing as civilians, killing civilians, and using civilians as shields, then there wouldn't be very much innocent civilian death at all because the US and other states don't TARGET the civilians.

You guys hink in too much black or white, esp. cellardoor.

You fail to acknowledge the difference between rational, decent motives and means of war and evil, malevolent motives and means of war.

the only reason terroists tell us secrets is because they think we might kill em.

ALL TERROISTS ARE EVIL!!!!! THEY BLEW UP 4 BUILDINGS BECAUSE THEY THINK THEYRE GOING TO GO TO HEAVEN AND FIND ALA (THEYRE GOD) AND ALSO MEET 11 VIRGINS. BUT NO THEY BELIVE SADDAM AND GO TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

A Terrorist is someone who has decided that the best way to get what they want is to target and murder as many innocent people as possible.

If that's not a good definition of "Evil," I don't know what is.

Terriosts are often the bad guys because they carry hostages, bomb civic buildings or non civic buildings. They can also blow up ships, create nano viruses, well I can say this. The SWAT often fight terriosts. Might be self-defence, or war or something. They might be supporting their own countries.

At 12/16/06 04:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Um you call the goal of killing innocent civilians in order to frighten and terrorize civilians into submission is a good reason?

to answer your question, no

Moron.

take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror because i think you were referring to yourself

Fuck no. They aren't fighting for a benevolent cause, they are fighting and dying for a reward that they think they will attain in Heaven (mansions and 72 virgins).

if that's their faith then let them be! what do you get by dissing them??

They don't value their own lives, they don't think rationally and have logical goals and desires. They want to kill people in the name of their religion in return for rewards that they are certain they will receive.

Thats not called guts, thats called selfish, irrational evil.

selfish, irrational evil?? don't value life?? that's called fanaticism and looking at the situation from both sides, unlike what your doing, what they do is a noble act for those who share their beliefs.. giving up their own lives for what they believe in, now that's something.. i wouldn't say good but that same sacrifice is something a pig like you wouldn't even think of doing.

Um the terrorists that are 'fighting for what they believe in' usually do just go and shoot people for what would appear to be no reason.

They aren't fighting for good, they are fighting in order to kill, destroy and terrorize. They aren't fighting to liberate, save, or uplift anyone.

given that some terrorists are just out to kill, you can't generalize them because some have families they left just to do what they believe is right..

FYI: just so you understand correctly cellardoor, i don't believe that what they are doing is right, in fact i'm against what they are doing..

Rarely do you see terrorists actually claim to be liberating anyone, they are just glorifying their atrocious acts of massacre and murder.

really? i know people, personally, that have been kidnapped and set free..

Someone who can kidnap someone, tie them up, then gut their head off and feel no remorse is not worthy of respect.

i agree, they don't deserve respect from those whose beliefs they have acted against.

And a dipshit like you who gives them ANY respect or credence is a misguided imbecile who needs to take a good look at the world and look at some facts.

i'm not looking at facts, i'm living it. i do not ANY respect for what they do and don't call me a dipshit misguided imbecile, your the one not reading correctly.

Thats a fucking laugh. People can't blame other people for MURDER. Nobody put the knives in their hands and forces them to cut off the heads of innocent people for no reason other than their blood thirsy desire.

... taking up arms by murdering innocent civilians, using civilians as human shields, and only really seeking power for themselves?

what can they do huh?? the two sides don't meet half way, the terrorists are radical, i wouldn't know why they would result to violence first hand, and i THINK that maybe because they are not privileged enough to get an education to resort to diplomacy.

Thats not taking up arms, thats just becoming a barbaric murderer.

Um, terrorists INTENTIONALLY cause innocent victims to be killed so that they can create propaganda.

really?? how would you know??

How many times have terrorists killed their OWN PEOPLE intentionally in order to blame it on their enemies for propaganda effect? Many, MANY fucking times. Terrorists have no regard for civilians, they do everything in their power TO KILL civilians regardless of who the civilians are, what religion they belong to and so forth.

yeah your right, many times but blaming it on their enemies? i think you got it wrong, if i'm not mistaken it's a public showing of merciless they are.

Terrorists are evil. If you say anything to the contary well then you are just stupid.

There is a difference between gorilla fighters and terrorists. Gorillas target ONLY the enemy. Terrorists do everything in their power to kill and destroy in order to not only kill the enemy but to create anger against them by others, to mislead others deceitfully against their enemy

guerilla, cellardoor, guerilla.. and coming from a 'weapons specialist'

If the terrorists that you think are neither good nor evil had 1/100000000th of the power that the US has, the entire world would be destroyed right now. There would be Jews, Christians or innocents anywhere in the world still alive.

Because the terrorists have NO RESTRAINT, they obey no laws, they have no decency. Meanwhile, they are fighting troops of countries that try their hardest to avoid innocent death and to single out the terrorists. Therefore the terrorists make sure that civilians die to discredit their enemies who are actually fighting for a good cause, rather than trying to ensure their access to virgin pussy in the afterlife.

no restraint huh? when i was a child, we lived next door to a leader of terrorist group called the NPA (they are only well known locally) and i wouldn't say that he doesn't obey laws and indecent.. they don't obey laws that they have qualms against..

Anyone who can actually say that 'terrorists are neither good nor evil" has a fucking mental problem, or is just incredibly biased or brainwashed.

i'm the biased one?!! at least i bother looking at both sides of the equation even though i am firmly against terrorism.

Which are you? Because there is no way you're actually a educated, sane, unbiased person if you can say something like that.

i am well educated that is why i know not to jump into any conclusion or if i have i look at the other side and try to understand where they are coming from.. not unlike you, someone who would post his entire profile (full name, age, etc..) in the general forum, if you don't call that narcistic or an attention grabber i don't know what..

Terrorism isn't an act of evil or hatred, it's a political stradegy for bringing about change. It's ironic that we label people involved in terrorism as evil, when in fact America was in many way founded on it. The Boston Tea Party? Or the illustrations of british men tarred and feathered with hot tea poured down their throats? That was using fear to bring about political change: terrorism.

The fact is that in many ways violence is a necessary part of change. Nonviolent resoultions (like Martin Luther King) are always preached over the reality of "radical" ideals (like Malcom X).

Terrorism is unfortunate, but it's effective. You could even say that chimpanzees use forms of it (though I wouldn't).
I don't like terrorism, in fact it scares the hell out of me. But that's the point of it.

It's not good, nor is it evil...it's just another stradegy us human felt needed inventing.

