• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Military Fights to Defend our Freedom, or absurdist things the news tells me.

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
For that matter, solid principles and agendas often result in much the same indoctrination at that point in life. Maturity and discernment must grow inside a person, and it takes some healthy life experience for that to happen - regardless of the validity of one's principles, government, religion or whatever. At 20, few people have had enough time for that to happen.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We can speculate about wether or not thats part of the intention. But put in mind that some of the terroristic stuff that goes on are also not particularly for the purpose of terrorizing, but sometimes its rather revenge for example. And still it gets called terrorism.

Looking at all the discussion in government leading up to the war, "terrorism" was not among the motives. I even know Iraqi ex-pats who supported
the war.....until it dragged on & on. I recall a few years back an article in National Geographic about the number of people who died as a result of
Saddam's reign. Including wars waged against Iran, Kuwait & the Kurds, I remember calculating it at a rate of 20K people per month, which is even
greater than the US war & occupation. I oppose the war for a host of other reasons, but it has some benefit. Was it worth it? I think not, but then
I'm a selfish isolationist.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Israeli policies are categorized as terrorism, but the policies of American forces in Iraq are not. this thread turns out to be a fascinating case study of double standards.

You miss my point. I apply a single standard which I posted. Do you dispute it & have a better alternative? Israeli collective punishment
is directed largely at the innocent for the purpose of fear in the populace, & to foster support against terrorism from their community.
By counter example, I don't see Israeli assassination of Hamas leaders as terrorism, since that is focused upon the perceived enemy.
The US has also been guilty of terrorism I'm sure, & you're welcome to provide examples of your own.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
You miss my point. I apply a single standard which I posted. Do you dispute it & have a better alternative? Israeli collective punishment
is directed largely at the innocent for the purpose of fear in the populace, & to foster support against terrorism from their community.
The US has also been guilty of terrorism I'm sure, & you're welcome to provide examples of your own.

par your single standard: IRAQ: U.S. Military Resorting to Collective Punishment - IPS ipsnews.net

and now I have to ask, why did you choose this specific standard, why for example, ignore other standards such as the fact that countless of civilians are dead as a result of American air strikes, or ignore the amazing reality that the number of civilians dead since the 2003 American invasion makes the number of casualties in decades of Israeli-Palestinian dispute seems negligible.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
So - what's the application? How do we address the issue of radical Islam wreaking havoc the world over - MOSTLY in countries which are negligibly involved in US foreign policy, or (in most cases) COMPLETELY uninvolved with the US? Do we just stay out of it? Do we just allow gross human rights violations, genocide, rule by terror, etc? What should be our reaction to the horrific cases of world wide terrorism by Islamic extremists?

For the record, I think we are wasting time, money, and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan., and that our mission is as clear as mud there. We bomb a block, and then spend US tax dollars rebuilding it and throwing in power plants, utilities, schools,etc for the families of the ones we just killed. RIDICULOUS. We should either clarify our position and mission there, or get the hell out.

I don't want my soldier son to die over there so that we can build a power plant to provide electricity to those who hate us and who rejoiced when he got his head shot off. And I don't want him to have to live with the idea that he killed someone else without a clear purpose for doing so.
 

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Looking at all the discussion in government leading up to the war, "terrorism" was not among the motives.

Well, it isn't necessary they were honest, is it?

And more importantly, the outcome is what counts.

I even know Iraqi ex-pats who supported
the war.....until it dragged on & on. I recall a few years back an article in National Geographic about the number of people who died as a result of
Saddam's reign. Including wars waged against Iran, Kuwait & the Kurds, I remember calculating it at a rate of 20K people per month, which is even
greater than the US war & occupation. I oppose the war for a host of other reasons, but it has some benefit. Was it worth it? I think not, but then
I'm a selfish isolationist.

That is the main problem. You're not looking at it in the proper context. If more US citizens viewed the war in Iraq for what it is, i believe the outcome would've been different. Its not merely a mistake, its not just a miscalculation. It is flat out criminal in my eyes. I'm not trying to come to a conclusion about the US or the citizens or anything. All i'm saying you should approach the war in Iraq, the same way you approach or view terrorism of any kind.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
So - what's the application? How do we address the issue of radical Islam wreaking havoc the world over - MOSTLY in countries which are negligibly involved in US foreign policy, or (in most cases) COMPLETELY uninvolved with the US?

Such as?

I'm not convinced that such an issue even exists, at least as "mostly" uninvolved with military and political issues. But to the extent that it might, the obvious answer would be to work on their motivations (as Gen. Petraeus seems to attempt to do, as far as his actual resources permit) by showing them how anti-Islamic and counterproductive terrorism is, and how constructive actual alternatives may be, when sufficiently encouraged by circunstances.

