Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Intellectual masturbation. Nothing more. I know the usage of the words

I am sure you are all-knowing on the subject of semantics and so can effortlessly brush away one of the most important areas of political discussion - conceptual debate and clarity.

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.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dtra/terr orism_concepts.pdf
Page 5 onwards (anyone can actually read this one, I found it while looking at my lecture notes.)

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 just love how people can get ignored by tone on the internet, especially when they are telling other people things like "get a fucking clue" and other such far more direct language.

I do understand why terrorists do what they do in all cases.

Really? Jesus Christ, you should write a book.

THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE MY ABILITY TO JUDGE THEM.

Then, I must conclude, your judgement is clouded.

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.\

Yes, you have a right to give a judgement....I can't remember denying you that right. However, your judgement is not, as you so stringenly claim, objective or necessarily correct. You can make YOUR judgement, but it is not EVERYONE's judgement.

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.

Ah, I missed this. The inevitable burden of proof argument. "I've made my argument (with no evidence) and you say I'm wrong....so you have to provide tons and tons of evidence to prove me wrong!"
As for your requests for information, they are misjudged. I have never said there is a contentious debate about deciding what is a legitimate tactic, I said there is a contentious debate about legitimacy. We can clearly see this with regards to Anarchists, who think states are illegitimate. As for the request for sources on subjective evil I will say, quite plainly, no. Evil is part of moral philosophy and is subject to a large amount of belief in it, plus I am a student of politics and can't be arsed familiarising myself with the main philosophical and theological debates on evil. I have better things to do.

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?

Was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima evil?

But it is easy for an outside observer to say the Hutu militias were evil and barbaric and wrong.

It is easy for an outside observer to say that. It isn't particularly helpful or necessarily correct, but it is easy.

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.

I am unsure of that. Don't news stations show footage of people dancing in the street in support of Al Qaeda? Surely they have some level of support from the populations of Middle Eastern countries? Maybe thier methods are not supported, but their aims certainly will be.

That has nothing to do with self determination

Bin Laden seems to work with the idea of a Muslim or Arab nation that is being denied, he wants this to change. He wants the people of Arabia, not the Americans or Israelis, to decide what happens in Arabia (although this "decision" would be undemocratic and assumed to be support for an Islamic theocracy.)

And they live in societies where democracy has yet to become very powerful so the leaders speak for their people.

That's bollocks. The leaders do not speak for the people, they rule over the people and speak for themselves. They may have some support but their is no way to know how much.

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.

Not according to Bin Laden.....or the US.

How the fuck am I fanning the flames of hate by calling the monsters who carry out terrorism evil?

If you paint people as evil then how are you then meant to negotiate with them? No-one would negotiate with evil, you would destroy evil.

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 was going to write "or some such thing" but ended up deciding against it. Meh. Would you like to discuss the meaning of evil Mr It's Intellectual Masturbation? What do you think it means?

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.

Thanks.

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.

Great Sage? I suppose I could adopt that as my title, certainly on this forum.

---

Lets wait till one of them fucks up the wiring on a bomb and we can ask.

"Do you enjoy in killing yourself and the hundreds/thousands of innocent people around you?"

---

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.

No, that's bollocks. We are talking about legitimacy here, not "how things are". How can a non-representative state claim to legitimatly speak for their people?

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.

How am I respecting their traditions or claiming to?

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.

Was there any great need for that huge chunk of text? You could have just said that Muslims use a concept similar to Locke's Social Contract and not pasted that. However, you could have not said that as well because it is irrelevant. There are huge problems of legitimacy with this idea and it really only complicates matters to include it.

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.

I did not say that Al Qaeda wished to kill all Westerners, neither did Bin Laden. He said that because of yada yada Muslims are at war with the US and so should kill Americans. Logically, if the US stops the yada yada then Al Qaeda would renounce its fatwa against Americans. Their goal is not to kill Americans, but to stop the Americans killing them and interfering in their affairs.

Negotiations are untenable in this situation. Completly.

I do not think negotiations are currently possible because of the current US position (and also now Al Qaeda's position caused by the US reaction to 9/11.) I do think that Bin Laden could have been negotiated with, but not now that there is essentially a war between the US and Al Qaeda.

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?

"You were saying they have clear and achievable goals: killing all Westerners or at least scaring us into submission. I agreed."

Damn the media, I am to stupid because of it. To bad those books I read

You can read? Bloody hell. I thought you had a translator.

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.

Do I need to dictionary.com negotiations for you? Negotiations are founded on compromise.

Negotiations lead to an end of the conflict.

Did you totally miss those links?

Did you totally miss me saying they were military negotiations? Maybe your translator missed it.

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 end conflicts. That is not to say all negotiations end conflicts. It is not a simple matter of beginning to negotiate and the conflict is suddenly over. Negotiations edge towards peace, even failed negotiations do some good by setting up channels of communication. I would fire that translator of yours if they are able to misconstrue such a simple sentence.

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.

Out of interest, why would terrorists not want to negotiate?

---

It depends from which side you look at it.
We, as people of the West, consider it as evil, because they destroy other people's lives for what they think is good.
But if you look at it their way, they perform are the heros of the day. They have yet again battled the fierce tyrants of the West. They are fighting for their own freedom.