At 12/17/06 01:16 AM, Sifr wrote:

At 12/16/06 04:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Um you call the goal of killing innocent civilians in order to frighten and terrorize civilians into submission is a good reason?

to answer your question, no

Are you mentally retarded? You refered to terrorist acts as 'for a good reason'. Now you're dodging the fact that you defended the murder of innocent civilians.

Fuck no. They aren't fighting for a benevolent cause, they are fighting and dying for a reward that they think they will attain in Heaven (mansions and 72 virgins).

if that's their faith then let them be! what do you get by dissing them??

Because they are using their faith to JUSTIFY MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE. Just people they are using religion doesn't mean they are immune from criticism. Just because they are using their faith then we should just "let them be" and let them kill innocent people including our own people?

They don't value their own lives, they don't think rationally and have logical goals and desires. They want to kill people in the name of their religion in return for rewards that they are certain they will receive.

Thats not called guts, thats called selfish, irrational evil.

selfish, irrational evil?? don't value life?? that's called fanaticism and looking at the situation from both sides, unlike what your doing, what they do is a noble act for those who share their beliefs..

You're a fucking moron. The goal of the US and allies is to protect people FROM the terrorists. Most people who share their religion DON'T share their believes but are terrorized into following the terrorists and obeying them

The goal of the US is to liberate, and protect our own people in the process by denying the terrorists an area from which to stage attacks. THAT is a benevolent act.

The terrorists only want to destroy and cause chaos, that ISN'T a benevolent act no mater how much a fucking IMBECILE like you tries to twist it.

giving up their own lives for what they believe in, now that's something.. i wouldn't say good but that same sacrifice is something a pig like you wouldn't even think of doing.

Yet you disregard the fact that thousands of US troops have given up their own lives for what they believe in, which is freedom and the safety of their own people. But US troops don't strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves up in order to MURDER other people in the process.

US troops actually value their own lives because they don't believe there aren't brainwashed into believing there are 72 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife for every person they kill.

Terrorists aren't fighting for other people, they are fighting for themselves and for the rewards they think they will attain in exchange for murdering as many infidels as they can/

They aren't fighting for good, they are fighting in order to kill, destroy and terrorize. They aren't fighting to liberate, save, or uplift anyone.

given that some terrorists are just out to kill, you can't generalize them because some have families they left just to do what they believe is right..

They only believe it is right because they are BRAINWASHED into being walking bombs by the terrorist masterminds. Even if they believe what they are doing is right, IT ISN'T RIGHT because they are intentionally killing innocent people in the process.

FYI: just so you understand correctly cellardoor, i don't believe that what they are doing is right, in fact i'm against what they are doing..

Ok I get it now. You're a complete retard, that is the only explaination for the stupid shit that you say. I feel sorry for you, you are obviously mentally impaired and you're losing your mind.

Rarely do you see terrorists actually claim to be liberating anyone, they are just glorifying their atrocious acts of massacre and murder.

really? i know people, personally, that have been kidnapped and set free..

Not by Al-Qaeda. There are small fringe groups who have released prisoners, but that is incredibly rare. Everytime Al-Qaeda gets their hands on westerner they cut their heads off unless the westerner is helping them in some way.

i agree, they don't deserve respect from those whose beliefs they have acted against.

They don't deserve respect from ANYONE. Not even misguided morons like you.

i'm not looking at facts, i'm living it. i do not ANY respect for what they do and don't call me a dipshit misguided imbecile, your the one not reading correctly.

You're not the one SPEAKING correctly. You obviously haven't mastered the English language yet because you are having a really hard time providing a coherent point. You've contradicted yourself over and over again.

Um, terrorists INTENTIONALLY cause innocent victims to be killed so that they can create propaganda.

really?? how would you know??

Um because that is WHAT THEY DO. That is why they videotape it and release it to the media. Get a fucking clue. The people they kill almost never have any strategic threat against the terrorists. The terrorists can't actually fight and win militarily, therefore they kill people and videotape it to bombard their enemy's media with images of death and destruction for PROPAGANDA EFFECT. That is why they videotape killing US troops when really killing random US troops in the streets of Iraq doesn't give the terrorists a strategic benefit at all, all it does is take a persons life and create propaganda out of it to further their cause.

You don't win a war by just killing your enemy. You have to take ground, and remove your enemy's ability to fight. The terrorists can't even come close to doing this in Iraq, therefore they can only hide among civilians, and use bombs and sniper rifles to kill US troops on videtape.

yeah your right, many times but blaming it on their enemies? i think you got it wrong, if i'm not mistaken it's a public showing of merciless they are.

There has been hundreds of documented cases where Iraqis have been killed by terrorists, but then the terrorists claimed that US troops did it. Same goes for what Palestinian terrrorists have done as well.

no restraint huh? when i was a child, we lived next door to a leader of terrorist group called the NPA (they are only well known locally) and i wouldn't say that he doesn't obey laws and indecent.. they don't obey laws that they have qualms against..

Do you think that this supposed terrorist who lived next door to you would kill you if by doing so he would further his cause?

Of course he would kill you. But if you are telling the truth (which I think you're full of shit) the only reason he didn't kill you is because he had no reason to at that time.

Anyone who can actually say that 'terrorists are neither good nor evil" has a fucking mental problem, or is just incredibly biased or brainwashed.

i'm the biased one?!! at least i bother looking at both sides of the equation even though i am firmly against terrorism.

I don't look on the other side of the equation when the ENEMY who has killed innocent people in MY country, then stated absolutely no reason for doing so other than America being 'an infidel power'.

I also tend not to open-mindedly support both sides when one side CUTS INNOCENT PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF AND VIDEOTAPE IT!

Terrorists are evil. Case closed.

Yes, it's true. "Terrorist" isn't a racial or ethnic group, a religion, etc. It's a word that describes people by their actions..
Evidently people that are Christians, or Catholic ..have done bad things, and we don't brand them with titles of killers

Plus, I am Canadian and everyone knows we Canadians are very friendly and kind.

At 12/16/06 04:31 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Are you mentally retarded? You refered to terrorist acts as 'for a good reason'. Now you're dodging the fact that you defended the murder of innocent civilians.

i defended the murder of innocent civilians?? where did i write that?

Because they are using their faith to JUSTIFY MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE. Just people they are using religion doesn't mean they are immune from criticism. Just because they are using their faith then we should just "let them be" and let them kill innocent people including our own people?

where did i say "let them be"?? and don't dare say i'm implying it.