Do we just stay out of it? Do we just allow gross human rights violations, genocide, rule by terror, etc? What should be our reaction to the horrific cases of world wide terrorism by Islamic extremists?
The same as those for non-Islamic extremists, according to their actual deeds, I suppose.

For the record, I think we are wasting time, money, and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan., and that our mission is as clear as mud there. We bomb a block, and then spend US tax dollars rebuilding it and throwing in power plants, utilities, schools,etc for the families of the ones we just killed. RIDICULOUS. We should either clarify our position and mission there, or get the hell out.
No argument there, although I'm certain there are more complicated matters at work there. For one, I think there is a lot of soul-searching long overdue among the US public support about the war. Is there even a clear majority on whether the troops should return, or when, or due to which benchmarks? It is hard to accomplish a mission that is not clearly delimited.

I don't want my soldier son to die over there so that we can build a power plant to provide electricity to those who hate us
A very reasonable and understandable sentiment. And I fear it may actually be worse than that: the situation there seems to be confused enough that locals may in fact believe that the energy is a gift from local extremist militias.

Petraeus is already making improvements in Afghanistan, but they won't matter if Karzai doesn't reform. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

and who rejoiced when he got his head shot off. And I don't want him to have to live with the idea that he killed someone else without a clear purpose for doing so.
That, I fear, may be unavoidable at this point for quite a few people from both sides. Come to think of it, avoiding that feeling IS a powerful lure for religious extremism in ANY army, militia or extremist group.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
par your single standard: IRAQ: U.S. Military Resorting to Collective Punishment - IPS ipsnews.net

and now I have to ask, why did you choose this specific standard....

Because it makes sense & has applicability to all sides of all conflicts. Do you disagree, or perhaps think me disingenuous?

.... why for example, ignore other standards such as the fact that countless of civilians are dead as a result of American air strikes, or ignore the amazing reality that the number of civilians dead since the 2003 American invasion makes the number of casualties in decades of Israeli-Palestinian dispute seems negligible.

That's a loaded question, since your "standard" isn't really a standard, but rather an example of US violence. I don't ignore that at all, so your ad hominem argument is failing utterly.

Goodness gracious, can you look at the issue objectively, instead of at me emotionally?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, it isn't necessary they were honest, is it?
And more importantly, the outcome is what counts.

I allow for dishonesty, but I just don't detect terrorist motives, nor do I see terrorist objectives. As violent as America is in Iraq,
it looks more like a dismal attempt at occupation for the purpose of nation building. I see great pains taken to avoid civilian casualties,
& it is the motive which differentiates terrorism from war & police actions, which can be also be wrong.

That is the main problem. You're not looking at it in the proper context. If more US citizens viewed the war in Iraq for what it is, i believe the outcome would've been different. Its not merely a mistake, its not just a miscalculation. It is flat out criminal in my eyes. I'm not trying to come to a conclusion about the US or the citizens or anything. All i'm saying you should approach the war in Iraq, the same way you approach or view terrorism of any kind.
Even if it were to be judged as criminal, to be criminal is not necessarily to be terrorism. Are we to alter our language such that "terrorism"
applies to all violence & threats? Is every criminal in jail a terrorist? Well, of course not. The word has meaning apart from "war", "violence",
"murder" & such. Unfortunately, "terrorism" has simply become an insult to use against our enemies.
 
Last edited:

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So - what's the application? How do we address the issue of radical Islam wreaking havoc the world over - MOSTLY in countries which are negligibly involved in US foreign policy, or (in most cases) COMPLETELY uninvolved with the US? Do we just stay out of it? Do we just allow gross human rights violations, genocide, rule by terror, etc? What should be our reaction to the horrific cases of world wide terrorism by Islamic extremists?

The same way you would address any form of terrorism, done by any body, muslims, Christians and anybody else. There is plenty of terrorism around the world, and its not specific to a certain group.
 

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I allow for dishonesty, but I just don't detect terrorist motives, nor do I see terrorist objectives. As violent as America is in Iraq,
it looks more like a dismal attempt at occupation for the purpose of nation building. I see great pains taken to avoid civilian casualties,
& it is the motive which differentiates terrorism from war & police actions, which can be also be wrong.
Even if it were to be judged as criminal, to be criminal is not necessarily to be terrorism. Are we to alter our language such that "terrorism"
applies to all violence & threats? Is every criminal in jail a terrorist? Well, of course not. The word has meaning apart from "war", "violence",
"murder" & such. Unfortunately, "terrorism" has simply become an insult to use against our enemies.

