Is terrorism Ok? (If the US is doing it?)

Quote:
invssgt wrote:

The difference between us and them is simple- 'us' needs to win, by whatever means available. I am much less concerned about the methods used in fighting to win, as opposed to fighting some half-assed war which we don't lose- but never win.

And somewhere in cyberspace there's probably someone writing the same thing about "winning by any means necessary" in Arabic or Farsi. Of course, you'd label him a terrorist.

(And just so you know, I agree that we do need to win, just not by "whatever means available.")
Warbow

I'll guarantee you they're 'out' there, and not just in cyberspace. They are blowing up their children (along with ours) and other relatives, because they believe it will further their cause. Meanwhile, a substantial number on our side are peeing down their leg, worrying about 'racial profiling' and Marquis D'Queensbury Rules.

We have air superiority and substantial technologial warfare advantages, which are not indefinite. We have naval superiority. Every day we wait to use them, is a day that the enemy gains on those advantages. The enemy will not relent until we hurt them bad- very bad. We are dealing with an evil power that makes the the Axis of WWII pale in comparison. We had better be willing to do whatever is necessary to win, including bombing their cities into rubble. They have certainly shown themselves willing to bomb ours.

If we lose, you can throw away your hats (people without heads hardly need them) and start shopping for prayer rugs.
 
Last edited:
Is terrorism OK (if the US is doing it?). To ask such a question is similar to loading a shopping cart with miscellaneous junk and walking down an urban sidewalk arguing with phantoms.


All those not on America's side, please leave now.
 
LightningJoe...

By that do you mean agreeing with a government that is not caring about the Constitution because a good number of people are ignorant/complacent about their rights being stripped? I should also note that this isn't exactly a world of black and white with America being a sugar coated goody-two shoe country. This country has the best set of rules I have ever seen, but the people seem to not want to play.


Epyon
 
Does the End justify the means?

If in the pursuit of the End, we use means that subvert and distort the very thing we are trying to protect, then the means are clearly important.
 
If this sort of thing is what we are at war against, I guess we are ultimately at war with ourselves, if indeed we do the exact same things.
Printing rumors and counterfeiting are the "exact same things" that terrorists are doing to us? If that's true then I guess I'm not worried about terrorism--here I've been concerned about things like intentionally bombing purely civilian targets or slowly beheading hostages on video.
...simply pointing out that you cannot justify a wrong by pointing to the wrongs of others.
So, for example, killing someone who is trying to kill you can not be justified? Or depriving a thief of his freedom can not be justified?

Or are you saying that if it's justifiable then it's not wrong and therefore can be justified?

Ok, sarcasm off--some abhorrent things (like incarceration and homicide to name a couple) clearly ARE justified by pointing to the wrongs of others. Some aren't. Printing rumors and counterfeiting in an attempt to destabilize or handicap an openly hostile government seems pretty benign compared to terrorism. (No, I'm not going to say "true terrorism"--everyone reading this understands what terrorism is and knows that counterfeiting and rumor spreading doesn't fill the bill.)

Remember, countries can't just call the police on another country, they have to deal with it themselves. So, what you're saying is roughly equivalent to saying that if you lived in a place without law enforcement and your next door neighbor shot your wife you wouldn't be justified in slashing his tires because you can't justify a wrong by pointing to the wrong of others.

I guess we could strive for the level of moral purity that was espoused by the former Secretary of State Henry Stimson who shut down the State Department's cryptanalytic office because "Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail." but I hope it's not achieved in my lifetime...

The problem here is one of "mixing levels". It sounds so good to say that "you cannot justify a wrong by pointing to the wrongs of others" because it rings true to individuals who live under the rule of law and have recourse against those who injure them that doesn't include direct action on their own part.

Tain't like that for a country. Sure, you can tattle on them. You can get your "friends" to "publicly deplore them". But if you want anything done you're gonna have to do it yourself. And pretty much anything one country does to another country in this kind of situation is "wrong" if you try to cast it into the role of one individual dealing with another.
Seriously, didn't they teach people this kind of thing in grade school where ya'll came from?
Yes, of course they did. I'm just not sure I mean it the way you do...
If in the pursuit of the End, we use means that subvert and distort the very thing we are trying to protect...
IF that were true there would be a problem.
 