You're a fucking moron. The goal of the US and allies is to protect people FROM the terrorists. Most people who share their religion DON'T share their believes but are terrorized into following the terrorists and obeying them

oh yeah i'm the one who does not master the english language, at least english is not my first language much i can say about you.

some people don't, some people do.. who knows how many, i sure don't but i'm guessing you do because you're all knowing aren't you?

The goal of the US is to liberate, and protect our own people in the process by denying the terrorists an area from which to stage attacks. THAT is a benevolent act.

The terrorists only want to destroy and cause chaos, that ISN'T a benevolent act no mater how much a fucking IMBECILE like you tries to twist it.

benevolent act to THEM and don't call me an imbecile

Yet you disregard the fact that thousands of US troops have given up their own lives for what they believe in, which is freedom and the safety of their own people. But US troops don't strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves up in order to MURDER other people in the process.

coming from a narrow-minded patriot, i guess the above argument is what we'll expect.. look, the US troops, i have the utmost respect for what they do as much as any other guy around te world and i am not even comparing what they do to what terrorists are doing (you started it) but if you look at it in an UNBIASED position, what we think of the US troops are what the terrorists think of themselves..

US troops actually value their own lives because they don't believe there aren't brainwashed into believing there are 72 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife for every person they kill.

you have no respect for Islam.. brainwash?? if they were born in a community whose belief is that then i don't see what's wrong with the reward they are hoping for..

Terrorists aren't fighting for other people, they are fighting for themselves and for the rewards they think they will attain in exchange for murdering as many infidels as they can/

yeah well how would you know?

They only believe it is right because they are BRAINWASHED into being walking bombs by the terrorist masterminds. Even if they believe what they are doing is right, IT ISN'T RIGHT because they are intentionally killing innocent people in the process.

ethically and morally it's wrong but who are we to say what's right? it's wrong in our perspective because it's against the law and it's against what we are taught to be. maybe it's wrong to them as well and they're violating their own law but i guess that is how they were taught growing up by misguided individuals..

Ok I get it now. You're a complete retard, that is the only explaination for the stupid shit that you say. I feel sorry for you, you are obviously mentally impaired and you're losing your mind.

you feel sorry for me?? not as much as i feel sorry for you, you don't even try to understand what i am trying to say.. i'm writing here in a civilized manner and you reply with insurmountable profanities...

Not by Al-Qaeda. There are small fringe groups who have released prisoners, but that is incredibly rare. Everytime Al-Qaeda gets their hands on westerner they cut their heads off unless the westerner is helping them in some way.

compared to Al-Qaeda, yeah the MILF may be a small group..

They don't deserve respect from ANYONE. Not even misguided morons like you.

You're not the one SPEAKING correctly. You obviously haven't mastered the English language yet because you are having a really hard time providing a coherent point. You've contradicted yourself over and over again.

yeah well i forgot to write 'have' before any in my sentence, it happens.. i don't have complete mastery of the English language but i have enough knowledge to say that i believe i have not contradicted myself at all..

Um because that is WHAT THEY DO. That is why they videotape it and release it to the media. Get a fucking clue. The people they kill almost never have any strategic threat against the terrorists. The terrorists can't actually fight and win militarily, therefore they kill people and videotape it to bombard their enemy's media with images of death and destruction for PROPAGANDA EFFECT. That is why they videotape killing US troops when really killing random US troops in the streets of Iraq doesn't give the terrorists a strategic benefit at all, all it does is take a persons life and create propaganda out of it to further their cause.

You don't win a war by just killing your enemy. You have to take ground, and remove your enemy's ability to fight. The terrorists can't even come close to doing this in Iraq, therefore they can only hide among civilians, and use bombs and sniper rifles to kill US troops on videtape.

yeah they are cowards who take innocent lives and hide behind civilians, what's your point? exactly what i said, innocent victim's blood are shed because they are caught in the crossfire of the terrorists and those they are fighting..

There has been hundreds of documented cases where Iraqis have been killed by terrorists, but then the terrorists claimed that US troops did it. Same goes for what Palestinian terrrorists have done as well.

yeah and same goes for the military of any country, you can't count out sadistic soldiers..

Do you think that this supposed terrorist who lived next door to you would kill you if by doing so he would further his cause?

Of course he would kill you. But if you are telling the truth (which I think you're full of shit) the only reason he didn't kill you is because he had no reason to at that time.

what would i get by lying? i live in a province, in a "third-world" country, if terrorists don't hideout somewhere in our forests to get away from the radar of the military and plan, i don't know what else.. i have only seen him for a couple of times, i guess he's dead by now, every sunday he goes down from the mountains, where they hide, to visit his family..

I don't look on the other side of the equation when the ENEMY who has killed innocent people in MY country, then stated absolutely no reason for doing so other than America being 'an infidel power'.

I also tend not to open-mindedly support both sides when one side CUTS INNOCENT PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF AND VIDEOTAPE IT!

Terrorists are evil. Case closed.

there's just no getting through people who think like you.. you're reasoning from an angry place..

i'm just glad i live around people who don't swear in every sentence they say and whose minds are open enough to discuss a topic intelligently not unlike you cellardoor6..

to Slizor and every other poster,
i'm glad not everyone is like cellardoor and Slizor thanks for the words, i really appreciate your last comments.. :)

haha, I love the baseless semantics.

If terrorists kill innocent people just for the sake killing innocent people, The US is just as much of a terrorist as the rest.

Want examples?

Here's one
Here's another
Here's even another one

The worst part is that they all happened within 7 months of each other.
And you all say that America is innocent, give me a break.

If you look into the minds of everyone on the planet you will see there is or has been evil lurking in all parts of the globe.

Ive got a read for yall.

David Thompson's latest for 3:AM says that cultural equivalence is neither compassionate nor fair. It's merely pretentious moral tourism for middle-class lefties. Like the Guardian's Madeleine Bunting.

Last week, during a conversation about the 'cartoon jihad' uproar, I used the phrase "emotional incontinence". This did not go down well. I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I mustn't "impose" my own cultural values. Apparently, to do so would be a form of "cultural imperialism", an archaic colonial hangover, and therefore unspeakably evil. I was, apparently, being "arrogantly ethnocentric" in considering Western secular society broadly preferable to a culture in which rioting, murder and genocidal threats can be prompted by the publication of a cartoon.

Perhaps we should assume that when faced with bullies and bigots we should say nothing, do nothing, and pretend everything is fine. Though quite how that polite little lie will help the victims of bullying and bigotry is not entirely clear. And one has to raise an eyebrow at those who will happily bask in the advantages of values they refuse to defend and pointedly disdain for the sake of appearance. But such is the nature of cultural and moral equivalence, and those who espouse it.

