Terrorists Or Freedom Fighters

[DemocratSinceBirth]

"Insurgents dressed as Iraq police shot and killed six teachers Monday, BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgents dressed as Iraq police shot and killed six teachers Monday, ..."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/26/iraq.main/index.html



Were the people who carried out this operation freedom fighters or terrorists?

[ET Awful]

1. How about just plain murderers? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Isn't That Avoiding The Topic

eom

[MildyRules]

3. Exactly.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. "The two are not mutually exclusive"

I'll play...


If they are not mutually exclusive that means they can be both...


Wow... so you can fight for your freedom by blowing up school teachers....

What actions would you proscribe in the fight for freedom?

[MildyRules]

8. Sorry. I should have been more clear

Terrorist and Murderer are not mutually exclusive. My apology!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I'm Sorry

eom

[ET Awful]

4. Not at all.

They are murderers, nothing more, nothing less.

A terrorist would not have taken the victims somewhere out of sight of the children to carry out their atrocities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Wow

"A terrorist would not have taken the victims somwhere out of sight of the children to carry out their atrocities."


So they win points by taking the teachers out of site and killing them?

[ET Awful]

9. Not at all. The point of "terrorism" is to instill "terror".

By reducing the amount of terror caused by their actions, it's not exactly fitting into the mold of "terrorism" now is it?

They are murderers, nothing more.

[MildyRules]

11. You don't think the kids know this happened?

You don't think this instilled terror in them and other teachers???

[ET Awful]

13. If the prime purpose was to instill terror, do you REALLY think that a

"terrorist" would go through the trouble of moving the victims to a secluded area?

[MildyRules]

19. So you think there are no terrified teachers in Iraq today?

[ET Awful]

52. The same could be said for civilians that have been killed by air strikes

Do you think there are no terrified civilians in Iraq due to air strikes?

[Marie26]

63. So it's okay?

Just because the air strikes may be "terrorism" doesn't mean the shootings AREN'T terrorism, does it? Otherwise, you seem to be saying that any actions insurgents take is justified against the "terrorism" of the US occupation. And that's kind of extreme, IMHO.

[ET Awful]

65. That's not what I said. What I said is that without proof that the motive

was to instill fear, I do not consider it terrorism.

If the only "proof" that it is terrorism is that one group of people killed another group of people, then you must use the term equally and without prejudice to cover the entire gamut of killing taking place in that unfortunate country, regardless of who is doing the killing.

Please find where I said ANY of it was justified in any way, you won't find me saying that anywhere.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Hmmm

"By reducing the amount of terror caused by their actions, it's not exactly fitting into the mold of "terrorism" now is it?"



I think they inspired enough terrorism by violating the sanctity of a grade school and killing six teachers...


And they did the students no favor because I am sure they learned the fate of their teachers...

[ET Awful]

15. Same question as above . . . if the intent was to instill terror do you

actually think for a second that they would go through the hassle of removing the victims to a more secluded spot?

Murders? Yup. Terrorists? Not necessarily.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. That's A Good Question

They were terrorists...

But perhaps they weren't the worst of the worst...


For there have been terrorist incidents where the targets were children....

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Other: both.

If you were asking about the ones who limit themselves to attack invading troops, I'd be forced to vote option 1.

[MildyRules]

10. But they didn't

limit themselves to that. They killed teachers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. Read my post again. (nt)

[MildyRules]

24. I did

The OP didn't give you the option you selected. He/She limited it to the terrorists who killed the teachers. Your answer was a non sequiter.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. The OP options were artificially limited

So I created another in order to better reflect reality (although now I believe "neither" may be a better response than "both"). I'm not forced to play someone else's games.

Why is it a non sequitur?

[MildyRules]

44. So the people who killed the teachers

were both? They were freedom fighters who fight against the occupation of their country by murdering innocent school teachers. Got ya.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. There is such a thing as pursuing a good cause by doing

horrible, wrong acts. That usually tends to not help the cause at all, which doesn't mean it wasn't their goal.

So sorry, no instances of "leftists are evil" in this thread. Try another lake.

And you completely ignored me saying I now think "neither" is a better answer.

[MildyRules]

67. I didn't notice you had changed you answer

And I don't EVER see how killing innocent schoolteachers helps one pursue a good. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. I didn't say it helps.

I said that's the person's goal.

[MildyRules]

92. What's one person's goal?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. Well, in this case, nobody knows. (nt)

[Qibing Zero]

68. I disagree with their tactics as well, regardless of their goals.

However, how can we label them without even knowing what they're fighting for?

Can we not take a step back and just agree that if not for our involvement things like this would not be everyday occurances?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I'm Conflicted About That...

But attacking the military is of a different nature than attacking civilians...


Any way... The reason you see so many more civilian attacks is because they are much easier targets...

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Do you start counting from 0, like a good programmer?

That would seem to make more sense, given your reply, but I'd thought I'd check.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. No. When among non-geek people I start from 1 like everybody else.

Am I to infer that you believe throwing a grenade on a US tank is an act of terrorism?

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. First choice: 'terrorist'. Second choice: 'freedom fighter'

You'd describe someone who kills teachers as both terrorists and freedom fighters, but someone who kills soldiers as just a terrorist? That seems very strange - which is why I thought you were saying 'choice 1' for the second choice.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

84. AAAAKKKKK. MIND WARP. I READ THE OPTIONS BACKWARDS.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Qibing Zero]

17. Not sure what you're trying to prove here

Obviously, not every person in every movement is the same. Some go to more drastic measures, some are in disguise and really pushing other goals, etc etc.

Iraq right now is basically a civil war, with all sides against not only each other, but the US as well. I really don't see what trying to label every person fighting is going to prove.

