[Liberator]

Kaz, I think you need to read a little more Emily Post and a little less Penthouse/Playboy.  As I said, the topic in and of itself doesn't bother me that much.  But, you are being crude and reveling in it and acting in general like a total neanderthal.  Come to think of it, you've been acting this way for several weeks now.

At any rate, Rictor has already asked you to stop and now I'm  asking you not to bring it up again, unless you want to start a new thread.  Admins, I ask you to please keep an eye on it, thanks.

edit:
Ace, I didn't ask for your input.  I believe in modesty and general moral behavior.  I believe sex is an act reserved for a married couple.  I like bikinis, halter tops, ect. but people who act like low class sluts will be labeled as such.

[Rictor]

OK Lib, fair enough. For the sake of conversation, I'll limit the arguement to current events, and not say, Vietnam, in which cases of terrorism quite clearly took place.

Is the aim of terrorism only to terrorize, or also to kill. It would seem to me that the killing is a part of it too. So, shall we say that terrorism is the deliberate killing of civilians by a group with no national ties, with a political motivation. But then however you have state sponsored terrorism which takes away the "no national ties" provision.

Now, the next question is: does the *intent* actually mean anything? If I kill someone accidentally, or if I kill them on purpose, is there a difference? And if so, how much?

Here's are two scenarios:

1) I walk in to a convenience store with the intention of robbing it. I have a gun, loaded, but I have no intention to use it. Its there just in case. I ask the clerk to give me his money. There are several customers in the store. One of them makes a move which I percieve to be threatinging, and shoot him. I didn't mean to kill him, its just sort of happened.

2) I walk into a convenience store with the intention of killing one of the customers, in an effort to force the other customers, as well as the clerck, to comply.

Essentially, Case 2 is your definition of terrorism. Now Case 1, thats the interesting bit. The robber is there to do a job, and wants to do so with the minimum force and casualties. But he is there to do a job, and he will see that it gets done. This is more important than the safety of the people in the store. So, in order to accomplish the goal, he feels *forced* to shoot one of the customers.

I would argue that Case 1 is as much terrorism as Case 2. The fact that civilians died is the important part. The intent matters, but very little. It would seem obvious that the robber can not claim he is blameless, because he has quite evidently killed civilians. He didn't mean to, but he had a pretty good idea that it would happen. He knows this from past robberies.

_________________________

All this is an attempt to find out how you can justify certain actions, but not others, when the results are the same. Everything else might be different, the weapons used, the motivation, the intent to kill, but the results are the same.

Here's a question for you (yes I know, I'm asking of questions)

If, in 2002, China decided to invade America, would you view that as justified. So, they invade because they claim that America has WMD, and is a threat to world peace. Nevermind that China also has WMD, for some reason they claim that you should not have them. They land on the West Coast, and promptly begin the invasion. The bomb the cities, in which thousands of innocents Americans die. They bomb the infrastructure, which kills many more innocnents.

The question here is, do you have a right to fault China for this invasion?

[Liberator]

Yes, we do have a right, as your theorized invasion is an act of war by one national power against another national power.

We've been over this already, but here we go again.

Iraq is a special case, the country was ruled by a despot almost as bad as Hitler.  We know he had WMDs at one point, he used them against his own citizens.  What the conflict in Iraq has been about is this, Saddam was funding a myriad of terrorist groups, call it State Sponsored if you wish.  But more than that, and they should have been forthwith about this from the beginning, but I believe that the main purpose of the Iraq War was firstly, to draw out the Terrorists(militant Islamo-Theocratic Fascists and their like) and force them into an open conflict, which simoultaneously ties up their assetts and reduces their numbers, and secondly, establish a Secular Republican nation in the Middle East to further destabilize the other Theocratic governments of the region and force a paradigm shift in regional politics, toward a more Western friendly enviroment.

You see, the Terrorists have so many willing volunteers because, since most of the populace are fairly ignorant and thus very religious, they can say the "Allah has said to do X" and the populace will do their utmost to carry out "Allah's" commands.  By shifting the governace to a Secular Republic we are helping to free the minds of the populace.  We aren't taking away their religion, not by any means, but we are showing them that they cannot live by religion alone in the modern world.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Their is no "shortage of troops", we have over 130,000 people on the ground in Iraq.  The Private Security firms that have people in country are being used to guard key locations and personel to allow the real soldiers to go out and do what they were trained for.
.