Still got more.

I did write a response to cellardoor's "rebuttal" but it was over the word limit and ended up getting lost. However, when I came back I found a slightly more rational rebuttal that I have chosen to respond to. Also, for cellardoor I suggest he reads this - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/interna tional/fatwa_1998.html

The aim of a terrorist is to effect political change - they have a higher goal.

There goal is immaterial.

Actually the goal of a group is the most important factor in deciding if they are a terrorist group or not. For example I would argue that Aun Shinrikyo, despite superficially looking like a terrorist organisation, was not because they lacked a political goal (what they wanted was Armageddon.) Definitions of terrorism tend to go like "the use of criminal violence by an organisation for a political goal".

You legitimize their tactics when you express sympathy for their goals.

The ends do not justify the means, I have never expressed any view to the contrary.

Opinions like that do exactly what their leaders want from the public, legitimization. And because of their tactics, they deserve no legitimization. None. Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. And their ends especially dont justify their means when their means are so violent and extreme.

You seem confused. A group may have legitimate aims, but use methods that are considered illegitimate. Accepting that their aims are legitimate does not mean an acceptance of their methods as legitimate.

People don't like to admit that terrorists are rational because it opens a space where the grievences of the terrorists can be seen as legitimate.

What grievance of Al Qaeda’s is legitimate?

The Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, US involvement in supposedly sovereign Arab states. Both of these can be seen as legitimate grievences.

How then, do you explain non-religious terrorist suicide attacks by ethno-nationalist groups such as the Tamil Tigers?

Desperation and relative poverty in relation to who they are fighting.

Interestingly terrorists tend not to be in either situation. It is a commonly held view, but one that comes under little scrutiny. For example, where the 9/11 bombers in a situation of desperation and relative poverty....or were they educated and living with a good general standard of life?

Rarely do you see it....because it is rarely reported.

I will wait for a link.

Hahaha. Sadly the internet is not a haven of academic resources, unless you have access to JSTOR or Swetwise (or any other mainstream ejournal resoure)?

No, they intentionally kill civilians so as to forward a political cause.

Semantics.

No, an actual difference in opinion.

Terrorists are rational, generally quite intelligent and educated and are mainly motivated by a sense of injustice.

None of that precludes the ability to be evil. You could be describing Hitler there for all I know.

A slightly off-topic response (I wasn't talking about evil at that point.) I will simply reiterate a point already made numerous times, evil is subjective.

Or they actually know more about terrorism than you do because they've studied terrorism, properly.

That is a rather bold statement to make considering you have said nothing justifying their actions or debunked the fact their actions are indeed what most (by most I mean the entire world) would consider evil.

It is not a bold statement when you are me and have done what I have done. I would not justify terrorists actions because I do not think them just, This does not detract from my argument.

However, terrorists have and will negotiate with states if a dialogue is opened up between the two groups.

1) Which religiously motivated terrorist group has shown any history of being open to talks with states?

Religious terrorism is a rather new trend in terrorism and is subject to quite a level of debate (as to what counts as terrorism.) Could I use the PLO as an example? Or how about current Hamas movements with regards to Israel? The problem is that most religious terrorism has been motivated by causes that remain unresolved.

2) You see nothing wrong with non-state entities representing no one but their membership making demands of states through coercive, violent methods?

You make (or imply) a number of contentious claims in your wee sentence there. Firstly that terrorist groups represent only their membership (look at the IRA support in catholic communities, for example.) Secondly, that a state (or the government of a state) has a legitimate right to speak for the people in the state. Thirdly, that I in any way support the idea of terrorism.

Why should a state even begin to entertain negotiations with some groups (like Al Qaeda) when their demands are impossible to meet and, frankly, are ridiculous?

If you read the 1998 fatwa you will see that Al Qaeda has clear goals that are achievable. And your question, why should a state begin negotiations with terrorist groups, has an obvious answer.....to stop terrorism.

3) You legitimize and encourage their actions every time you cave to them.

You confuse negotiations with caving. The IRA have been brought into the political process without achieving their ultimate goals because they have negotiated.

Continued

Cultural equivalence developed from, among other things, anthropological studies and essentially suggested that the local meaning of certain practices should be determined for greater insight. All well and good. But, in terms of leftist political rhetoric, cultural equivalence has broadly come to mean than no objective judgment should be made as to whether those practices and beliefs are better or worse than any other, or have consequences that are measurably detrimental given certain criteria. The actual moral and practical content of a given worldview is, of course, to be studiously ignored, as this would imply some kind of judgment might be made. In common usage, this assumption reduces analysis to mere opinion and is corrosive to critical thought for fairly obvious reasons. In order to maintain a pretence of 'fairness' and equivalence, there are any number of things one simply cannot allow oneself to think about, at least in certain ways.

And what, I wonder, would Professor Appiah or Madeleine Bunting make of the following real situation? In a crowded shopping centre, a man sees an apparently unaccompanied woman shrouded in a niqab stumble and fall down. He extends a hand to help the fallen woman and asks if she's alright. This enquiry is met with a look of horror and the man is angrily waved away by the woman's husband, who promptly berates his fallen wife for reasons that aren't clear. Does this reaction -- which we're supposed to respect -- foster basic civility and encourage strangers to help? If we memorise the various conflicting religious and moral codes of each minority, will we learn to hesitate before offering to assist an injured woman? Will we have to first search out the husband and ask for his permission? Or, more likely, will we learn to ignore her altogether? And will this make us better people?

At 12/17/06 08:43 AM, Camarohusky wrote: haha, I love the baseless semantics.

Since you seem such an expert, how would YOU have ended that war without doing that? I mean, you obviously are an expert about how to end wars, especially wars with bombs as innacurate as they were in WWII, how would your expert opinion have ended that war? I mean, if the war dragged on for more years and years, its not like you would have had to worry about anything like this. Or this. Or even this on a largscale, like over the entireity of Japan. Silly Generals, what the fuck were they thinking about when they were firebombing Japan?

And you all say that America is innocent, give me a break.

Semantics? I cry straw man. You brought up nothing anyone was talking about or defending. Do go take a break.

At 12/17/06 06:40 PM, Slizor wrote: Actually the goal of a group is the most important factor in deciding if they are a terrorist group or not. For example I would argue that Aun Shinrikyo, despite superficially looking like a terrorist organisation, was not because they lacked a political goal (what they wanted was Armageddon.) Definitions of terrorism tend to go like "the use of criminal violence by an organisation for a political goal".