[ET Awful]

20. It helps catapult the propaganda of course.

Didn't you know that? :evilgrin:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. It's Propoganda To Cite The Fact That Not All Acts Of Terror Fall

Under the Rubric Of Freedom Fighting...


I guess it's a better argument than the argument that the terrorists were merely murderers because they were kind (sic) enough to take the teachers out back and shoot em...

[ET Awful]

26. Unless your position is that any killing of anyone for any purpose

outside of a uniformed military attack is terrorism, then once again your argument is ill-founded.

Unless you can prove that the intent was to instill terror, you cannot legitimately lable it as anything but murder. If they killed these teachers because they were Shia, it would be ethnic cleansing, not necessarily terrorism. If they killed them because they taught something contrary to Islam, it could be termed as carrying out Sharia law, not necessarily terrorism.

Why must you try to label every violent act as terrorism? Murder is murder. Because one group of people kills another group of people does not, by the mere fact that they killed people, make it terrorism.

Is a US soldier who beats a detainee to death a terrorist, a murderer or both? It could be argued that he does it to instill fear in other detainees or in the populace? Does that make him a terrorist?

[Qibing Zero]

30. Exactly - this is why the word 'terrorist' has become so misused. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. Your position makes more sense than mine. Can I switch?

(By the way: get you mind out of the gutter, pervs.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. That's A Great Use Of A Strawman But Easily,Easily Defeated

Create an argument and argue against it...


Terrorists commit destructive and violent acts to scare people into acceding to their wishes...


The current instance is a perfect example...


If you want to give me examples of killing and ask me if I think it is terrorism, murder, freedom fighting, involuntary manslaughter, or justifiable homicide I'll be glad to play....

[ET Awful]

46. Hmm . . . terrorists commit destructive and violent acts to scare people

into acceeding to their wishes. . . . three words for you. . .

Shock and Awe.

You were saying?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. But but but but it's DIFFERENT! It's the GOOD GUYS doing it so it's OK!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Qibing Zero]

27. Yours is a null argument in the first place, though

Does ANYONE know the goal of the 'insurgants' that killed these teachers in the first place? No.

They were most likely just fighting some kind of ideology the teachers supposedly taught that they, or their superiors, disagreed with. That's not terrorism nor is it freedom fighting - it's simply sickening killing.

[ET Awful]

31. Exactly my point.

Unless you KNOW those who carried out the murders, or have proof of exactly what their intent was, to label it as anything other than murder is pure conjecture.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. They Were Trying To Instill Terror...

You don't need a PHD in International Relations from Johns Hopkins University to see they were trying to use indiscriminate violence to destroy civil society...


By dressing as cops and killing teachers they make folks fearful of the police and teachers scared to come to work...


But it's larger than that because everybody's skeered...

[ET Awful]

38. I see . . .so you know for a fact that those teachers weren't teaching

something contrary to Sharia law, or collaborating with US troops (which would be considered treason by many Iraqis) or any number of other potential violations.

You just say that because one group of people killed another group of people, they're terrorists.

You have yet to provide anything other than your own opinion, I've seen no facts.

Until I see FACTS, they are murderers, nothing more, nothing less.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Ttat's easy...

Until I see FACTS, they are murderers, nothing more, nothing less

I'm working with the facts in evidence..

Men masquerading as cops killed six school teachers in an area fraught with insurgent activity...

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, or quacks like a duck it's a duck...

[ET Awful]

55. Two men dressed in Iraq police garb are arrested by Iraqi Police

and are of British origin. Iraqis are killed by British military attempting to break them out of prison.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may in fact be a pigeon.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Conflating Different Issues Does Not An Argument Make...

I was careful in confining my poll to a specific instance to delineate the difference between legitimate and illegitamate resistance...


For instance in WW2 Belarusian partisans blew up bridges, railway stations, and military stations...

IMHO, that was legitimate resistance...


If they blew up schools, hospitals, nurseries, nursing homes etcetera thsat would be illegitimate resistance...

[ET Awful]

69. There is NO evidence presented as to who these individuals were

they were simply dressed in Iraqi Police uniforms.

Unless there is proof of who they are, what their motives are, etc., you cannot unilaterally label them as terrorists.

All we know is that some people killed some other people. We do NOT know if those individuals doing the killing were who the initial reports say they were, we do NOT know why they killed these particular people, we do NOT know any facts other than some people dressed one way killed some people.

We do know that in the recent past, there have been cases of British troops being arrested dressed as Iraqis and being placed in an Iraqi prison. We know this has happened. We do know that there have been other reports saying insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi police. We know all these things, but we do NOT know who, when wearing Iraqi police uniforms, attacked and killed these teachers.

We don't know motive, we don't know reason, all we know is that some people were killed.

It's very easy to toss out labels without proof and based completely on conjecture.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. Let's Not Be Obtuse...

These are the undisputed facts...


Six men masquerading as policemen killed six school teachers in an area rife with sectarian violence.... Based on history, experience, and common sense this is most likely an act of

a) involuntary manslaughter

b) justifiable homicide

c) homicide

d) terrorism


Only in a parallel universe would more than one person answer other than d...

[ET Awful]

95. Once again, you only present half the facts and then draw conclusions

based on faulty evidence.

Based on history, experience and common sense, there have also been arrests of people pretending to be insurgents wearing Iraqi garb arrested recently in just such areas rife with sectarian violence.

To attempt to present your argument and leave that out is flat out dishonest.

Your argument is flawed. You're using a 2 + 2 = 5 argument. What you should be looking at is a 2 + 2 + x = y. You don't know enough facts to draw a conclusion. Until you do, you cannot label it as anything but Z, no matter how much you wish to use the label of T.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. Hmmmm

"Based on history, experience and common sense, there have also been arrests of people pretending to be insurgents wearing Iraqi garb arrested recently in just such areas rife with sectarian violence.'