Well, we have two choices here. Either label what the US did in Iraq as terrorism, or admit that loads of the stuff done by some muslims and labeled terrorism is in fact not so. Since we can not know whats the motivation for all of them.

However, that will still leave of course lots of incidents that are indeed terrorism done by muslims, but at the same time it will show you how much propaganda there is against muslims. And that in fact they do not propose as much of a threat as some like to show it to be.

And still, some things from what was done in Iraq, was indeed terrorism, even if we won't label the whole thing as such.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
Because it makes sense & has applicability to all sides of all conflicts. Do you disagree, or perhaps think me disingenuous?
So now that we have established that American forces resort to 'collective punishment', do you view the American war in Iraq as terrorism?

That's a loaded question, since your "standard" isn't really a standard, but rather an example of US violence. I don't ignore that at all, so your ad hominem argument is failing utterly.


Goodness gracious, can you look at the issue objectively, instead of at me emotionally?
Instead of crying 'ad hominem' do try and address the subject.
You are calling Israeli policies terrorism. so I'm addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the American occupation in Iraq. I'll use the same source, Wikipedia.
according to Wiki, in a few decades of conflict about 8,000 Palestinians have died, on the other hand according to Wiki between 2003 and 2009, about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and there is a total excess death estimate of 1,366,350.
considering the contrast of the figures, I'm very interested in finding your logic in categorizing Israeli policies which have resulted in the death of about 8,000 people in a duration of decades as terrorism, while not using the same standard when we face the extremely high figures of civilian deaths as a result of the activities of the US forces and the US.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So now that we have established that American forces resort to 'collective punishment', do you view the American war in Iraq as terrorism?

If they inflict collective punishment on civilians, then that would be terrorism. But I haven't seen where that was done, except by rogues.
If you have legitimate examples, then so be it. I don't deny that the US has done some terrible things, but to characterize a war & a police
action as identical to terrorism is just plain unsupportable. You seem to be trying to excuse Israeli terrorism by pointing at the US. That
sways me not in the least, nor do I defend US actions abroad.

Instead of crying 'ad hominem' do try and address the subject.
You are calling Israeli policies terrorism.

If you re-read, you'll see that I called one particular policy terrorism, ie, collective punishment. Please try not to reword what I say so as to over-generalize it.
Btw, I called you on your ad hominemsim because you were ignoring my argument so as to make me the straw man. I don't matter in the least.

.....so I'm addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the American occupation in Iraq. I'll use the same source, Wikipedia.
according to Wiki, in a few decades of conflict about 8,000 Palestinians have died, on the other hand according to Wiki between 2003 and 2009, about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and there is a total excess death estimate of 1,366,350.
considering the contrast of the figures, I'm very interested in finding your logic in categorizing Israeli policies which have resulted in the death of about 8,000 people in a duration of decades as terrorism, while not using the same standard when we face the extremely high figures of civilian deaths as a result of the activities of the US forces and the US.

You don't seem to be reading & understanding my definition of terrorism & how I apply it. It's all there, but you're rehashing the same
misunderstanding again. I can only surmise that as an Israeli soldier, you're offended by being associated with terrorism & taking
this way too personally. But this isn't about you. Moreover, your outrage at the number of Iraqi casualties is not a cogent argument.
War & terrorism are not the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, we have two choices here. Either label what the US did in Iraq as terrorism, or admit that loads of the stuff done by some muslims and labeled terrorism is in fact not so. Since we can not know whats the motivation for all of them.

If you look at my definition of terrorism, it applies to some violent acts, & not to others. Is the definition unclear? Do you allow that wars are not
the same as terrorism? The Iraq war does not fit the definition of terrorism, & many acts of violence by Muslims also do not fit the definition of
terrorism. (Note I'm not singling out Muslims, as are some posters. My list was religiously diverse.) I just don't view this as simply as many in this
forum, eg, that it's only violence by this group or that government. I have no preference for one religion over another, nor do I shrink from noting
the faults of America.

However, that will still leave of course lots of incidents that are indeed terrorism done by muslims, but at the same time it will show you how much propaganda there is against muslims. And that in fact they do not propose as much of a threat as some like to show it to be.
As I've said before, I find western media biased against Muslims, but that really doesn't relate to my claims.

And still, some things from what was done in Iraq, was indeed terrorism, even if we won't label the whole thing as such.
No argument from me on this.
 
Last edited:

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If you look at my definition of terrorism, it applies to some violent acts, & not to others. Is the definition unclear? Do you allow that wars are not the same as terrorism?