Oh my god, please, the semantics. I cant take it. I dont want to play word games, if you want to, please tell me because I will stop debating. Please, dont do this, I dont want to play word games, that isnt a debate it is intellectual masturbation.

My definition of terrorists is people who use violent and coercieve means against states to try to affect policy. And yes, trying to bring about Armageddon is affecting policy. It is affecting the entirety of reality when you try to bring that about, of course its going to affect policy.

The ends do not justify the means, I have never expressed any view to the contrary.

They why exactly are you defending them? If you disdain their tactics, say it, dont play these semantic games. Go ahead and say it, they are evil.

You seem confused. A group may have legitimate aims, but use methods that are considered illegitimate. Accepting that their aims are legitimate does not mean an acceptance of their methods as legitimate.

I dont care about this, maybe you missed the story I made but I covered this already. We are talking about if they are evil. You carry out illigetimate tactics, you do evil things, you are evil. That is what we are discussing. They are evil.

The Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, US involvement in supposedly sovereign Arab states. Both of these can be seen as legitimate grievences.

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. You honestly think this is legitimate?

Interestingly terrorists tend not to be in either situation. It is a commonly held view, but one that comes under little scrutiny. For example, where the 9/11 bombers in a situation of desperation and relative poverty....or were they educated and living with a good general standard of life?

I said RELATIVE for a reason. They are obviously angered enough at the West to throw their lives away to kill innocent Westerners for a reason. That is textbook desperation. They obviously dont have a military or enough funding to finance an open war against the United States so they throw their lives away to kill innocent Westerners for a reason. That is relative poverty.

I know Bin Laden has money. I know he is well educated. I know he doesnt need to do anything he does. That does not preclude desperation or relative poverty. Not in the slightest. If you mean to suggest these men, who throw their lives away in an effort to kill, is not desperation, you need to make that case, you cant just tell me Im wrong because these men had money and were educated. You are using a lot of circular logic.

A slightly off-topic response (I wasn't talking about evil at that point.) I will simply reiterate a point already made numerous times, evil is subjective.

Bullshit. I take extreme offense to that. Evil is not subjective. If you refuse to stand up and say these men are evil, I will do it for you. I will shout twice as loud that these men are evil.

How many people have to die for you to take a stand and say these men are evil? Or would it take a death close to you to do that?

I can take a stand and say this was evil. But since evil is subjective to you, I guess you really cannot take that leap, can you? Or do you (I will strawman and generalize of the types I know like you) call this evil despite the fact you believe in the subjectivity of evil? You cant have it both ways, I recgonize that. I get the feeling many like you that share the political leanings you have do not.

It is not a bold statement when you are me and have done what I have done. I would not justify terrorists actions because I do not think them just, This does not detract from my argument.

What stand are you taking then? You dont think they are evil yet you dont support them. You claim some terrorists have legitimate aims yet have taken no stand on the legitimacy of Al Qaedas claim. Take a fucking stand, grow a spine.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Take a goddamned stand.

Continued

Religious terrorism is a rather new trend in terrorism and is subject to quite a level of debate (as to what counts as terrorism.)

Since you feel the need to ask you should know better that no, the PLO and Hamas are not what I was asking for. They may exploit religion but that is not what they are about. They are ethnic terrorists. The PLO more than Hamas but they both are much of the same.

You make (or imply) a number of contentious claims in your wee sentence there. Firstly that terrorist groups represent only their membership (look at the IRA support in catholic communities, for example.)

I will reverse that then. Since Al Qaeda claims to represent the interests of all Muslims or Hamas claims to represent the interests of all Palestinians they all should be treated as enemies. Since their constituency supports them, we shouldnt be treating them with any form of respect since they all are at war with us.

Again, you cant have it both ways. I thought I was being the understanding one by not claiming all Muslims were raging crazies wanting to kill all Westerners but you, the one who was supposedly defending them, takes that leap. I know that is not what you intended, but congratulations, you just did.

Secondly, that a state (or the government of a state) has a legitimate right to speak for the people in the state.

You are implying they do not?

Thirdly, that I in any way support the idea of terrorism.

Wonderful.

If you read the 1998 fatwa you will see that Al Qaeda has clear goals that are achievable.

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

Indeed. Honestly, get a fucking clue, they would slit your throat if they thought it would help them. That is evil.

And your question, why should a state begin negotiations with terrorist groups, has an obvious answer.....to stop terrorism.

I never said do not negotiate. Never. I was simply casting light to the mantra of "Negotiate, negotiate" that the left likes to use. Negotiations with people who have no problem killing your children to affect change in their favor will always be plauged with problems. Especially when there is no way to keep track or hold them accountable to their negotiated terms. And super especially when you know they will probably just keep trying the same tactics Ummover and over and over again. And over.

Negotiate, but negotiate with care. So far, I dont see a need to negotiate with Bin Laden or any of the satellite terrorist organizations associated with them. I have seen no evidence they would actually hold to the negotiated terms especially considering their disrespect for the West and what we stand for.

You confuse negotiations with caving. The IRA have been brought into the political process without achieving their ultimate goals because they have negotiated.

You also confuse negotiatoins with the ending of conflict. It aint that easy. And the IRA only decided to stop fighting after decades and decades of death and murder. I am not to familiar with the IRA but I have gotten the impression their rhetoric only began to subside after they realized their goals COULD NOT be achieved. This took decades of fighting, not just simple talks between people.

Terrorists arn't Evil, the word "Evil" doesn't really orient from any source on this earth, or any other place. I dont actually beleive in the word evil.

Islamic Terrorism is not fueled on just one thing, it's fueled on many things:

-hatred of the existance and history of israel and the jews + muhammeds teachings that jews are corrupt "pigs."

- American Promiscuity + female indepedence (which to some females equates to dressing like a whore and giving blowjobs to every sad male on the street)

- American pride (Since everyone other then american's really get pissed when people say god bless america, you can imagine how pissed terrorists must get :P)

- Anger towards europe (Inquisistions + crusades and the like) '

- Quran iluding to violence twards non-beleivers.

Put all of this togeather and you get a fairly expansed motive for hatred and violence. Nothing condones murder, ever, and i certainly dont beleive that anyone has the right to kill civilans or military for petty past reasons.

For example, no one is alive today who could take full responcibility for the crusades and the past slaughters of muslims the vatican can, but i dont beleive that, even for the most devout catholics, that killing non beleivers is right, i just wish muslims held the same standards.