Isn't that akin to the argument that since innocent men are arrested and convicted that every man in prison must be innocent...

And we laugh at our predecessors who argued "about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"...


Here's a nice link to Occam's Razor..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

In laymans terms when you eliminate all the possibilites the most logical possibility is usually correct

or to once again use a well worn colloqialism "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and squalks like a duck it's a duck."

[ET Awful]

119. Unless it's a pigeon dressed like a duck.

You are drawing conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

In fact your whole "duck" argument is quite similar to the excuses presented to "justify" the invasion in the first place.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. Please....

One could nover rely on principles such as Occam's Razor to support the Iraq invasion....

[ET Awful]

146. Odd, the walks like a duck argument is EXACTLY what warmongers

were utilizing to justify invasion. They said that since he had owned WMD's in the past, had not proved that WMD's had been destroyed, had Al Samoud II rockets, etc., the WMD's MUST still exist . . . quack, quack, quack.

Your argument holds as much water as a sieve.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. I Don't Think So

"Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simplest.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions"


We are in the Twilight Zone now.......


Refering to William Of Ocham and his theory Occam's Razor as a justification for the war is bizzare...


William of Ocham would say that since nobody could find WMDS in Iraq they probably didn't have any....


It's one thing to argue with somebody on the internets... It's another to argue with a man who created a theory as elegent in its simplicitry as William Of Ocham....

I am sure in the fullness of time you will see the error of your ways and embrace with to the essence of your being Mr. Ocham's theory....

[ET Awful]

181. See post 175. n/t

[Marie26]

164. No way

Occam's Razor: Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.

Example - In 2002, UN inspectors cannot find any WMD after extensive searches of Iraq.
Occam's Razor - No WMD are found, because none exist.
Bush's rationale - No WMD are found, because they have been hidden in super-secret spots and shipped in rolling weapons labs to Syria! Which one was correct?

Example: Gunmen, disguised as Iraqi police, shoot teachers outside a school. This violence occurs in a country full of insurgents who have often killed Iraqi civilians, and have also disguised themselves as police in the past.
Occam's Razor - The gunmen were insurgents.
Or, rationale - They were maybe British soldiers who for some reason decided to murder teachers & also disguised themselves as police to discredit their own war effort & also looked Iraqi. Or maybe they were someone else who suddenly decided to murder random teachers for no reason. Anything but insurgents!

Which one makes more sense?

[Marie26]

59. This is terrorism

They are terrorists. This killing follows the same pattern as all the other civilian murders - kill Iraqis who participate in the new government, in any way. They kill policemen, teachers in the new schools, politicians serving in the government. This "terrifies" people into not participating in the US-led government. That's their goal. I think to nitpick and say that they are not "terrorists" because the murders were not in view of the children is sort of cold-blooded & borderline apologist. They weren't trying to terrify the children; they were trying to terrify adult Iraqis who are teaching or participating in the new government. It had the same goal of any terrorist - using violence to coerce & advance an ideological agenda. That's the fact.

Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: Terrorism - the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.

[Qibing Zero]

62. So then by your logic, murder is terrorism by default? nt

[Marie26]

70. Nope

Nope. Murder isn't terrorism, because the murderer is trying to terrify one person - the victim. The victim's death is the main goal of a murderer. To a terrorist, the victim is basically a side effect towards their main goal - a political/religious agenda. The violence is aimed at COERCION - the true target isn't the victim, but everyone else. Terrorists are trying to modify the behaviors & choices & freedoms of everyone else, & kill some people at random in order to accomplish that. The teachers weren't chosen because of their actions, or personality, or anything. They were chosen in order to stop other Iraqis from becoming teachers. "Iraqis" in general were the real targets.

[Qibing Zero]

79. I'm glad you could infer all of that from a simple news report.

No one knows what the actual motives of those people were. No one knows what organization they belonged to (if any) or why exactly they were killing teachers.

You have a very strict definition of murder. Murder is done with set goals in mind, and those goals are very, very often to prove a point. You're trying to label anyone who doesn't kill a single victim with purposes only to affect that single person a terrorist. That means the vast majority of murders are terror crimes, and we should be arresting murderers under Patriot Act laws.

See how dangerous this is?

[Marie26]

100. What I'm saying is...

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying violence + ideological agenda = terrorist. I like tigersumtin's definition below: "Any individual or group who would kill an innocent person or persons for a purpose other than self defense, is a murderer; any person who kills innocent people to make a point or instill fear is a Murdering Terrorist." If they killed those teachers, they're murderers; if they killed the teachers to make Iraqis afraid to work for the governement, they're terrrorists. None of us KNOW their true purpose - if this was disgruntled former students, you're right, they're not terrorists. If this was insurgents acting to stop Iraqis from participating in the schools, they're terrorists.

I tend to believe this was insurgents - not just based on this news account, but from the many, many accounts of insurgents killing civilians. In all these cases, the motive was to make Iraqis afraid to participate in the new "democracy" there.

You seem to have a very strict definition of terrorism. You're trying to label men who kill innocent civilians to terrorize a population as "not terrorists." That means that they might be seen instead as "freedom fighters" and the killings can be justified as part of a "just cause". See how dangerous that is?

Would you agree that if in fact these teachers were killed as an "example" to stop Iraqis from working for the new gov., that that is terrorism?

[Qibing Zero]

135. Not true. As I've said, this isn't black and white.

I'm trying NOT to label anyone here. I'm not making any judgements on it unless I have more information on my side.