So, for example, killing someone who is trying to kill you can not be justified? Or depriving a thief of his freedom can not be justified?
Self-defense is not a wrong. o_O The point is that you can justify a wrong in many ways but doing so by pointing out the wrongs of others completely unrelated to the specific situation is retarded.
Remember, countries can't just call the police on another country, they have to deal with it themselves. So, what you're saying is roughly equivalent to saying that if you lived in a place without law enforcement and your next door neighbor shot your wife you wouldn't be justified in slashing his tires because you can't justify a wrong by pointing to the wrong of others.
353.jpg


No, it's saying that if I lived in a place without law enforcement and my next door neighbor shot my other neighbor's wife that I wouldn't be justified in slashing the tires of the guy across the street.
 
Self-defense is not a wrong.
Correct, but that misses the point. Homicide is wrong. Self-defense is one type of JUSTIFIABLE homicide. i.e. an example of a wrong that is declared to be acceptable due to the wrong(s) of another.
...pointing out the wrongs of others completely unrelated to the specific situation...
I see...

So your premise is that Iran (isn't/hasn't been) involved in any terrorism against the U.S. and doesn't pose any credible threat to the U.S. or its allies. Sorry 'bout that--I thought that the issue was a philosophical difference, I didn't realize this was a conspiracy theory argument.
 
Homicide is wrong.
Uh, no. Unjustifiable homicide is considered wrong by the majority of the world's population. Homicide in defense of self is not considered wrong. Right and wrong are human ideas, they are what we want them to be. There is no universal morality that says all forms of killing is wrong.

So your premise is that Iran's (isn't/hasn't been) involved in any terrorism against the U.S. and doesn't pose any credible threat to the U.S. or its allies. Sorry 'bout that--I thought that the issue was a philosophical difference, I didn't realize this was a conspiracy theory argument.
It's a philosophical difference as well as a pragmatic argument.

1. Just because one group in one country has done something wrong does not mean it's ok for us to do something wrong to that group, especially if it's undoubtedly going to harm innocent civilians in the process.

2. This kind of crap is EXACTLY what leads to 9/11-like attacks. Screwing up their economy and ****ing with the Iranian government is going to hurt a lot of innocent people in that country and will only serve to fuel the hatred for America. It's not self defense when you start the goddamn fight.
 
Right and wrong are human ideas, they are what we want them to be. There is no universal morality that says all forms of killing is wrong.
First of all, I clearly pointed out that not all forms of killing are wrong--I even used the term "justifiable homicide". I don't think you can reasonably argue against the idea that killing humans is universally considered to be wrong unless it's justifiable.

But if you win that argument--if right and wrong are just human ideas then why are we upset about someone printing counterfeit foreign money and spreading rumors? Let's just say it's NOT wrong since it's only a human idea and can be what we want it to be.

You can't have it both ways.
Just because one group in one country has done something wrong does not mean it's ok for us to do something wrong to that group, especially if it's undoubtedly going to harm innocent civilians in the process.
First of all, yes it does. That's the concept of justification--if you harm or attempt to harm me I am justified in harming you to the extent required to ensure my own safety. (Yes, I'm ignoring the fact that your previous post implied that we were doing something to someone who hadn't done anything to us).

Second, your idea that national actions can't affect innocent civilians is debilitating. This kind of reasoning would have kept us out of WWII unless we could have figured out how to keep it from affecting anyone other than the Nazis in Germany. Especially since it can be argued that the situation in post WW ONE Germany that led to WWII was the fault of the allies.

More to the point, that argument would eliminate our activity in any sort of war (or warlike actions) no matter the provocation since wars inevitably harm innocent civilians. In effect, you're saying that no matter what anyone does to us we have to take it passively since we can't ensure that our response wouldn't harm innocent civilians and because it's always true that the aggressor nation is not unanimously united against us.

Again, this is taking the standard of individual action and imposing it upon nations. Sure, it's fine to say that self-defense (at the individual level) can't legally affect anyone but the specific attacker. It's not realistic to demand the same thing of nations.
 
Amazing...