Oh my god, please, the semantics. I cant take it. I dont want to play word games, if you want to, please tell me because I will stop debating. Please, dont do this, I dont want to play word games, that isnt a debate it is intellectual masturbation.

If you feel that way then you are free to discontinue responding. Semantics are necessary in political discussion because almost all political words and concepts are contested. Your definition of terrorism excludes the possibility of state terrorism, one of the foremost forms of terrorism. You may not wish to consider what the words you use mean and what you refer to when you use them, but that does not mean that it is not a good move to do so.

My definition of terrorists is people who use violent and coercieve means against states to try to affect policy. And yes, trying to bring about Armageddon is affecting policy. It is affecting the entirety of reality when you try to bring that about, of course its going to affect policy.

It may affect policy but that was not their aim and was not intended, unlike with actual terrorist movements who do want to affect policy. Their aim was Armageddon.

The ends do not justify the means, I have never expressed any view to the contrary.

They why exactly are you defending them? If you disdain their tactics, say it, dont play these semantic games. Go ahead and say it, they are evil.

This is not semantics, this is anayltical sublty. I am not defending terrorists, I am offering (better) explainations of their actions. I do not agree with their tactics, but (in some cases) I can understand why they would resort to them.

You seem confused. A group may have legitimate aims, but use methods that are considered illegitimate. Accepting that their aims are legitimate does not mean an acceptance of their methods as legitimate.

I dont care about this, maybe you missed the story I made but I covered this already. We are talking about if they are evil. You carry out illigetimate tactics, you do evil things, you are evil. That is what we are discussing. They are evil.

We are now back to semantics. "Illegitimate" and "evil" are not synonyms and the concepts of both legitimacy and evil are highly contested.

You honestly think this is legitimate?

I think they can be seen as legitimate grievences. I don't really buy into the whole "self-determination" and "nationalism" thing, so I don't see them, ultimatly, as legitimate. However, since I recognise that the international system is run on the idea of self-determination as being legitimate then I can begin to accept them as legitimate (if slightly conservative) aims.

I said RELATIVE for a reason. They are obviously angered enough at the West to throw their lives away to kill innocent Westerners for a reason. That is textbook desperation. They obviously dont have a military or enough funding to finance an open war against the United States so they throw their lives away to kill innocent Westerners for a reason. That is relative poverty.

No, that is relative power inequality. "Terrorism is the logical choice when the power ratio of government to challenger is high."

I know Bin Laden has money. I know he is well educated. I know he doesnt need to do anything he does. That does not preclude desperation or relative poverty. Not in the slightest. If you mean to suggest these men, who throw their lives away in an effort to kill, is not desperation, you need to make that case, you cant just tell me Im wrong because these men had money and were educated. You are using a lot of circular logic.

We've strayed on to suicide terrorism here, but never the less. Why people commit suicide bombings is a complex question and one that there is little empirical evidence for (it tends to go up in smoke when the act in question is committed.) I see no point in arguing this with you as I will simplify other people's complex reasoning for it. I would be happy to provide you with some resources to allow you to study this properly, do you have access to a University library?

A slightly off-topic response (I wasn't talking about evil at that point.) I will simply reiterate a point already made numerous times, evil is subjective.

Bullshit. I take extreme offense to that. Evil is not subjective. If you refuse to stand up and say these men are evil, I will do it for you. I will shout twice as loud that these men are evil.

And I will continue with constructive enquiry as to why they commit terrorism in an effort to stop them, while you fan the flames of hate and spread unhelpful ignorance.

How many people have to die for you to take a stand and say these men are evil? Or would it take a death close to you to do that?

I do not believe in evil. I believe in pettiness, greed, etc, but not evil. Evil implies that they are commiting terrorism for sheer bloodthirstyness, which is not the case.

I can take a stand and say this was evil. But since evil is subjective to you, I guess you really cannot take that leap, can you? Or do you (I will strawman and generalize of the types I know like you) call this evil despite the fact you believe in the subjectivity of evil? You cant have it both ways, I recgonize that. I get the feeling many like you that share the political leanings you have do not.

I don't think US support for the Contras was evil, I think it was undemocratic, misguided and selfish, but not evil.

It is not a bold statement when you are me and have done what I have done. I would not justify terrorists actions because I do not think them just, This does not detract from my argument.

What stand are you taking then? You dont think they are evil yet you dont support them. You claim some terrorists have legitimate aims yet have taken no stand on the legitimacy of Al Qaedas claim. Take a fucking stand, grow a spine.

What does my views on the legitimacy of Al Qaeda's aims have to do with anything? I can see their aims as illegitimate and still not think that they are evil.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Take a goddamned stand.

All that is necessary for the triumph of violence is the spreading of emnity and hate. If you do not understand why something is attacking you, you can not hope to peacefully stop it.

Religious terrorism is a rather new trend in terrorism and is subject to quite a level of debate (as to what counts as terrorism.)

Since you feel the need to ask you should know better that no, the PLO and Hamas are not what I was asking for. They may exploit religion but that is not what they are about. They are ethnic terrorists. The PLO more than Hamas but they both are much of the same.

This is why semantics are so important. You don't classify Hamas as religiously motivated terrorists, but the MIPT does. http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=49 Although it doesn't see any negotiations between Hamas and Israel, meh, give it time. As i have now introduced the MIPT database I would also like to dispel the myth that Al Qaeda primarily attacks civilian targets http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=6 see it there.

You make (or imply) a number of contentious claims in your wee sentence there. Firstly that terrorist groups represent only their membership (look at the IRA support in catholic communities, for example.)

I will reverse that then. Since Al Qaeda claims to represent the interests of all Muslims or Hamas claims to represent the interests of all Palestinians they all should be treated as enemies. Since their constituency supports them, we shouldnt be treating them with any form of respect since they all are at war with us.

I did not say that Al Qaeda represents all Muslims, I said they don't only represent their membership - they represent some Muslims.

Again, you cant have it both ways. I thought I was being the understanding one by not claiming all Muslims were raging crazies wanting to kill all Westerners but you, the one who was supposedly defending them, takes that leap. I know that is not what you intended, but congratulations, you just did.

No I did not and yes, I can have it both ways. Stop working with binary propositions.

Secondly, that a state (or the government of a state) has a legitimate right to speak for the people in the state.

You are implying they do not?

No, I am clearly stating that they do not. This would really need another topic to discuss it. However, I'll take a very condensed stab at this - what right does a non-democratic state have to speak for its people?