Also, I don't see what point is being made even if we are able to call these people terrorists. Does that help us 'stay the course'? Does it give weight to the fact there are terrorists out there and we need to fight them?

Most importantly: how does it help us fight the REAL problem - the problem of our government being responsible for all of this, as well as countless other atrocities?

[Marie26]

159. My question

You still haven't answered my question. Assuming the hypothetical (not proven) - if these gunmen were in fact Iraqi insurgents, whose motive was to terrorize Iraqis into not participating in the government, would that be terrorism?

Here's the point. You just seem to be very reluctant to label these guys terrorists, & I think it's cause you have a larger agenda that you just revealed in your last post. You seem to think that if we call the insurgents "terrorists" that that helps Bush, or helps justify the Iraqi war, or covers up atrocities by our own government. But we need to tell the truth - terrorism is terrorism, & it doesn't matter which side you're on. I'm an environmentalist, but if a environmental group blows up a logging site, that's terrorism. I'm against the war in Iraq - but if opponents to the occupation are killing innocent civilians to make a point, that's terrorism. We can't label something "terrorism" or not based on whether we support their agenda. If you do that, you are falling into a slippery slope of justifying their actions. To be fair, to be right, the law needs to have an objective view - and decide who is a "terrorist" based not on their agenda, but on their actions.

[Qibing Zero]

184. No, you're missing the point entirely.

By default I thought my last post answered that question - of course they're terrorists. I didn't say it directly because I thought it was pretty obviously inferred.

I'm not avoiding anything - I'm asking you why we have to label these people in the first place. Are we too blind to notice that there are all sorts of people fighting in Iraq, and that there are no lines drawn? I thought it was common knowledge that there were many many different sides to the fighting there, and that what we were fighting against was the Iraqi peoples themselves being labelled as terrorists.

I'm not calling everyone there freedom fighters, just like you're not calling everyone there terrorists. The government is saying everyone that is fighting there is a terrorist, however, and they are doing that to further their goals. We're having a long drawn out discussion about if a group of people (whom we know nothing about) are terrorists or not? How exactly is that helping?

This is a much deeper issue, and that's what I've been saying from the start. Why can't we focus on the real issue of the use of terrorism by our own government?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. Tell me how's it possible to kill six people WITHOUT inflicting terror -nt

[ET Awful]

45. I wonder how much terror the 100,000 plus deaths caused since

the invasion instilled.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right...

Bush is responsible for the invasion and breakdown of civil society...


My small point is that the terrorists are evil... That's all...

[Qibing Zero]

61. I find it funny how you avoid saying bush is responsible for DEATH.

And 'the terrorists' have yet to be defined. By your same logic wouldn't bushco be evil as well?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. I Never Said Bush Doesn't Deserve Responsiblity...

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is really the predicate for this mess so both Saddam and Bush* are culpable...

But that's not what my poll was about...


I was careful to limit my question to a specific act as to delineate the difference between legitimate and illegitimate resistance and disabuse some folks of the dangerous assumption that all so called freedom fighters are noble...

Nutting noble about killin skewel teachers...

[Qibing Zero]

75. The problem is we don't even know who those people were.

Not every person in Iraq is fighting for freedom from occupation and not every person is fighting because they're mean evil-spirited bastards who just like killing.

The situation is just much too complicated for labels like these. It just fuels the black and white, good and evil mock-dispute that bushco wants us to fall into. We simply just do not know the motives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. You Are Missing My Point...

That's why I confined my question to a specific instance to delineate illegitimate from legitimate resistance...


I didn't make the assertion that everybody who resists American authority is a terrorist because that couldn't be further from my position.....


I'm just saying that killing school teachers to scare people is a very, very bad thing...

[Qibing Zero]

But why focus on a situation like that,

when we are responsible for putting all of this into motion? Why villianize them? That's exactly what this administration seeks to do every single day, just to justify their causes. What are we proving by focusing on this when we should be focusing on removing from office the people who put this entire situation into place?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

138. Because Terrorism Would Exist Even If Kerry Was President

We need an effective strategy of fighting terrorists....


You can't fight terror because terror is a tactic.....

[Qibing Zero]

148. Then find a way to fight the terrorism evident in this country first.

It's right here in front of us. Is fighting the vague 'terrorists' more important than fighting the terrorists in our country responsible for creating so many others?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Are pilots who drop bombs that killl civilians "terrorists"?

How about artillerymen? Just plain grunts who shoot up cars full civilians? How about those that impose "sanctions" that starve civilians?

It's all murder, no matter how "just" the cause may seem to the murderers.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I Think One Can Distinguish Between Legitmate And Illegitimate Resistance

eom

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Yes, one can.

In the cold war, resistance against the other side was considered legitimate, and resistance against one's side was considered illegitimate.

I'm sure such a pattern of "reasoning" has another name, but I can't recall it. Some word with a prefix that reminds "horse".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Does That Mean All Forms Of Resistance Are Legitimate.?

How about blowing up nurseries?


hospitals?


nursing homes?


airliners?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

60. Your mind-reading helmet is malfuncioning. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Nah

You implied that resistance can be justified by the desirability or the undesirability of the larger target; that it's somehow a scam.... That during the Cold War acts by Americans against the Russians were justified and vice versa...


But some acts are so horrific they can never be justified....


Like dressing up as cops and killing school teachers...


Killing fucking schoool teachers....

That is cold........

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. I never once uttered the word "justified"

This thread is about is giving a violent act its correct name.

You're fishing for "evil leftists." There ain't none here. Try another lake.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. Well

"You're fishing for "evil leftists." There ain't none here. Try another lake"

A little projection there... That's ok...


Stay on topic....



Kisses....