People who claim to be Americans - who hide behind the freedoms and benefits provided by the United States - and then condemn anything and everything done to protect the U. S. while simultaneously ignoring those who would destroy this nation. Absolutely unbelievable.

"ABC new reports..." and of course, ABC news and the 'media' in general have no bias, no agenda, and are not the propaganda wing of the Democratic party.

Covert operations to destabilize a hostile government may not be 'in good taste'. However, they are designed to accomplish a specific mission with as little damage to the inhabitants of that country as possible. I suppose one alternative to the 'dirty tricks' campaign claimed by the news report is to simply bomb Iran into a slag heap. No doubt that would be condemned as 'over-reaching'.

So the preferred alternative of the left is to simply wait until a foreign power power decides to attack or destroy American assests - like the USS Cole, various U. S. military sites, embassies and the World Trade Center - and then find some way to blame the pro-American sector of U. S. politics for the damage.

For those anti-American folks, please take your intellect, your fortunes, your superior morality and go elsewhere. Please quit trying to destroy my country.
 
Threads like this one scare the snot out of me. Anytime I see a moral equivalence argument I automatically concluded its author is incapable of discerning right from wrong and good from evil.

We are engaged in a war which will challenge our civilization and ultimately our moral standards unlike any previous war. If we can't agree on right and wrong we are so screwed. Moral ambiguity in a time of war is not a good thang.

A great American philosopher in a previous war nailed our current situation.
"We have met the enemy and he is us"--Pogo
 
"Cutting heads off and blowing up civilians is worse. But not that much worse."

Not that much worse?

What exactly do you think would be much worse if those two don't make the cut?

Sheesh.

John
 
Archie said:
People who claim to be Americans - who hide behind the freedoms and benefits provided by the United States - and then condemn anything and everything done to protect the U. S. while simultaneously ignoring those who would destroy this nation. Absolutely unbelievable.
This is a strawman. Obviously no one here opposes defending the US when it is attacked, and no one advocates ignoring those who would destroy the US. But the US is based on the principle of inalienable human rights. If the US gives up that principle, then America dies, regardless of whether something called "America" continues to exist on the land where America once stood. Those of us who love the principles America was founded upon and want to protect them are hardly anti-American.

"ABC new reports..." and of course, ABC news and the 'media' in general have no bias, no agenda, and are not the propaganda wing of the Democratic party.
Even if that were true -- and I think you're making way too strong of a statement -- this bias would be balanced out by GOP/neocon propaganda outfits like Fox News and much of talk radio.

Covert operations to destabilize a hostile government may not be 'in good taste'. However, they are designed to accomplish a specific mission with as little damage to the inhabitants of that country as possible. I suppose one alternative to the 'dirty tricks' campaign claimed by the news report is to simply bomb Iran into a slag heap. No doubt that would be condemned as 'over-reaching'.
I agree that nonviolent covert operations are not terrorism and are preferable to actions that would kill many innocent people. But why should the US be messing around with Iran in the first place? Sure, we should keep an eye on them, and on every other country for that matter. But unless we have reason to believe that Iran is going to attack the United States, Iran is not our problem. The same goes for Iraq, which was never any threat to the US.

Why do you think countries like Switzerland and Finland have no significant enemies? It's because they mind their own business. If the US government would learn to mind its own business, that would make us much safer than our current policy of playing World Policeman and International Bully.

So the preferred alternative of the left is to simply wait until a foreign power power decides to attack or destroy American assests - like the USS Cole, various U. S. military sites, embassies and the World Trade Center - and then find some way to blame the pro-American sector of U. S. politics for the damage.
You're seeing everything in terms of black and white, right and left. What about traditional conservatives who believe that a policy of non-interventionism is in America's best interest? This nation's Founders advocated non-interventionism. Were they "anti-American leftists" as well?

I fail to see what is so "pro-American" about meddling in other nation's affairs all around the world (especially in the Middle East), stirring up hornets' nests and making countless enemies who want to attack us. The more enemies America makes, the more our national security is in jeopardy (especially with our porous borders). No one is saying that America should not retaliate if attacked or stave off an imminent threat -- that's why I supported the US invasion of Afghanistan to hunt down Osama. But that's the only thing our military should be used for.