Indeed. Honestly, get a fucking clue, they would slit your throat if they thought it would help them. That is evil.

You missed out the important part, just before the "on this basis."

"All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: "

I.E. This is a war (for them) of defence. They are defending Islam and Muslims from the US and Israel.

And your question, why should a state begin negotiations with terrorist groups, has an obvious answer.....to stop terrorism.

I never said do not negotiate. Never. I was simply casting light to the mantra of "Negotiate, negotiate" that the left likes to use. Negotiations with people who have no problem killing your children to affect change in their favor will always be plauged with problems. Especially when there is no way to keep track or hold them accountable to their negotiated terms. And super especially when you know they will probably just keep trying the same tactics Ummover and over and over again. And over.

Your example is not of negotiations for peace, merely military negotiations.

Negotiate, but negotiate with care. So far, I dont see a need to negotiate with Bin Laden or any of the satellite terrorist organizations associated with them. I have seen no evidence they would actually hold to the negotiated terms especially considering their disrespect for the West and what we stand for.

Your view on Al Qaeda has been too coloured by the media, Bin Laden is motivated by America's disrespect for Islam.

You confuse negotiations with caving. The IRA have been brought into the political process without achieving their ultimate goals because they have negotiated.

You also confuse negotiatoins with the ending of conflict. It aint that easy. And the IRA only decided to stop fighting after decades and decades of death and murder. I am not to familiar with the IRA but I have gotten the impression their rhetoric only began to subside after they realized their goals COULD NOT be achieved. This took decades of fighting, not just simple talks between people.

The IRA decided to stop fighting after they were brought into the political process and their views listened to and acted upon. That they have not achieved their ultimate goal is evidence of the ability to negotiate with terrorist organisations. Negotiations lead to an end of the conflict.

by definition they are evil to the group that labled them terrorists in the first place

At 12/18/06 09:11 AM, Slizor wrote: You may not wish to consider what the words you use mean and what you refer to when you use them, but that does not mean that it is not a good move to do so.

Intellectual masturbation. Nothing more. I know the usage of the words I do and I dont particularly appreciate the characterization you seem to like to place on me. I am not some naive fucktard.

It may affect policy but that was not their aim and was not intended, unlike with actual terrorist movements who do want to affect policy. Their aim was Armageddon.

Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are the people who do that tactic. That is my definition and I believe it is the most accurate. States, people, groups, can be terrorists. Their goals do not make or define a terrorist, that is bunk. I do want a link saying this and yes I do have access to University databases.

This is not semantics, this is anayltical sublty. I am not defending terrorists, I am offering (better) explainations of their actions. I do not agree with their tactics, but (in some cases) I can understand why they would resort to them.

Damn man. I do not appreciate the way you are speaking to me. Not at all. You are taking a hell of a lot of liberties and I do not appreciate it at all. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop trying to speak to me like you know more than me. I have yet to see evidence you have some great knowledge on this issue or some perspective I do not have or have never heard before, so cut the superiority shit. Stop talking down to me.

I do understand why terrorists do what they do in all cases. There are reasons for everything and I am damn well aware of them. I read Bin Ladens fatwa before you pointed it out to me, I have linked to it in posts a number of times. If I may say so, I understand the subtelties of the situation damn well.

THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE MY ABILITY TO JUDGE THEM.

You somehow are mixing up analytical analysis with not being able to give an opinoin based on the information you have gathered. That is bunk. I have every right to believe these men are evil. You cut off heads, you murder people going to a wedding at a hotel, you murder Olympic athletes, you crash planes into buildings, you target civilians, women and children in particular, you are fucking evil, I dont care what your reason is. That is my judgement and I have every right to give it based on the informatin I possess.\

We are now back to semantics. "Illegitimate" and "evil" are not synonyms and the concepts of both legitimacy and evil are highly contested.

You seem so intent on playing word games, prove their actions are not evil or illegitimate. You claim I am wrong, the burden of proof rests on you, prove me wrong. You havent do so at all so far and about all you have done is say evil is subjective and illegitimate is a contested term. Fine then. Give me examples of subjective evil and the contentious debate of the deciding what is a legitimate tactic. Yes, I do have University database access.

I still fail to see how people chopping peoples heads off could possibly not be condemned as evil. Or terrorists blowing themselves in open markets. How could that possibly be subjective? The only person who would not think that is evil is if the person has a vested interest in the side inflicting the violence. An impartial observer would say those actions are barbaric and evil. Just like in Rwanda. That conflict doesnt matter much to most people across the world, it wouldnt really affect our lives either way it went. But it is easy for an outside observer to say the Hutu militias were evil and barbaric and wrong. That is the consensus and is not a tough one to come to. That is not subjective.

I think they can be seen as legitimate grievences.

Their greviences speak for no large group and carry no weight other than the violence they promise if their demands are not met. That has nothing to do with self determination, it has to do with a minority demanding something from the majority. And they live in societies where democracy has yet to become very powerful so the leaders speak for their people. The leaders have no problem and encourage Western troops in the Arabian peninsula since we are allies, that is not our problem. Jerusalem is half Palestinian half Israeli, that is a conflict to be settled between Israelis and Palestinians, not Bin Laden or his flunkies.

No, that is relative power inequality. "Terrorism is the logical choice when the power ratio of government to challenger is high."

Good god man. "Relative power inequality" and "relative poverty" equate the same fucking thing. It connotates the states having more power than the groups or people carrying out the terrorist actions. This is real annoying man especially when you damn well know that is exactly what I meant. Even if my exact word choice doesnt exactly mean what I meant, my description did. I will show you where my description is if you doubt me.

I would be happy to provide you with some resources to allow you to study this properly, do you have access to a University library?

Yes.

And I will continue with constructive enquiry as to why they commit terrorism in an effort to stop them, while you fan the flames of hate and spread unhelpful ignorance.

Ignornace? Fuck you bro. I am not going to stand this shit. No one calls me ignorant, especially some motherfucker who knows nothing about me. Seriously, fuck you. That was bullshit.

How the fuck am I fanning the flames of hate by calling the monsters who carry out terrorism evil? I am saying nothing about the people they claim to speak for, I am saying nothing about the religion they claim to commit it in their name, I am not even saying anything about the people who materially support them. I understand why these people do these things. They feel powerless, they dont like the situation they see, they want it to change. I completly understand that.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN I CANT CALL MONSTERS WHAT THEY ARE. MONSTEROUS EVIL MOTHERFUCKERS WHO DO NOT DESERVE TO LIVE.