[MildyRules]

28. If you'd like to call our pilots murderers,

how about rolling up to the nearest USAF base and do it there instead of here on DU?

[Qibing Zero]

32. Looks to have hit home hard enough here.

It's a subject worth debating.

[MildyRules]

35. Actually it's not worth debating at all

Seems like a lot of people of a problem understanding the element of intent; something that MUST be present for a murder to have been committed.

[ET Awful]

42. Sooooo . . . you're saying that someone who drops a bomb from a plane

doesn't intend to kill anyone?

Rather naive don't you think?

I just dropped that cluster bomb in that population center, I didn't think it would actually kill anybody. . . .

Sounds just a tad ridiculous doesn't it?

[MildyRules]

47. I'm saying that

unless he/she intended to kill innocents, correct; he/she is not a murderer.

[ET Awful]

49. If you drop a cluster bomb in a civilian population center and think

you aren't going to kill civilians, you're naive, a fool, or both. I would be more likely to label the one ordering the bombing as a murderer than the one actually carrying it out, but if you honestly believe that someone dropping a bomb doesn't know they're killing civilians, you're willfully blind.

[MildyRules]

71. So are you in fact calling our pilots

murderers or terrorists or both? There are hundreds of pilots who have dropped many bombs who have never killed a civilian. Also, cluster bombs are not normally used in "population centers." They are most effective against troops in the field.

[Qibing Zero]

87. Is it no longer murder when done on the battlefield? nt

[MildyRules]

96. Yes. When one

is targeting an enemy combatant, legally and morally, it is not murder.

[Qibing Zero]

104. That's a truly sad way of looking at things. I pity you.

What is that form of killing called then? 'Ethical' murder?

Were we right in blowing to pieces the Iraqi troops that put up resistance against our attacks?


I don't understand how people can say that offensive, invasive, pre-emptive war is not murder.

[MildyRules]

106. It's called war.

I didn't say I liked it, nor wish to wage it; but it's not murder.

[Qibing Zero]

140. It is when the reasons for it are bullshit.

I can argue against nearly any 'justification' for war, but in this case it's blatantly obvious. When you say 'unlawful war', that means murder, plain and simple.

[MildyRules]

145. So you're one

who considers out soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines murderers then? Thanks. I know how to handle the rest of your posts now.

[Qibing Zero]

152. I kinda figured that was your whole base from the start,

but if it breaks your little heart that some of us out there think that offensive wars are murder and those who participate are murderers, then I once again pity you.

I'm sorry. My individual ethics are more important than a blind oath, and yes, if I was in the military and was called to fight in this war, I would NOT be going.

If I somehow bought into the lies and thought that we were actually protecting America and in that case went, I would be gone in short time, and when I realized I killed others for lies, I don't think I could ever live with myself. The first injured person passed or the first lost child passed without help, I would be offering a big 'fuck you' and would probably be shot for deserting as I went to try and help.

[ET Awful]

89. Do you actually read before you hit reply?

Seriously? Do you?

I'm going to have to conclude that you don't since every reply you post either takes things out of context or ignores the entire post that you reply to . . . let's try quoting EXACTLY what I said:

"I would be more likely to label the one ordering the bombing as a murderer than the one actually carrying it out."

As far as hundreds of pilots dropping bombs have never killed civilians . . . if they dropped bombs on cities, the odds of them NOT having killed civilians is pretty slim. When you bomb cities, civilians tend to die. Bombs don't look around and say . . . hey, I can't send shrapnel in that direction, there's a civilian standing there.

[MildyRules]

94. Your remark was

"I would be more likely to label the one ordering the bombing as a murderer than the one actually carrying it out."

That doesn't say that you don't consider the pilots murderers. Are you saying that you don't? Which is it? Are they or aren't they? I say no. What say you?

[ET Awful]

105. Tell you what, find one place where I said pilots were murderers

You won't find it.

In fact, all you will find is me saying repeatedly that your presumption that a pilot dropping a bomb in a population center doesn't know he's killing civilians is naive.

Nope, I don't consider pilots to be murderers, but they DO know that they are killing innocent people. They have to know this because they are not stupid. If you drop a bomb on a building in downtown Baghdad that has residences surrounding it, odds are civilians are going to die.

To pretend otherwise is to be willfully blind to facts.

You do a wonderful job of twisting words and taking quotes out of context . . . do you work for the media?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

109. Putting words on people's mouth

seems de rigueur in this thread.

[MildyRules]

113. Actually ,I was not putting words into anyone's mouth

The OP to which I answered on this sub-thread said this:

"Are pilots who drop bombs that killl civilians "terrorists"? How about artillerymen? Just plain grunts who shoot up cars full civilians? How about those that impose "sanctions" that starve civilians? It's all murder, no matter how "just" the cause may seem to the murderers."

That's calling our pilots murderers.

[ET Awful]

117. You then, in turn, attacked me as if I had said they were murderers

which I did not say. You did indeed put words in my mouth, and then twisted what I have said (which makes two threads you've done this in today).

[MildyRules]

127. No I did not

I asked you IF you considered them murderers (the OP did). You never did answer the question.

[MildyRules]

110. So, for the record,

you do not consider our pilots murderers, correct?

[ET Awful]

122. Did I not just say that?

Are you simply typing to increase your post count?

Once again, do you READ before you reply, or do you just click and spew?

[MildyRules]

131. No you did NOT say that

You said you'd be more likely to call those who ordered the bombing to be murders. That doesn't mean you still would not call the pilots murderers--you just consider their superiors to be MORE culpable. How about a yes or no answer?

[ET Awful]

134. Bye bye. Your willingness to twist words and ignore replies

other than for purposes of further manipulation has earned you a place on the ignore list.

