Thread: What makes terrorists?

Originally Posted by stroller

Care to elaborate?

Anybody who doesn't think the radical fundamentalist terrorists should be treated like criminals, anybody who doesn't believe the terrorists should be deprived of media attention ... anybody who blames the actions of terrorism on GWB.

Actually, one of the main points "liberals", or their European equivalent, are making, is that terrorists should be regarded as criminals and treated accordingly.

So, your comment was a bit muddled, really?

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Originally Posted by attaboy
Were the japanese warned to leave the city?

They were not warned to leave Tokyo when the US military fire bombed its wooden houses out of existence. More people died in these attacks on suburban Tokyo than in the attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined... I dont see how housing estates can be defined as legitimate miliarty targets. British, American, German, Turkish etc etc armed forces have all wantonly killed civillians in huge numbers. Its a fact.

Yeah I know about the fire bombibngs don't forget the other japanese (66) cities which were firebombed. It's amazing what it took to make the Japanese surrender. They were willing to let the entire population die in the equivalent of massive seppukus over an issue of the Emperor's face.

Originally Posted by surasak

So, if the hijackers had warned people to get out of NYC then destroying the WTC and part of lower Manhattan would have been OK?

The dropping of the atomic bomb wasn't about forcing Japan to surrender but more of a warning to Stalin. Sadly many Japanese paid the price for that.

What about the firebombings in Dresden? Were the also not a terrorist act? Or does the declaration of war (a legal war...LMAO...I get such a laugh out of the concept of an 'unlawful enemy combatant') alleviate the moral responsibility to protect civilian life at all costs?

Have the worst terrorist attacks in history been perpetrated by poor terrorists or by wealthy terrorists?

We like to think about the terrorists that come from refugee camps but what about the ones wearing national flags on their uniforms who have unilaterally invaded other sovereign nations?

Again, more than one objective in the bombing, the main reason was to limit US and japanese deaths. I wouldn't say it was to show Stalin its effects more than it was to save lives of Americans and Japanese. I'm not that cynical. We tried firebombing them and it didn't work. It's amazing what it took to make the Japanese surrender. They were willing to let the entire population die in the equivalent of massive seppukus over an issue of the Emperor's face. What I'm saying is we shouldn't forget the Japanese government was entrusted with the responsiblility for the security and safety of their people. Instead they were callous and reckless.

They used to call it total war. But I've noticed people wish to redefine it as terrorism. I have trouble seeing a moral equivalency between someone dropping bombs and someone who steeps their hands in human blood or drills holes into people's flesh while they are still alive. I wouldn't call the man who drops the bomb a sadist or mentally ill.

Originally Posted by stroller

Actually, one of the main points "liberals", or their European equivalent, are making, is that terrorists should be regarded as criminals and treated accordingly. So, your comment was a bit muddled, really?

That is a simple way to look at it I guess.

Originally Posted by stroller

Actually, one of the main points "liberals", or their European equivalent, are making, is that terrorists should be regarded as criminals and treated accordingly.

So, your comment was a bit muddled, really?

In America that means we must conviene a grand jury and present evidence to the GJ as to why a warrant for the specific terrorist's arrest is needed. I think that is the wrong way to go.

It's proper procedure in a democracy, IMO.
In several European nations procedures have been adapted to suit this particular issue.
Don't ask me for links, I'm not gonna dig them out, I read a fair bit about it while in Germany recently.

Originally Posted by attaboy

It's amazing what it took to make the Japanese surrender. They were willing to let the entire population die in the equivalent of massive seppukus over an issue of the Emperor's face.

Isn't that pretty much the case when faced with a foreign invader? Are you suggesting that America would just roll over and surrender if Russia or China threatened to invade?

Why does it surprise you that a population would fight to the death rather than give up?

Originally Posted by attaboy

Originally Posted by stroller

Actually, one of the main points "liberals", or their European equivalent, are making, is that terrorists should be regarded as criminals and treated accordingly.

So, your comment was a bit muddled, really?

In America that means we must conviene a grand jury and present evidence to the GJ as to why a warrant for the specific terrorist's arrest is needed. I think that is the wrong way to go.

Please clarify. Are you against due process?

Originally Posted by surasak

Please clarify. Are you against due process?

I won't speak for him. But ...

I'm for due process but not at US taxpayer expense.

I'd support letting them be tried by an International Court.

Isn't that contradictory? If they aren't breaking U.S. law then what right do we have to pick them up? That's what I don't understand about this bullshit called 'unlawful combatant status.' If they have violated a U.S. law within our jurisdiction then due process should be afforded, otherwise, failure to do so greatly diminishes our own moral position (i.e if we adopt the same techniques they use then we aren't all that much different).

Roll over? They were finished. They were asking for a conditional surrender. If they had read the history of WWI (and I'm sure they did) then they would have known the USA stepped in to limit the retribution the British and French wanted to lay out on the Germans. The Japanese leaders knew they were going to hang if they surrendered so they let 100s of thousands more die while they stalled. If the islands had been invaded God knows how many millions of civilians would have died to show what had become insane loyality to something that was over. We aren't the same as Russia and China. Hundreds of thousands of German troops rushed to surrender to the West rather than the Russians. So many were surrendering that we told the german military we wouldn't accept anymore of their troops unless they agreed to our terms. The germans military surrendered to our terms. At that point it would have been irresponsibel to refuse and let their men get taken by the Russians if they could avoid it. As officers they have a duty to their troops.

Are you suggesting that America would just roll over and surrender if Russia or China threatened to invade?

Is that what they call a straw man? Here let me try it. Are you suggesting it's ok to let millions of troops and civilians die in what has clearly become a senseless cause against the USA just to save one's own selfish neck? "We shouldn't forget the Japanese government was entrusted with the responsiblility for the security and safety of their people. Instead they were callous and reckless."