I dont care who you are or what has happened to you. Nothing gives you the motherfucking right to take another persons life, another person who is entirely innocent and has done you no harm. Motherfucking nothing gives you that right, ever. You are an evil motherfucker doing what people like Bin Laden do.

I do not believe in evil. I believe in pettiness, greed, etc, but not evil. Evil implies that they are commiting terrorism for sheer bloodthirstyness, which is not the case.

You have been arguing semantics the entire time and you take the leap that evil implies killing just for the sake of killing? I think someone needs to take a long hard look in the MOTHERFUCKIN HYPOCRACY MIRROR.

I don't think US support for the Contras was evil, I think it was undemocratic, misguided and selfish, but not evil.

How quaint.

What does my views on the legitimacy of Al Qaeda's aims have to do with anything? I can see their aims as illegitimate and still not think that they are evil.

Still no stand on anything. You dance more than a ballerina.

All that is necessary for the triumph of violence is the spreading of emnity and hate. If you do not understand why something is attacking you, you can not hope to peacefully stop it.

Oh, yet again the great sage Slizor is implying I do not know why these terrorists want to attack us. Uhh, uhh.

Are terrorists evil? I don't know.

But that doesn't mean that I think what they're doing is right. I don't see how any religion/belief can think that the killing of innocent people (or any people for that matter) is fair or just.

The reason I think the way I do is because I have been influenced from the day I was born, as have you. Some people like to think that they aren't influenced by anything, and that they're their own person, but thats a load of bull. We're all influenced by our parents, upbringing, religion, friends, music, lifestyle, job... everything. Terrorists have been brought up to think that what they're doing is right. You disagree because you have been brought up to think that what they're doing is wrong. Are they evil because of that?

They're evil in everyones mind that doesn't follow their religion. People who are the same faith as them probably see them as great believers in their religion, but then there are probably some that also think they're evil to cause such devastation to not only other countries, but their own.

How come no-one ever debates my posts... :(

At 12/18/06 09:30 AM, Slizor wrote: This is why semantics are so important.

That aint semantics. That is a groups opinion of a group. And I may be wrong about Hamas. I think they are primarily a nationalist group but now that I think about it their suicide bombing may be motivated a good deal by religion (in conjuction with their nationalism).

No, I am clearly stating that they do not. This would really need another topic to discuss it. However, I'll take a very condensed stab at this - what right does a non-democratic state have to speak for its people?

They can speak for their people because that is the way their society is. You are placing your Western bias on this situation, something you have been accusing me of in not so subtle terms. They dont have democracies over there, that is the way they live. I will repeat it again, you cannot have it both ways. You have to either respect all their traditions and all the ways they live or stop pretending you are the one indeed doing that when you clearly are not.

Of the fifty-one sovereign states that make up the membership of the International Islamic Conference, some have never tried democracy; others have experimented, failed, and abandoned the attempt; a few are experimenting again with a cautious and limited relaxation of central power. Several have passed the first test, of a change of government by democratic procedures. Only one in modern times has passed the more searching test, of a second change of rulers by democratic procedures--of a government willing to submit to the will of the people and leave by the self-same route by which it came. That one is the Turkish Republic.

In fact, of course, leaving theory aside, the institution of sovereignty became hereditary, and more or less theocratic. But the traditional concept of a contractual exchange of duties between sovereign and subject remained. The ruler had obligations toward the subject, and his contract was in theory dissoluble, sometimes also in practice dissoluble if he failed to carry out the terms of his contract. The Caliphate, and later the sultanate, were autocracies--there can be no doubt about that. But they never became the unbridled despotism imagined by many European observers of the Ottoman state in its heyday.
Bernard Lewis

I.E. This is a war (for them) of defence. They are defending Islam and Muslims from the US and Israel.

So? You were saying they have clear and achievable goals: killing all Westerners or at least scaring us into submission. I agreed. Their reasoning is not what was at question here.

Your example is not of negotiations for peace, merely military negotiations.

You really think Bin Laden would negotiate for peace? Please. The terms would be un-meetable. Completly. Until he is ready to tone down his rhetoric, the West, coming from the position of power and coming from the majority, has no right or responsibility to heed to his demands. They are unmeetable and Al Qaeda seems more intent on spreading their ideology or silencing the opposition, like in Iraq and the Civil War Zarqawi attempted or did incite, than peace.

Negotiations are untenable in this situation. Completly.

Your view on Al Qaeda has been too coloured by the media, Bin Laden is motivated by America's disrespect for Islam.

Oh, sage, please, teach me. I am so ignorant I have no idea what is going on. And oh great sage, where did you ever come to the conclusion I do not agree with that?

Damn the media, I am to stupid because of it. To bad those books I read that I know are written by committed leftists, to expand my viewpoints and knowledge, are just other lies perpetrated by the evil American-Zionist media. Oh please help me great sage.

The IRA decided to stop fighting after they were brought into the political process and their views listened to and acted upon.

You only have half the equation there. It wasnt just the British government moderating their positions and views, it was the IRA doing the same thing, with Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein distancing themself from the IRA. There was more going on than just the British government moderating themself. The IRA played a giant role in making the peace process possible because of this.

Negotiations lead to an end of the conflict.

Did you totally miss those links? I can give you numerous times Israelis have negotiated with terrorists, whether it is to release hostages or whatever, only to have Hezbollah or Hamas do the same shit a little later. I am not saying Israel does is not directly responsible for many of their problems in this department I am just highlighting inconsistencies in such a black and white view that "Negotiations end conflicts." Negotiations do not mean and end to conflict, words do not settle everything and from the cosmopotilian and educated man you are trying to look like, that is an insanely naive view.

Words end conflict when both sides are ready to talk. Words end conflict when people are ready to talk to eachother. Most Islamic terrorists sure as hell aint ready to talk. I aint saying America is ready to talk under this leader but I can tell you we want this shit to end a hell of a lot more than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda does.

And I will repeat it again: NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT MEAN AN END TO CONFLICT. People end conflicts, not negotiations. Only when these people are ready to negotiate do things end.

The immediate root of today's crisis in Darfur is the breakdown of the political process. Violence escalated after the peace talks, which ended in the Nigerian capital Abuja on 5 May, concluded with the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement by the Sudan government and one rebel faction, headed by Minni Minawi. Two groups - the Sudan Liberation Movement of Abdel Wahid al Nur (the largest group) and the Justice and Equality Movement - didn't sign, and the smouldering war promptly re-ignited.