Domestic Terrorism vs War

[Big Guy]

Rue - Thank you for the kind words and stating that I am not a fan of the Nazis. I appreciate any accolade, especially coming from an astute character like yourself. Now lets see if I can get your expert opinion on my other attributes - as attributed by you; Not very bright, anti-Semitic, terrorist supporter, Israel hater, Jew hater, uninformed, prejudicial, Hamas fan, Hezbollah fan, Putin apologist and having bad breath.

Now back to the topic - when any country goes to war against another country it can expect consequences. We live in a global village. If we are dropping bombs on people over there then we should expect that somebody supporting the enemy is going to try to do damage to some of us over here.

What is the difference if somebody is shooting at our soldiers over there or over here? They are all part of the same military who is at war. If we drop a bomb over there and kill innocent civilians as collateral action then why should some of them not feel entitled to kill some innocent civilians over here. I guess you could argue targeting is the difference but Israel "targeted" terrorists and killed about 2,000 civilians in Gaza. It seems that targeting is not a very useful excuse.

Killing people who are not in a military and want no part of any war is an aberration. War is an aberration.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Big Guy

[Moonlight Graham]

I get it. So, setting fire to people in a cage and videotaping their deaths as propaganda isn't terrorism, right? Murdering the entire adult population of a town, and taking the young women as sex slaves, that's only terrorism if some horrible western type decides to unfairly call it that, I take it? Setting off a car bomb at a mosque that kills over a hundred people is not really terrorism, but just the cry of the patriot who longs to breath free?

Honestly, the kind moral depravity exhibited by the left wing relativism crowd makes me want to vomit.

I have no problem defining terrorism, and if you can't then really, you should be ashamed of your ignorance.

Not sure what you're responding to that I said which was so repugnant to you. What I said doesn't really jive with your response, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

One of my points was that some white person can take a machine gun and shoot up a school/university or mall or other public place and it's usually not called terrorism by the government. Meanwhile, a Muslim does the same thing and it's terrorism. It also doesn't matter whether a government or civilian/non-state actor commits the act or terrorism IMO, nor does it matter what kind of non-state actor commits the act.

It's very ironic that the point of terrorism is to instill a sense of fear in the public, yet governments play on this fear when an act occurs or may occur and drum up this fear to further their own agendas, which you could argue is its own form of terrorism.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

One of my points was that some white person can take a machine gun and shoot up a school/university or mall or other public place and it's usually not called terrorism by the government. Meanwhile, a Muslim does the same thing and it's terrorism.

We've been over that nonsense before. Some crazy shooting up a store or school is not the same as someone doing so out of part of a political attempt to terrorize people. Adam Lanza didn't kill all those kids in order to make some kind of political point. He did it because he was nuts. Skin colour is utterly irrelevant, and pretending that it is smacks of an attempt to defend the behaviour of Muslim terrorists.

[Argus]

What is the difference if somebody is shooting at our soldiers over there or over here? They are all part of the same military who is at war. If we drop a bomb over there and kill innocent civilians as collateral action then why should some of them not kill some innocent civilians over here.

So you're saying that Muslims in Canada, are not really Canadians. They're the enemy, along with ISIS and Al Quaeda? Shouldn't that mean we ought to arrest them all, or at least deport them?

[Moonlight Graham]

We've been over that nonsense before. Some crazy shooting up a store or school is not the same as someone doing so out of part of a political attempt to terrorize people. Adam Lanza didn't kill all those kids in order to make some kind of political point. He did it because he was nuts.

Well, an act of terrorism needs to have as part of its motive 1) targeting civilians, and 2) an attempt to further and/or bring attention to a cause (often political).

I'm not talking about mentally ill people just snapping and randomly shooting people. What about ie: the École Polytechnique Massacre? It wasn't random, but was politically motivated. I would define it as terrorism, yet it's never really described as such:

"Twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot 28 people, killing 14 women, before committing suicide. He began his attack by entering a classroom at the university, where he separated the male and female students. After claiming that he was "fighting feminism" and calling the women "a bunch of feminists," he shot all nine women in the room, killing six. He then moved through corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom, specifically targeting women to shoot. Overall, he killed fourteen women and injured ten other women and four men in just under 20 minutes before turning the gun on himself. His suicide note claimed political motives and blamed feminists for ruining his life. The note included a list of 19 Quebec women whom Lépine considered to be feminists and apparently wished to kill."