I tend to only engage in debate with people who do NOT willfully twist words and ignore what they are being told.

I would suggest you go back up to the posts above and note the following:

"Nope, I don't consider pilots to be murderers, but they DO know that they are killing innocent people."

Your dishonesty is amazing.

[MildyRules]

139. You still have not grasped the fact that

INTENT is an element of murder, have you?

[0rganism]

112. Isn't this distinction rooted in your definition of "innocents"?

Bummer that it's not a universally-defined premise. I'm sure if the terrorists could be convinced to hold exactly the same definition as you, they'd be too busy blowing each other up to have much time for killing anyone else.

[MildyRules]

116. You have trouble defining innocents?

Funny, I don't.

[ET Awful]

125. Odd, considering you seem to be under the impression that US bombs

don't kill innocents, you seem to make a completely different distinction than most.

[MildyRules]

133. They do kill innocents

I've never disputed that. What's at issue is is that killing purposeful. Were innocents TARGETED. It's called intent. Without intent, it's not "murder" by definition.

[0rganism]

129. Yeah, that is Funny.

You know everything there is to know about guilt and innocence. Hmm. Does that make you God, an angel, or merely one of His earthbound prophets?

Lay it out, then. Obviously, I have not been so lucky as to be enlightened by the Divine Flame. Tell me exactly how to define "innocent", in such a way that there is NO room for disagreements rooted in political or cultural divisions.

[MildyRules]

142. Why don't you read up on

LOAC? Then you'll know the difference. It's about combatant status. I was using innocent as another word for non-combatant. I should have made that clear.

[Qibing Zero]

50. Murder is murder, whether or not you approve of the killing done.

Intent just means premeditation, not whether the objective is 'good' or 'bad'.

[MildyRules]

74. Intent is an element of murder

without intent, it is not murder. Can't be.

[Qibing Zero]

83. And you just repeated what I said.

Yes, intent has to be there, but 'intent' does not mean 'bad intent' or 'good intent'. It simply means intent.

[MildyRules]

98. Intent means,

in this case, an intent to kill innocents/non-combatants. Without such intent, it is not murder.

[Qibing Zero]

111. I misunderstood...

I assumed we were on the same page in thinking that we were wrong for going to war in the first place.

And as has been stated - dropping a large bomb and thinking no civilians will be harmed is more than naive, it's stupid.

[MildyRules]

118. We were wrong for going to war

That doesn't make our pilots murderers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. I have told pilots they're murderers, to their faces.

I was in the airwing in the Marines and debated a couple of them on their function. Their job, like any soldier's primary job, is to kill people. Not out of hatred, or self-defense, or any of the other rationalizations used to justify murder. They kill people because they're told to.

That's why they carry guns and fly planes with bombs.

[MildyRules]

102. If you can't understand

the difference between murder and killing an enemy combatant, I'm certainly glad you're out of the Marine Corps. But I do understand why you were a Marine.

[ET Awful]

107. So now you're saying that the only people ever killed by US bombs

are enemy combatants?

[0rganism]

The new Smart Bombs are trained to avoid civilian casualties

The era of "drag and drop" bombing is over. Our new and improved Smart Bombs are extensively drilled in foreign customs and international relations, so they can actually conduct extensive research and reconaissance before exploding. Then, they carefully position their shrapnel so as to destroy only enemy combatants and their equipment. Thus, you can be assured that if anyone dies because of such a bomb, they are currently an enemy combatant, were an enemy combatant at some point in the past, or (and this goes to show you just how smart these bombs really are) would become enemy combatants sometime in the future.

[ET Awful]

126. So what you're saying is . . . airport security trained the smart bombs to

perform racial profiling?

[0rganism]

144. Oh it's better than racial profiling, it's precognitive mental profiling!

These bombs are so Smart, they know exactly which civilians are going to become enemy combatants! If a bomb falls next to a nursery, and half the infants in the building are killed, you can rest assured that is precisely the half that would have become enemy combatants. These are Very Smart Bombs, built with the latest in Ultra-Rocket-Science-Brain-Surgery MegaTechnology. Hell, some of these bombs have had their PhD dissertations published in peer-reviewed journals of psychology, physics, and foreign relations.

We Spare No Expense, only the best will do in upholding the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

[ET Awful]

150. LMFAO . . . I nominate this for best post of the day

:evilgrin:

[MildyRules]

123. Nope, I didn't say that at all

I'm saying that they can kill people (combatants on purpose, innocents by accident) and NOT be murderers. Period. If they do TARGET civilians ON PURPOSE, that's a different story.

[ET Awful]

130. If you drop a bomb on a target in a city where civilians live, you can't

NOT kill civilians. It's impossible.

When you drop bombs on cities, civilians die. Civilians live in cities, when things explode, people tend to get hurt, some even die.

To pretend otherwise is naive.

Are pilots murderers? I would say no, though the Nuremberg tribunals would probably argue that "I was just following orders" is no defense. Are those that order them to bomb murderers? I would say that yes, they are.

[MildyRules]

136. Thank you for answering the question

You are right. Our pilots are not murderers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

173. Enemy combatants? How naive can you be?

Whose "enemy" are you referring to? Yours? The US government's designated "enemy"?

Ever hear of "collateral damage" that lovely euphamism for people murdered by bombs, artillery, or riflemen? There have been millions of them killed by the United States alone.

Call it what you like. Killing people is murder.

BTW I'm damned glad I'm out of the marine crotch. You have no idea why I joined.

[tigersumtin]

34. how about

Murdering, terrorist. Scum sucking Gutter Whores who are equivalent to the s---t I scrape off my shoes. Hows that work.