130,000 troops is far too few troops to effectively police a country the size of Iraq.  I believe the Pentagon actually wanted something around 250,000 or such (rough guess....I've heard estimates of 300-400,000 troops being the required number to succesfully secure the country), but rumsfeld wanted to actually scale down the force to even less than the current number.  The US strategy was alwas fatally flawed, because it assumed that Iraqis would immediately turn on Saddam and start co-operating.   As it happened, they didn;t - at best they stood aside, having been ;let down by the US in the past (namely the past uprising after the first Gulf War*).  

*i.e. the war over Kuwait, not the Iraq-Iran war

Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, we do have a right, as your theorized invasion is an act of war by one national power against another national power.

We've been over this already, but here we go again.

Iraq is a special case, the country was ruled by a despot almost as bad as Hitler.  We know he had WMDs at one point, he used them against his own citizens.  What the conflict in Iraq has been about is this, Saddam was funding a myriad of terrorist groups, call it State Sponsored if you wish.  But more than that, and they should have been forthwith about this from the beginning, but I believe that the main purpose of the Iraq War was firstly, to draw out the Terrorists(militant Islamo-Theocratic Fascists and their like) and force them into an open conflict, which simoultaneously ties up their assetts and reduces their numbers, and secondly, establish a Secular Republican nation in the Middle East to further destabilize the other Theocratic governments of the region and force a paradigm shift in regional politics, toward a more Western friendly enviroment.

You see, the Terrorists have so many willing volunteers because, since most of the populace are fairly ignorant and thus very religious, they can say the "Allah has said to do X" and the populace will do their utmost to carry out "Allah's" commands.  By shifting the governace to a Secular Republic we are helping to free the minds of the populace.  We aren't taking away their religion, not by any means, but we are showing them that they cannot live by religion alone in the modern world.

Now, there's several very flaky points you have here.... firstly, there's no evidence I know of which links Saddam to actively initiating or funding terrorist actions - only payments to Palestinians after the facts.  whilst this is still pretty reprehensible, it's hardly constituting being a major player in world terrorism.

So far, there's been no evidence of WMD in Iraq found - including the stuff the Us sold to Saddam in the first place.  there has been one Sarin gas shell, which could have been as old as the Iran-Iraq war, and which wasn;t even used as a chemical weapon (bnut in the manner of a secondary roadside bomb).

Now, the imapct of the Iraq war in the Middle East has been 2 things I can see - firstly, it has massively increased supported for Islamic terror organisations and generally antagonised most Muslims towards the 'West'.   the atrocities (which they are, let's not beat about the bush here) at Abu-Graib and at least 4 other prisons in Iraq have further damaged asny hope the Us had of redeeming its image through Iraq, as has the cack-handed attack on Falluja.

The war has drawn out terrorist groups to a degree - but not into fighting openly, but rather into destabilising attacks upon the civillian population - both in Iraq and abroad.  Not to mention that there is a strong grass-roots uprising from various sources, not just former Baathists (who are now apparently welcome in Iraq, anyways).

There is also the obvious moral iossue of 'forcing' a secular government upon Iraqis.  For a truly free - and thus respected - Iraqi government to be elected, the populaityon has to be given every option - including a clerical theocracy.  It's not the US' job to decide what the government is, only to make sure the people can choose it fairly.

In short - the whole essence of this war was suppossedly to be to free the Iraqi people (after the WMD claims were truly shown up, this was the fallback).  To do that, you need to give them complete freedom to do whatever they want in terms of rebuilding their couintry.  As it is, this truly ****ed-up occupation is doing more to boost grass roots support for the likes of Al-Queda than it is to actually rebuild the country of Iraq.  

Bluntly, it's been an abject failure and waste of time.  We have achieved nothing beyond replace one unelected dictator who is happy to bomb his own citizens, with a foreign force happy to bomb Irai civillians and an unuelected government with very little in the way of power.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator
Kaz, I think you need to read a little more Emily Post and a little less Penthouse/Playboy.  As I said, the topic in and of itself doesn't bother me that much.  But, you are being crude and reveling in it and acting in general like a total neanderthal.  Come to think of it, you've been acting this way for several weeks now.