The attacks in Ottawa and Quebec last fall by ISIS sympathizers, I don't know if I would define them as "terrorism" because as horrible as they were, those attacks did not target civilians, but only government military targets. Therefore I'd call them acts of war, and/or acts of treason, or something of the like.

[WIP]

We've been over that nonsense before. Some crazy shooting up a store or school is not the same as someone doing so out of part of a political attempt to terrorize people. Adam Lanza didn't kill all those kids in order to make some kind of political point. He did it because he was nuts. Skin colour is utterly irrelevant, and pretending that it is smacks of an attempt to defend the behaviour of Muslim terrorists.

well, thanks for confirming that the categorizing of who is/who is not a terrorist is plainly racist process based on how white/ or middle-eastern the shooter looks!

It was noted after the South Carolina shootings that the suspect was described on CNN and all over MSM as "a disturbed youth." That designation never applies to someone who's darker...has a beard...let alone a turban etc..

I report that came in on my Twitter feed today from Rabble (like it or not) shows that Canada...just like the US primary terrorist threat is white rightwing nutcases, not Arabs working for ISIS etc..

[Argus]

well, thanks for confirming that the categorizing of who is/who is not a terrorist is plainly racist process based on how white/ or middle-eastern the shooter looks!

Well thanks for confirming that those on the far left have an enormous difficulty in comprehending basic, written English.

[eyeball]

Is there such a place or thing as the near left or would that be like saying you're only a little bit pregnant?

[Rue]

Big Guy your passive aggressive victim response, refusal to retract your false statement as to what I said, your latest attempt to drag me into petulant name calling to try portray yourself as a victim and draw personal attention to yourself is petulant and it speaks loudly. Good luck trying to bait me into name calling.

Further you again evidence from your question you are not interested in debate just making the statement terrorists and soldiers are one and the same.

Your deliberate refusal to make even a basic attempt to try understand when a war convention applies speaks for itself as well.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Rue

[Argus]

Is there such a place or thing as the near left or would that be like saying you're only a little bit pregnant?

Sure, those would be people who are left of centre but not crazy or stupid.

[Big Guy]

To Rue - Thank you for your brief response. You have revealed my nefarious manipulations in an attempt to deal with your criticisms of Big Guy - there is one flaw in that logic. Your views have absolutely no credibility with me, I find no value (except perhaps for one of humour) to read your posts and I certainly have no interesting in debating you. Some posters may but I do not. All you do is call me names, refer to all kinds personality traits which you find negative and often post incoherent posts.

If things that I say and do speak for themselves, then why do you have to explain them?

I try not to bait you or demean you or make fun of you - just ignore you - but you keep posting opinions directed towards me. Why do you keep doing that? You have called me every negative name in the book yet continue to read my posts. Why bother?

Back to topic - There is an unfortunate view by many that "terrorists" are somehow sub human, or brain washed, or genetically warped or want to kill everybody in the West or want to destroy freedom or whatever. When you do not understand your enemy you will never defeat him.

It is in the interest of governments to paint the enemy in as negative a colour as possible so the term "terrorist" becomes all encompassing. At least it is a little more civilized than the "Murderous Hun" or the "Yellow Peril" or those "Slant eyed Gooks" in Vietnam or whatever. That way you do not have to consider them as humans with the same needs and desire - and maybe even question why we are over there killing them with impunity and writing off innocent bystanders as "acceptable collateral damage".

Most people fall for that kind or propaganda and there is always the default of falling back on the "Flag", "love of country", "stand behind your troops or stand in front of them", or "Doing the right thing!" or anything else that will keep one from questioning our participation.

[Moonlight Graham]

Terrorism is an act of violence. It is an act of violence used to impose political/religious belief.

The fact that leftists on this forum can not see the difference between an act of war and act of terror comes from the fact they

do not understand the difference, not that there is no difference.

An act of war, the definition of soldier, what a war crime (illegal act of war) is and the code of conduct stipulated in a legal war fall under the Geneva conventions.

Those conventions define a soldier as belonging to a sovereign nation's armed forces, wearing a visible military uniform, not deliberately killing civilians or engaging in torture.

You can quote whatever international law definitions you wish. All of a sudden, you're quoting international law and UN definitions for legitimacy, in the next thread you're scoffing at whatever international law Israel may break or UN report that may criticize Israel The next moment you try to show off your brilliant lawyer speak by delegitimizing a piece of written law I may quote because "its actual legal meaning will only come about when a Judge refers it an actual fact situation or scenario and then applies it" and "legal meaning from statutes does not come from a superficial literal analysis of the words with no contextual reference and application to that context". That won't be stopping anyone on here from quoting the US Constitution or Canadian Charter.