[Greyhound]

40. Or how about Another Clusterfuck brought to you by the folks at*.Co? n/t

[Skidmore]

51. Maybe those "insurgents dressed as Iraqi police" were

British operatives--or American. I don't trust anything that comes out in the news these days. They lie. They lie. They lie. Alot.

[tigersumtin]

72. In reference

to what they are, not who they are. Any individual or group who would
kill an innocent person or persons for a purpose other than self defense, is a murderer, any person who kills innocent people to make a point or instill fear is a Murdering Terrorist.

[Skidmore]

78. I would say that makes an aggressor in an act of war a

terrorist as well.

[tigersumtin]

81. If The Shoe Fits

[ET Awful]

90. Once again, three words . . .

Shock and Awe.

[0rganism]

147. or maybe they *were* Iraqi police

I see no obvious reason to suppose that they obtained their uniforms illegitimately.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. Opposing Bush And Opposing Terrorists Are Not Mutually Exclusive

We're finished, doomed, kaput, if they are....

[Qibing Zero]

91. How long have terrorists been around,

and why is it all the sudden a big deal for the world to be fighting them? Terrorism has ALWAYS been a problem, and one that you cannot fight by starting wars.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. But If The Terrorist Strikes You You Are Obliged To Strike Him Back...

Before you respond to something I didn't say and waste alot of skinner's bandwidth please do not construe this statement as an endorsement of any specific response by any party...

[ET Awful]

114. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi man whose child was killed by a US

bombing raid. Who is the terrorist and who are you obliged to strike back at?

Say your brother was killed by Iraqi defense forces trained by US troops , who is the terrorist and who are you obliged to strike back at?

Say your sister was killed by shrapnel from a US artillery shell which was indirectly detonated by an IED near her home . . . who is the terrorist and who do you strike back at?

What if your cousin was beaten to death at Abu Ghraib after being arrested by US forces who were given false information by some Shia muslims who were paid for the information that he was an "insurgent". Who is the terrorist and who do you strike back at?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. I Would Want The Blood Of The Perp In Every Instance

I would want to give them a karate kick to the chest that dislodged their heart from its cavity and show it to them before they died.....

But we are getting far afield from the exercise of this post which was to delineate legitmate from illegitmate forms of resistance....

Was John Brown an abolotionist or a murderer?

How bout Nat Turner....

I'm just trying to see when resistance of evil becomes evil of itself...

[ET Awful]

143. So, if that Shia muslim that sold your cousin by lying about him

being an insurgent was say . . . a teacher . . . would you go after him? No, I'm not saying that's the case here, merely one of a thousand possibilities.

Do you KNOW that the victims in this case were innocents? No. Do you KNOW what the motivation of the perpetrators was? No.

You are drawing conclusions based on presumptions.

As I said many times, the only thing we know for a FACT is that some people were killed by some other people. Anything else is conjecture.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

149. Let's Assume For The Sake Of A Discussion

that the six men who were masquerading as policemen killed six school teachers...

This conversation once again is going back to it's "how many angels can dance on a head of o a pin" character...


Look at your monitorO C C A M 'S RAZOR and repeat very slowly O C C A M 'S RAZOR


O C C A M 'S RAZOR

O C C A M 'S RAZOR



The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Occam's surviving writings. This also applies to non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "pluralities ought not be supposed without necessity".


or

"When you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

[ET Awful]

153. So, by that same standard, if a store clerk is killed in Compton, CA

because gang members have killed store clerks in the past, and it is an area rife with gang problems, the killer of the store clerk must be a gang member.

Or, to go one step further, following your logic is exactly what led authorities to wast time looking for muslim extremists when they already had Timothy McVeigh in custody down the road.

You are attempting to draw conclusions based on insufficient facts. You can keep your Occam's Razor and your extrapolated BS.

I prefer FACTS, there are NO facts here other than some people killed some other people in a region where people are killed daily. That's all, nothing more.

When you have FACTS, come talk to me. Don't give me conjecture and theoretical gobbledigook.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. Logic

"Don't give me conjecture and theoretical gobbledigook"

"For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions."


Calling logic theoretical gobbledigook doesn't help your argument...


Everybody that does investigations from pathologists to police detectives rely on the principle adduced by William Of Ocham...

By trying to undermine the credibility of William Of Ocham you are sadly undermining your own...

[The Stranger]

161. Citing Occam's Razor here -- regarding a news story where all of the facts

are still being investigated -- could be considered laughable -- if only it rose to that level.

Occam's Razor is not some sort of rhetorical device that is cited to prevent real questioning and factual investigation. Who was dressed as what and murdering whom for what reasons is not a question of "pluralities" but one of realities.

Good grief.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

166. Afraid Not

Not only does Occam's Razor bolster my argument but so does circumstantial evidence...

If I wake up and my lawn is wet it most likely means it rained or possibly my sprinkler went off...

Postulating that spiders from Mars urinatied on my lawn would violate the principles of Occam's Razor or circumstantial evidence...

[The Stranger]

168. Please.

You don't assume anything when you can simply go outside and ascertain the reason why your lawn became wet.

Sitting inside and trying to use Occam's Razor to bolster false assumptions (when investigation can prove or disprove them) is an exercise in self-deception. This is not Occam's Razor.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

171. See Below...

Nobody said it's the only explanation just the most likely one....

That's all William of Ocham said....


It saves time....


If a man is shot and the cops ask him who shot him and he said a tall white guy then they can exclude Gary Coleman....


If you don't think that the most likely explanation is the correct explanation there is nothing I or William of Ocham can do to disabuse you of that notion and any further discussion would be a waste of Skinner's bandwidth and an exercise in intellectual vanity....