For those anti-American folks, please take your intellect, your fortunes, your superior morality and go elsewhere. Please quit trying to destroy my country.
No one is trying to destroy our country except two groups of people:

(1) The enemies that the US government makes through its interventionist foreign policies (which sometimes involve the sponsorship of egregious human rights violations). In spite of the threat they pose, these people have almost no chance of destroying the US. They would need a whole lot of nukes to do that.

(2) Americans on both the "right" and the "left" who support violations of the principles enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If those principles are abandoned, then America will continue to exist in name only. These people have a GOOD chance of succeeding. And they are succeeding.
 
"Cutting heads off and blowing up civilians is worse. But not that much worse."

Not that much worse?

What exactly do you think would be much worse if those two don't make the cut?

Sheesh.

John

Maybe I just think torture is a really "bad thing." Only a notch above rape and murder, really.
 
But why should the US be messing around with Iran in the first place?

How's this:

Washington believes Iran is implicated in attacks on U.S. troops because they're supplying weapons and fighters to kill Americans in Iraq. Their major concern is EFPs (or explosively formed penetrators), sophisticated armor-piercing bombs which the U.S. says can only be made in Iran.

It doesn't sound like the Iranians are playing nice. The US could just complain. Or we could obliterate the EFP factories in Iran. Would that be preferable to spreading rumors and counterfeiting Iran's money?

-----

Why do you think countries like Switzerland and Finland have no significant enemies?

Because they are insignificant; other countries can treat them badly and they have no recourse except to whine and take their marbles and go play elsewhere.
 
SteelCore...

No one is trying to destroy our country except two groups of people:

(1) The enemies that the US government makes through its interventionist foreign policies (which sometimes involve the sponsorship of egregious human rights violations). In spite of the threat they pose, these people have almost no chance of destroying the US. They would need a whole lot of nukes to do that.

(2) Americans on both the "right" and the "left" who support violations of the principles enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If those principles are abandoned, then America will continue to exist in name only. These people have a GOOD chance of succeeding. And they are succeeding.

I 100% agree! Gc70, like it or not Iran and Syria WILL have a role in Iraq's future, they after all, neighbors.


Epyon

P.S: In rebuttal to your quote gc70, Switzerland is a neutral country, and their citizens are a true militia, an invader trying to conquer a nation where EVERYONE fights... not a great idea.:D
 
Gc70, like it or not Iran and Syria WILL have a role in Iraq's future, they after all, neighbors.
So? The question was "why should the US be messing around with Iran" and contributing to the deaths of US troops is a decent answer.

Switzerland is a neutral country, and their citizens are a true militia, an invader trying to conquer a nation where EVERYONE fights... not a great idea.

Having enemies is not only a function of military action. There is more bad blood between countries over economic issues than there is over military action. If the Chinese allow cheap knock-offs of Rolex watches to be sold from Hong Kong, the Swiss militia isn't going to spring into action. And Switzerland is not significant enough to bother other countries (except when their army takes a wrong turn and gets lost in Liechtenstein).
 
gc70 said:
Washington believes Iran is implicated in attacks on U.S. troops because they're supplying weapons and fighters to kill Americans in Iraq. Their major concern is EFPs (or explosively formed penetrators), sophisticated armor-piercing bombs which the U.S. says can only be made in Iran.
I've heard those charges. But Washington lied in order to gain the popular support for an invasion of Iraq. Why should we now believe their claims about Iran?

Anyone can make an EFP. There's nothing sophisticated about them. Flip through a copy of the Improvised Munitions Black Book (originally published for US Special Forces) and you'll see just how easy they are to make. All you need is an explosive and a container with the appropriate shape in order to direct the force of the explosion. So there's no reason to assume that EFPs being encountered in Iraq must have been made under the auspices of the Iranian government.

Because they are insignificant; other countries can treat them badly and they have no recourse except to whine and take their marbles and go play elsewhere.
If terrorists wanted to target Switzerland and Finland, they could do so. "Significance" has little to do with it. But terrorists do not hate or attack these countries. The reason is that these (and many other such countries) do not have a habit of making enemies.
 
Switzerland is a major banking center for the west. Not just America, the entire west. They would be a fantastic target.

Insignificant? heh...
 
Back
Top