My whole point is that I believe the legal definitions of "terrorism" as passed by US Congress and Canada's Parliament in the Criminal Code are BS. There is no agreed upon international law definition of "terrorism" simply because different competing states wish to co-opt the term for their own BS political purposes. The very term "terrorism" has become BS used for propaganda.

You note that war is defined in international law as conflict by states involving uniformed soldiers. But that is conventional war. There is also civil war, and asymmetrical war (including terrorism) or guerrilla warfare, defined in statute or not, but concepts very much in use in the study of international relations. The Bush/Obama admin use the term "war of terror", even though by your claim it's not a war at all since terrorists aren't uniformed state-sanctioned soldiers.

I do believe in international law though, since it creates strong norms, but just that it's flawed and outdated.

Terrorism is an act of violence. It is an act of violence used to impose political/religious belief.

I disagree on this definition. Any definition of terrorism must include the fact that a terrorist act deliberately targets civilians. If Iran bombed a shopping mall in New York i would consider that and act of terrorism (and also an act of war, and a war crime).

Edited July 23, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

What do you mean?

How long do you want to play this routine? Calling you out on this , right here, right now. Mr. Obtuse.

[Shady]

How long do you want to play this routine? Calling you out on this , right here, right now. Mr. Obtuse.

I'm asking you what you mean because gitmo would literally be empty right now if the countries of origin of the prisoners would simply agree to take back their former citizens. But they won't. Furthermore, the Geneva convention doesnt apply to non uniformed, non nation state combatants. In fact while on the battlefield, they purposely violate the rules of war, like not wearing a military uniform as to diminish the risk of civilian casualties. It's actually the opposite. They seek to blend in and blur the lines between soldier and citizen.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm asking you what you mean because gitmo would literally be empty right now if the countries of origin of the prisoners would simply agree to take back their former citizens. But they won't. Furthermore, the Geneva convention doesnt apply to non uniformed, non nation state combatants. In fact while on the battlefield, they purposely violate the rules of war, like not wearing a military uniform as to diminish the risk of civilian casualties. It's actually the opposite. They seek to blend in and blur the lines between soldier and citizen.

And do you think US and Canadian soldiers don't do that? And keep in mind, there are many more updated international laws than the Geneva Conventions. Try to keep up eh.

[dre]

Furthermore, the Geneva convention doesnt apply to non uniformed, non nation state combatants.

They absolutely do apply. Its true that the Bush administration tried to make the legal argument that they dont apply but they got bitchslapped in Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Also the UN and international bodies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have consistently stated that the four Geneva Conventions apply to the Guantanamo prisoners as well as international human rights treaties.

[ReeferMadness]

Terrorism is a political term forced into legal language. The intent is clearly to demonize enemies. Killings done by Muslims, left wing groups and guerilla organizations are almost always branded terrorism. Killings done by right wing groups are rarely characterized as such. And people talk about killing for political reasons vs killing because the perpetrator is mentally unstable. As if the two are mutually exclusive.

The latest case in point is the Lafayette shootings. the LA times described the shooter as such:

John Russell Houser hated taxes, liberals, newspapers, gays and the United States, according to the broad trail he left in court documents and on the Internet. Nor was he overly fond of his family, which feared him so much that relatives sought a restraining order and once had him involuntarily committed on the grounds that he was mentally ill.

In other words, he had the same basic dislikes as many of the people on this forum. He's also a poster child for everything that is wrong with US gun laws (which the Harperites would like to have here). But he's not Muslim or a leftist so he won't be branded a terrorist.

[Rue]

The Geneva conventions do not apply to terrorists. Back it up Dre. You made a statement that is patently false now back it up.

As for you Moonlight Graham, of course I quote law, this is what applies and nowhere have any of my words rejected international law as applicable to Israel. Provide the words or statements where I said international law does not apply to Israel.

In fact I have criticized Israel on this board when it has broken international laws. Put up or shut up on that accusation because its false and you are inferring what you think my opinion is not what I have actually stated on this board.

As for you Big Guy you came on this board for all to see engaging in a tactic with other posters to talk about my alleged religion or ethnic identity in an effort to bait me. It's there for anyone to read. The continued responses where you pose yourself as a victim by my comments speaks to your need to try get personal with me and try use emotions and personal remarks to manipulate.