Your definition of terrorism is accurate as far as i'm concerned. And war as a concept, and the way it happens, is not always terrorism of course. I was merely pointing out to that it has been kind of concluded earlier in the thread that all the violent crimes done by radicals are terrorism, and that radical muslims are a menace to the world, which i found speculative, so i just thought i'd say that we should apply the same standards to both sides.

The Iraq war does not fit the definition of terrorism, & many acts of violence by Muslims also do not fit the definition of
terrorism. (Note I'm not singling out Muslims, as are some posters. My list was religiously diverse.) I just don't view this as simply as many in this
forum, eg, that it's only violence by this group or that government. I have no preference for one religion over another, nor do I shrink from noting
the faults of America.

As I've said before, I find western media biased against Muslims, but that really doesn't relate to my claims.

Don't get me wrong, i'm mainly addressing this to you because i know you'll say whats right. I know you are as neutral as they come, so i'm kind of voicing most of what i have to say to you, because i know we'll reach a fair and positive conclusion.

No argument from me on this.

Glad to hear it.
 
Last edited:

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
If they inflict collective punishment on civilians, then that would be terrorism. But I haven't seen where that was done, except by rogues.
If you have legitimate examples, then so be it. I don't deny that the US has done some terrible things, but to characterize a war & a police
action as identical to terrorism is just plain unsupportable.
So American forces bulldozers mowing down groves of Iraqi farming areas, cutting off electricity, destroying fuel stations, blocking roads are rogue actions?
when Israel is involved in war and police work you categorize it is as terrorism, but when the forces of your nation do it is not?

You seem to be trying to excuse Israeli terrorism by pointing at the US. That
sways me not in the least, nor do I defend US actions abroad
Actually that is hardly the point of the debate. you are the one who is labeling one nation as pursuing terrorism and excusing your nation. If anything, then I am the one who is not swayed by it in the least.

If you re-read, you'll see that I called one particular policy terrorism, ie, collective punishment. Please try not to reword what I say so as to over-generalize it.
Btw, I called you on your ad hominemsim because you were ignoring my argument so as to make me the straw man. I don't matter in the least.
I have addressed your argument, and provided sources, so its curious to claim anyone ignored it.

You don't seem to be reading & understanding my definition of terrorism & how I apply it. It's all there, but you're rehashing the same
misunderstanding again. I can only surmise that as an Israeli soldier, you're offended by being associated with terrorism & taking
this way too personally. But this isn't about you. Moreover, your outrage at the number of Iraqi casualties is not a cogent argument.
War & terrorism are not the same thing.
Actually the data is highly revealing. if Israel is using terror which resulted in the death of about 8000 Palestinians (out of which thousands were combatants) in the course of a few decades, and American forces managed to kill between 2003 to 2009 about 100,000 Iraqi civilians, supposedly without resorting to what you call terrorism, I can tell you something is wrong with your analysis and I can understand why you would not want to contemplate it. I guess the Israelis do a very poor job at terrorising and the Americans are doing an extremely terrible job at avoiding colleteral damage.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So American forces bulldozers mowing down groves of Iraqi farming areas, cutting off electricity, destroying fuel stations, blocking roads are rogue actions?
when Israel is involved in war and police work you categorize it is as terrorism, but when the forces of your nation do it is not?

If such things were done by US forces for collective punishment, with the intent of instilling fear, than that
would be terrorism. But you haven't actually made that argument & supported it, so there's nothing to address.

Actually that is hardly the point of the debate. you are the one who is labeling one nation as pursuing terrorism and excusing your nation.
Once again, I picked a particular Israeli policy which I believe to be terrorism. It seems disingenuous of you
to keep broadening it into something more. And once again, I do not excuse or condone US misbehavior,
which I find abundant.

If anything, then I am the one who is not swayed by it in the least.
This is clear.

I have addressed your argument, and provided sources, so its curious to claim anyone ignored it.
You addressed the argument you constructed on my behalf, not the one I actually made.

Actually the data is highly revealing....
I find that your data don't support your argument, nor do they defeat mine.

.....I guess the Israelis do a very poor job at terrorising and the Americans are doing an extremely terrible job at avoiding colleteral damage.

By jove, I think he's got it!
 
Last edited:

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
ter·ror·ism

   /ˈtɛr
thinsp.png
əˌrɪz
thinsp.png
əm
/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uh
thinsp.png
m] Show IPA

–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Personally, I think most countries in existence have engaged in such a thing. Including what we've done to Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
  • Like
Reactions: kai
Top