Please clarify. Are you against due process?

When they are overseas where we can't contain their movements how do you convene a grand jury and insure that the evidence doesn't leak to the press and ruin our attempts to kill or capture them? If we fire a missle into Bin Laden's camp do we need a warrant for everyone inside the camp?


I agree with you unlawful combatant is an obscure term that leads to the administration and our country looking dishonest.

Just as a sidenote:
The Nazis didn't have the same support in the military or population as the Japanese regime (Hitler had about 1/3 of the votes), that's part of the reason they were rushing to surrender - Germans were 'praying' for the allies to arrive. And yes, the "Amis" were seen as rescuers, opposed to the French and Russians, who were out for revenge.

You have to understand the cultural differences to know why it was so difficult for them to surrender. Westerns will fight until saving one's neck becomes more important than the cause. The Japanese were isolated and developed a totally different culture..to the point of where they really considered their leader to be the son of Heaven and that Heaven wouldn't be satisfied until the other two thrones (China and Korea) were under the Emperor's control. To the Japanese surrender and loss are worse than death. To the average Westerner we'll surrender for $10 if given a hot bath and a meal. Of course we couldn't understand why they wouldn't surrender: we simply had not fought them before. And expecting them to understand our cultural values when we failed to understand theirs is a major reason why the fighting continued until the atomic bombs were dropped. We firebombed their cities to rubble and they still fought. This is a reason why we're failing in Iraq: we can't possible enforce our cultural values on them because we don't even bother trying to understand them. By doing so we're no different than the 'facists' we pretend to fight.

Regarding the terrorists: if you want to capture them and bring them to justice then you must do so under the very same justice system you expect others to follow. That means capturing them and bringing them back to the U.S. for trial (if they in fact broke our laws). How many of the thousands in detainment were responsible for 9-11 or any other terrorist attack against on American soil? What right to we have to round up thousands and confine without charges and without a trial for years on end?

Originally Posted by surasak

That means capturing them and bringing them back to the U.S. for trial (if they in fact broke our laws).

But unless the terrorists are US citizens, and/or have committed a crime while in the US, US law does not really apply, does it?

Us embassies and military installations abroad?
That would fall under US jurisdiction, I believe.

Originally Posted by stroller

Us embassies and military installations abroad?
That would fall under US jurisdiction, I believe.

So if a US citizen throws a rock at the Iranian embassy in Washington, he will be handed over to the iranians to face vandalism charges in Teheran?

Or are US citizens and installation just treated differently?

Embassy grounds are considered sovereign soil of the country owning the embassy. This is why U.S. Marines provide embassy security and not thehost country. So, an attack on a U.S. embassy is the same as an attack on the United States, and, the perp(s) could be handed over to the U.S. for prosecution if the attacker were caught and the host government agreed. Generally, though, I think this rarely happens.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by surasak

That means capturing them and bringing them back to the U.S. for trial (if they in fact broke our laws).

But unless the terrorists are US citizens, and/or have committed a crime while in the US, US law does not really apply, does it?

That is the crux of my argument: unless someone commits a terrorist act in the United States what right do we have to go overseas and round up anyone? What law is being broken if an insurgent attacks U.S. forces in Iraq?

Oh, yeah, the catch-22 of the Military Commissons Act of 2006: Any person who attacks a co-belligerent of the U.S. can be rounded up by the U.S. and put in confinement as an 'unlawful enemy combatant.'

Here's some scary shit for you:

Section 950v

(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

In other words if you suggest it would be a good idea to change strategy in Iraq it could be construed as aiding the enemy.

948b:

Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

948a:

‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful
enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense.

I guess that means a person who cooks food for the Taliban could be considered an UEC.

Well an international court would have solved the problem, but naturally that woudl mean US citizens would have to be accountable to a non-US court, so they want nothing of it.

And the US wonders why they are not getting more support for their "war on terror"......

From the origins of terrorism to how it's being dealt with, oh well...

The Bush regime will be less than a "comma" in the annals of history, a slight dip in the graph of human development...

Did we ever come up with a working definition of 'terrorist' and 'terrorism?'

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Sorry mate but Iran isn't an Arab country. You keep making basic factual errors. Please try reading a little before posting. I thought your Rabbinical traditon would aide your debating skills, but obviously not.

MD you seem to have a talent for splitting hairs.
When Iranians share the same proclaimed mission of the destruction and annihilation of Israel along with their Hamas and Hezbolah pals, distinctions of who's or what and Arab is seems to fade.
When a nation like Iran who has been subsidizing Arab terrorists for nearly 30 years the distinction of Persian or Arab is rather moot.
If you support Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and their current underwriting of middle east terrorism just say so.
Or perhaps your disingenuous demeanor is simply a result the common and popular european anti-americanism. Which in itself is banality to the extreme.

Thank you Mr Earl !

Talkin to yourself, eh??

Originally Posted by surasak

Did we ever come up with a working definition of 'terrorist' and 'terrorism?'

No, but there is a thread about it, should bring it up to the first page for the recently joined members to comment on, I'll have a look for it later.

So Heman and Bros say Muslims are all terrorists cos they are born that way and thought how to terrorize people.

Mhz and Bros say that there are certain things that makes a person become a terrorist and Israel and the west with their War on terror is doing no good than adding fuel to the fire.

What's the result of this thread, is it gonna be like Herman saying to Mhz that "you suck" and Mhz replying "No you suck"??

Or are we gonna have a proper debate??

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

And the US wonders why they are not getting more support for their "war on terror"......

IMO I think the war on terror is the entire free worlds war on terror.