I debate your words despite your constant attempts to draw me into personal comments and references to you as a person and your perceived slights.

You now just came on this board to say you don't debate what I say and could care less what I say. That is already known. Its why you choose instead to name call.

Big Guy if you have nothing to say to me then why come on the board and state what you did?

If you do not care what I stated why do you continually write me on this board trying to portray yourself as a victim of me and then state your words directly to me while stating you don't respond to me? Lol.

You Big Guy went way over the pale attacking my being Jewish, trying to create imaginary Jews to compare me to and then speculate on this board whether I am a Jew or not. That Sir shows your agenda and the depths of personal attack you chose to engage in. So don't come on this board posing as a victim.

You come on this board to piss on the state of Israel for existing and any Jew who is a Zionist. That is what you did, that is what you do, and that is your agenda, and I will debate it if you pit it on the board as is my right.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Rue

[Rue]

Dre your comment about international apply is nonsensical. It does not apply to terrorists only states who have signed the Geneva convention and that is all your response shows. Now prove international law applies to terrorists Provide the conventions that apply to terrorists Put up or shut up. No one on this board stated the Geneva conventions does not apply to the US. No one. What I stated in fact is that those conventions do not apply to terrorists and they never did. They can't. As much as you would like to create the fiction a terrorist is a soldier of a sovereign state's army and the sovereign state of that army is a signatory of the Geneva convention, that is not the case.

The law does not magically change because you say so. Now back it up or move on and stop making unfounded and unproven legal representations as to how international war conventions work. Either provide your sources or move on.

[Big Guy]

?

[WIP]

Terrorism is a political term forced into legal language. The intent is clearly to demonize enemies. Killings done by Muslims, left wing groups and guerilla organizations are almost always branded terrorism. Killings done by right wing groups are rarely characterized as such. And people talk about killing for political reasons vs killing because the perpetrator is mentally unstable. As if the two are mutually exclusive.

The latest case in point is the Lafayette shootings. the LA times described the shooter as such:

In other words, he had the same basic dislikes as many of the people on this forum. He's also a poster child for everything that is wrong with US gun laws (which the Harperites would like to have here). But he's not Muslim or a leftist so he won't be branded a terrorist.

I'm starting to think that the US is about to go through a meltdown and things getting a lot worse than they already are. More often than not, the 'terrorist' is someone who sees life getting worse and feels powerless to affect those forces or change them.

So, the typical rightwing bubba down south is falling behind economically...affected by the collapse in real estate values, has lost his high-paying job and is either collecting some sort of disability or has had to take low wage work and if he's married, he depends on his wife to bring in most of the family income. So, the one thing he has that still makes him a man is his gun! And he's going to drive around flying either a Confederate battle flag or a Gadsen Flag (if he lives in the Southwest) and threaten to shoot all of the immigrants and blacks who are trying to take away "his country."

Just sayin, I expect many more of these...especially since neither local nor federal police are willing to go after right wing militias and gun nuts! They land hard on any signs of uprising among blacks or latinos, but if you're white and fat and have type 2 diabetes, you have free reign to run around with your guns and even threaten to shoot federal law enforcement officers (Cliven Bundy's gang for instance).

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm starting to think that the US is about to go through a meltdown and things getting a lot worse than they already are. More often than not, the 'terrorist' is someone who sees life getting worse and feels powerless to affect those forces or change them.

Yeah...we get that a lot...1960's...1970's...1980's...1990's....2000's. Don't be disappointed when it doesn't happen (again).

[GostHacked]

I'm asking you what you mean because gitmo would literally be empty right now if the countries of origin of the prisoners would simply agree to take back their former citizens. But they won't. Furthermore, the Geneva convention doesnt apply to non uniformed, non nation state combatants. In fact while on the battlefield, they purposely violate the rules of war, like not wearing a military uniform as to diminish the risk of civilian casualties. It's actually the opposite. They seek to blend in and blur the lines between soldier and citizen.

GITMO should not exist anyways. It is convenience to house a facility in a country that the US (until recently) imposed decades of sanctions on while circumventing so called international laws when only the US has drummed up the term 'enemy combatant'. Rule of law? Laughable.

The US should have brought those people to the US mainland and house/trial them there. But good, then the Geneva conventions don't apply to groups like Academi (formerly Xe, formally Black Water).

The US has released some of the terrorists, but not to the country they were found in. And then we find that some of them have done more than one stint at GITMO.

Catch and release, fuel the flames, cause the problem, provide the solution. All because Canada.