A) I don't need to read some backwards victorian
B) I don't read Penthouse and Playboy
C) "crude and reveling" - keep proving my point about you being a backwards victorian brainwashed by your fundamentalism into believing sexuality is bad.   Are you aware that views such as this are psychologically damaging.
D) The belief that the neanderthals were any less intelligence that the homo sapeins sapeins at the time is completely false.  They were roughly equal in intelligence.  However the Neanderthals were less adaptive, less creative, than H. S. S. and thats why H.S.S. survived and the Neanderthals are not.

Views such as yours (sexual repression) have been long shown to be dangerous.  The pyschosis rate in a population is directly proportional to the ammount of sexual repression ( repression in general).  This is mostly due to cognitive dissonance ("they told me this is bad! but my instincts tell me this is good!  The church tells me this is bad but modern post-conventional/post-modern society tells me it's ok")


Your views are extremely damaging to people.  Even if you personally have brainwashed yourself enough to not realize you have the C.D. it's there.  You're lashing out at me is an example of the fact that it is there, you're trying to avoid thinking about it.

Get out of the 1600s, your 'polite society' has the highest rates of demestic abuse, divorce, racism, homophobia, limitations of free thought.   Your "polite society" is a cancer in post-conventional society.

At any rate, Rictor has already asked you to stop and now I'm  asking you not to bring it up again, unless you want to start a new thread.  Admins, I ask you to please keep an eye on it, thanks.

So long as you spew ignorance I will call you for it.  Wherever the cancer of repression rears it's head I will be there like a laser scalpel to remove it.

Running crying to the admins because you want the final word when you know the post coming now was going to be a total owning of you is just an example of the C.D. manifestation.   You don't want to think about it because it makes you unconfortable, you would rather remain ignorance and repressed because at this point your ignorance is making it confortable for you to think.

I find this a mix between saddening and disgustinga.  

edit:
Ace, I didn't ask for your input.  I believe in modesty and general moral behavior.  I believe sex is an act reserved for a married couple.  I like bikinis, halter tops, ect. but people who act like low class sluts will be labeled as such.

There is a differences between modesty and repression, there is a difference between morality and repression.  Beleiving that "sex is an act reserved for married couples" leads to higher divorce rates, extreme axiety on the wedding night.  

Saying "I've slept with someone" is not "acting like low class sluts".  Being comfortable with sexuality is evidence that the person has grown up past "convetional morality" (black and white moral thinking) to "post-convetional morality" (relativistic thinking, do-no-harm when-possible thinking).  

Sorry Libby, but you are a classic example of what's wrong with repression.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
Running crying to the admins because you want the final word when you know the post coming now was going to be a total owning of you is just an example of the C.D. manifestation.  

The amount of times I've seen someone post a huge inaccuracy-filled post about something and then say that they are sick of the subject

Gotta agree with you there Kazan. If Lib didn't want the conversation to go off-topic he could have just kept his mouth shut and not said anything. Posting a reply which demands answering and then saying no one should reply to it cause it would be off-topic is a rather underhanded trick.

[Liberator]

I think it's official, Kazan has gone stark raving mad.

Relitavistic Morality is what has destroyed much of Western Civilization.  

The Idea that there are no limits to behavior flies in the face of the very Idea of moral, ethical and reasonable thought.

[karajorma]

"Oh no. The sky is falling in on us. Save us Liberator!"

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator
I think it's official, Kazan has gone stark raving mad.

A) No, I'm stark RAVING SANE

I've had my brain poked with more tests than you know exist

Relitavistic Morality is what has destroyed much of Western Civilization.  

Way to spew blazing bull****

What destruction of wester civilization? There HAS been no destruction of western civilizaiton.

I doubt you even understand what relativistic morality IS, way to spew a conditioned respones.  Wow you're a great study in how far manipulation can go in humans.  

The Idea that there are no limits to behavior flies in the face of the very Idea of moral, ethical and reasonable thought.

rotfl - if you think relativistic morality is the idea that there are no limits than that is the finest example of your ignorance.  

Post-conventionalist / relativistic morality is "grey thinking" - ie acknowleding that the world is shades of grey.  IT is also the abandonment of authoritarian morality.


Authoritarian moral (conventional) systems have lead to almost all the wars in the history of mankind. Post-conventionalist morality creates an atmosphere that inhibits wars.  