[The Stranger]

175. Wrong.

Occam's Razor simply stands for the principle that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Your misapplication seeks to elminate possibilities without any investigation whatsoever.

Further, evidence is nearly always conflicting, and assuming one piece is dispositive proof per se is unsupportable. Calling this Occam's Razor is indefensible.

Cite to scarcity of bandwidth to save face (if you must).

[ET Awful]

180. Nicely put. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

167. Thanks To Mari 26

"Example: Gunmen, disguised as Iraqi police, shoot teachers outside a school. This violence occurs in a country full of insurgents who have often killed Iraqi civilians, and have also disguised themselves as police in the past.
Occam's Razor - The gunmen were insurgents.
Or, rationale - They were maybe British soldiers who for some reason decided to murder teachers & also disguised themselves as police to discredit their own war effort & also looked Iraqi. Or maybe they were someone else who suddenly decided to murder random teachers for no reason. Anything but insurgents!

Which one makes more sense?"


The ghost of William Of Ocham is very much alive....

[ET Awful]

182. That argument only works if you leave out the recent arrest and

subsequent breaking out of prison of British soldiers dressed as Iraqi police engaged in illegal behavior.

Of course for your argument to work, you HAVE to leave out facts.

[Qibing Zero]

128. When has this happened in the past?

Who has struck back at what terrorists?

How would you suppose we strike back at 'the terrorists'?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. Like any other perp....

"Who has struck back at what terrorists?

How would you suppose we strike back at 'the terrorists'"



Like any other perp....


You find em and incarcerate em or kill em...

[Qibing Zero]

154. Then why all the sudden do we need new action against this?

If it's just like the criminal justice system, why is it now a big deal?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. It's Complex

because you have nation states that harbor terrorists.....

[Qibing Zero]

172. As opposed to states with terrorists at their head? :D nt

[tigersumtin]

101. I think the big push

to kill terrorist started a few years back on 9/11.

[MildyRules]

103. You're 100% right about that.

We can do BOTH!

[CBGLuthier]

115. Maybe they were just coalition soldiers on a mission

Until the incident of a week ago is explained, all acts of terrorism in Iraq are suspect to me. As far a I am concerned British and American soldiers are just as likely to be behind this as insurgents.

[tigersumtin]

120. absolutely

Who really Knows? Very Sad Sad Situation.

[porphyrian]

121. Freedom fighters intentionally kill military targets...

...not civilian teachers. Terrorists intentionally kill civilians.

[Guaranteed]

157. That's exactly right. Terrorists kill civilians for the purpose

of terrorizing the civilian population.

[Qibing Zero]

160. Terrorists don't pick and choose targets based on moral principles.

Civilian, military, whatever. They pick targets based on who they're trying to scare and what will have the largest effect.

Stop trying to create arbitrary definitions like this - they don't help at all.

[Mark E. Smith]

124. Neither

The truth is somewhere in between.

[jzodda]

151. umm freedom fighters kill teachers?

In my view they are terrorists no matter who they kill, as they do not even want to give what is being tried there a chance.

BUT

Killing teachers? 15% think they are freedom fighters too lol. I would hate to know any of those people in real life :)

[Guaranteed]

158. Maybe the teachers gave them detention. nt

[DuaneBidoux]

177. U.S purposely nuked civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden was purp

osely targeting civilians by Allied forces. When ever we have done it it is historically called "war."

[Sparkman]

155. IF they indeed purposely shot non-combatants, TERRORISTS.

BUT...that's only a few people doing the insane killing of innocents.
millions of Iraqis AND "foreign" people in Iraq are not killing ANYONE, which is more than you can say about the US military that invaded/bombed/gunned down/rocketed/straiffed at the becon call of the neo-con imperialists in power in D.C.

[Dark]

163. C.) Monsters

Killing people who have done nothing to you is wrong.

Killing innocent people who are trying to help improve your country?

Evil. Just. Plain. Evil.

[tigersumtin]

170. Reminds me

MONSTERS: the current Administration {henchmen) there is no difference?

[Dark]

174. Is no difference between whom?

The administration and Terrorists? Hmmm. . .Bush IS bad, but he doesn't specifically target innocents. At least, as far as I know. But he carries the blood of many on his hands, and I hope there is a God to make him atone for the many murders committed in his name.

But if you're comparing the murderous terrorists to our troops, you're just mistaken. Our troops don't target civilians. They try to help them. It's not the troops fault that they're getting shot at.

What do you want the troops to do? Just let themselves get shot to pieces?

Or perhaps lay down their guns, get shot to pieces, and then the survivors can get dishonorably discharged and work as janitors in Wal-Mart?

The terrorists target civilians. The troops don't. Civilians get caught in the crossfire, and it truly is a tradgedy, but that IS war. I wish we weren't in a war now, but we are. And we have no choice but to respond.

[tigersumtin]

179. I Am not

Referring to our Troops, brave men and women, who answered the call, under the false pretense that they are helping improve our country. The people who sent them in harms way are the fucking Terrorist not our Troops. Lets pull our troops out now! I know several kids that have been deployed and I Know in my heart that they would never kill for anything other than self defense, Thanks to the B**# administration those kids, when they come back will never be the same. All I can say is that this war is wrong people die. Others should be held accountable.

[Walt Starr]

165. Given the recent events, they were probably British SAS

so I can't vote in your poll.

[ET Awful]

183. I wouldn't say probably, but I WOULD say possibly, which renders

the poll invalid until ALL facts are presented.

[DuaneBidoux]

176. Both choices are bad. We are in the middle of a civil war. n/t

[indigo32]

178. Wow

I'm just going to say this seems a poll that is loaded with assumptions.

[Moderator]

185. Locking

we already have one such poll and it's a borderline flame war as it is.