Post-conventionalist morality is the "Do no harm" principle.  If something you do harms something, then it is wrong.  However sometimes things conflict - say the needs of the many over the needs of the few.  A embyrio vs it's mother, etc.  


Liberator, please post again, I am having a lot of fun performing psychological analysis on you.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, we do have a right, as your theorized invasion is an act of war by one national power against another national power.

We've been over this already, but here we go again.

Iraq is a special case, the country was ruled by a despot almost as bad as Hitler.  We know he had WMDs at one point, he used them against his own citizens.  What the conflict in Iraq has been about is this, Saddam was funding a myriad of terrorist groups, call it State Sponsored if you wish.  But more than that, and they should have been forthwith about this from the beginning, but I believe that the main purpose of the Iraq War was firstly, to draw out the Terrorists(militant Islamo-Theocratic Fascists and their like) and force them into an open conflict, which simoultaneously ties up their assetts and reduces their numbers, and secondly, establish a Secular Republican nation in the Middle East to further destabilize the other Theocratic governments of the region and force a paradigm shift in regional politics, toward a more Western friendly enviroment.

You see, the Terrorists have so many willing volunteers because, since most of the populace are fairly ignorant and thus very religious, they can say the "Allah has said to do X" and the populace will do their utmost to carry out "Allah's" commands.  By shifting the governace to a Secular Republic we are helping to free the minds of the populace.  We aren't taking away their religion, not by any means, but we are showing them that they cannot live by religion alone in the modern world.

You can't be serious. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, hundreds of thousands of others groups (gays, gypsies, cimmunists etc). He started a war that cost, all in all, something like 15 millions lives.

Just add up the numbers man. The scale of Saddam:Hitler is off by a factor of several hundred.

Its funny how Saddam was best buddies with the West, and everyone loves him, until he went against orders and invaded Kuwait (which wasn't entirely against orders even, he was told he could take a small piece). And since then he has been demonized. I'm not saying he was a nice guy, far from it, but you should be aware that there has been a very systemic and effective campaign to turn Saddam in to a monster disproportionate to what he has actually done.

___________________________

Some facts for you on the whole theocracy issue:

During all of Saddam's rule, up to and including the invasion, Iraq was a secular nation. Saddam feared that an Islamic uprising like the one in Iran could overthrow him, so he actively suppresed religion. He is known for killing many prominent clerics, including al-Sadr's father.

It might be that you just make no distinction between the various Middle-Eastern nations, but you really should. There isnt this one big, homogenous area called "the MIddle East" home of the fundamentlist brown people.

There are stark differences between each nations, which I think you should maybe learn. In matters of politics, economy, religion and so forth.

-more to come-

[jdjtcagle]

Don't your people's fingers hurt!?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Rictor


You can't be serious. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, hundreds of thousands of others groups (gays, gypsies, cimmunists etc). He started a war that cost, all in all, something like 15 millions lives.

Just add up the numbers man. The scale of Saddam:Hitler is off by a factor of several hundred.

Its funny how Saddam was best buddies with the West, and everyone loves him, until he went against orders and invaded Kuwait (which wasn't entirely against orders even, he was told he could take a small piece). And since then he has been demonized. I'm not saying he was a nice guy, far from it, but you should be aware that there has been a very systemic and effective campaign to turn Saddam in to a monster disproportionate to what he has actually done.

___________________________

Some facts for you on the whole theocracy issue:

During all of Saddam's rule, up to and including the invasion, Iraq was a secular nation. Saddam feared that an Islamic uprising like the one in Iran could overthrow him, so he actively suppresed religion. He is known for killing many prominent clerics, including al-Sadr's father.

It might be that you just make no distinction between the various Middle-Eastern nations, but you really should. There isnt this one big, homogenous area called "the MIddle East" home of the fundamentlist brown people.

There are stark differences between each nations, which I think you should maybe learn. In matters of politics, economy, religion and so forth.

-more to come-

This post makes the most sense to me. Its good to be patriotic and all, but not to the point of defending your nation even when its wrong. Its ok to say your leaders are making mistakes and its ok to try and make up for them. We gain nothing from ignorance at all.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Lonestar


This post makes the most sense to me. Its good to be patriotic and all, but not to the point of defending your nation even when its wrong. Its ok to say your leaders are making mistakes and its ok to try and make up for them. We gain nothing from ignorance at all.

Some would say patriotism is having the courage to stand up and say when your country is going wrong.