Terrorists, Savages and Heroes

[Big Guy]

I have been reading about and writing about my view of the "terrorist" label. I feel it has become a convenient label that any country or group can use to rationalize the killing of somebody without having to explain the reason.

If someone is killed because they are "bad" then there is an implied responsibility to explain why they are "bad". But to kill a "terrorist" requires no explanation - they are terrorists so they should die!!

I have also been reading how vicious these terrorists are . They are murderers who do abominable things to people, are therefore "evil" and should be killed. These are the reasons certain posters use to rationalize killing innocent people, invasions of countries, denial of human rights to populations and indiscriminate killings.

Unfortunately for these posters, these "evil" people are later to be found to be rational, caring and normal people. The "Murdering Huns" and "Yellow Peril" of WWII are now our friends and trading partners, those "Slant Eyed Chinks" of Vietnam now supervise Western tourists tours of their country.

I also read about those outrageous tactics used by these modern "terrorists" in the Middle East; Burning and/or drowning prisoners in cages, beheading journalists etc. What barbaric actions!

I remember reading about "savages" who would capture clergymen, pull out their nails, tie them to stakes and burn them. Sometimes they would bury their enemies up to their necks, pour honey over their heads and let the insects devour them. During battles, they would use sharp knives to peel the skin off the heads of their enemies (many still alive) and tie the hairy clumps to their belts to show their victory. I think it was called scalping and those clumps of skin and hair are called scalps.

Now these "savages" are being referred to as the "noble aboriginal". In those Cowboys and Indians Saturday Matinees I saw as a child they were called "Injuns" and we all cheered when the soldiers attacked their camps and killed men, women and children using rifles and machine guns against arrows and spears These aboriginals (natives, Indians, Six Nations ...) are now heroes who were only trying to protect their land from the white man (protecting your land - who could use such an outrageous excuse? ).

Our movie heroes infiltrate enemy compounds, blow up the works, fight their way out by taking out everyone in the area, be it civilian or enemy soldier and bring home the heroine to our cheering - leaving behind a trail of death and destruction. These are our heroes.

I have no particular reference for a personal view on the morality of "terrorism". There are thousands of sites looking at this issue from different angles. But if I require one for this OP then :

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/chattanooga-shooting/chattanooga-shooter-abdulazeez-was-against-terrorism-family-lawyer-n396991

Edited July 23, 2015 by Big Guy

[TimG]

I think the word terrorism should be limited to situations where civilian populations are intentionally targeted for the purpose of creating fear among the civilian population.

Situations where civilians are killed by accident or negligence while going after military targets is a tragedy and may be a crime depending on the level of negligence. But it is not terrorism.

e.g. criminal negligence causing death and murder one are the same crimes in the sense that somebody was killed. The only difference is the intent of the killer. This distinction matters when looking at civilian deaths as well.

Edited July 23, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

I think the word terrorism should be limited to situations where civilian populations are intentionally targeted for the purpose of creating fear among the civilian population.

Situations where civilians are killed by accident or negligence while going after military targets is a tragedy and may be a crime depending on the level of negligence. But it is not terrorism.

e.g. criminal negligence causing death and murder one are the same crimes in the sense that somebody was killed. The only difference is the intent of the killer. This distinction matters when looking at civilian deaths as well.

So the latest shooting in the USA where marines were targeted isn't an act of terrorism by your definition?

[TimG]

So the latest shooting in the USA where marines were targeted isn't an act of terrorism by your definition?

Well, there is a grey area when dealing with soldiers that are not deployed in a conflict zone.

[Big Guy]

I guess that what bothers me is that the term "terrorist" does not mean anything any more in that it means different things to different people. The simplest definition is "one who creates extreme fear in another". So terrorism is the process of using the creation of extreme fear in another for a particular purpose. It has also always been an accepted process during war - from Roman soldiers banging on their shields and marching into battle to the screaming of heathens attacking to battle cries by modern armies. As to trying to intimidate the enemy and instil fear, the most successful act I can remember is the American Atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb vapourized thousands of civilians and killed about a quarter million mostly Japanese men, women and children. It was meant to terrorize the Japanese into submission and it worked.

Personally, I believe that any action of soldier on soldier during war cannot be considered terrorism since they are in an agreed conflict. What is the difference if one of our soldiers over there kills one of them over there and one of them over here kills one of our soldiers over here. I would expect that a Canadian sympathizer over there would take out a few ISIS guys if he had a chance - wouldn't you?

Are there supposed to be boundaries within which wars are fought and you get a penalty if you go outside those boundaries? I do not think so. I believe that if you are at war then you kill them wherever you find them and vice versa. We have already accepted the fact that if someone is innocent and not involved in the conflict but is in the vicinity then they are acceptable targets - "acceptable collateral damage".

William Calley, an American Second Lieutenant soldier in Vietnam, gunned down 22 civilians in a village in order to scare others into panic and teach them a lesson. He was convicted of premeditated murder but not of terrorism. He was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth. It was immediately changed to house arrest and he got a presidential pardon a few years later. I guess there is terrorism and there is terrorism.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

Sometimes murder is just murder, not "terrorism".....like the Somalia Affair in 1993. Was Canada's Airborne Regiment engaged in "terrorism" to intimidate the locals....maybe.

[TimG]

I guess that what bothers me is that the term "terrorist" does not mean anything any more in that it means different things to different people.

I think the meaning is clear and limited in scope but, like the debate over cultural genocide, people with an agenda want to hijack a word because the association furthers their political aims.

As to trying to intimidate the enemy and instil fear, the most successful act I can remember is the American Atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb vapourized thousands of civilians and killed about a quarter million mostly Japanese men, women and children. It was meant to terrorize the Japanese into submission and it worked.

A shooting war between nation states changes the context because the greater good comes from ending the conflict as soon as possible. In this case, a ground war would have resulted in a much larger number of civilian deaths.

William Calley, an American Second Lieutenant soldier in Vietnam, gunned down 22 civilians in a village in order to scare others into panic and teach them a lesson.

An interesting example. I wonder why the pardon. From the facts you presented it does not seem justified. Edited July 23, 2015 by TimG

[Freddy]

I have been reading about and writing about my view of the "terrorist" label. I feel it has become a convenient label that any country or group can use to rationalize the killing of somebody without having to explain the reason.

If someone is killed because they are "bad" then there is an implied responsibility to explain why they are "bad". But to kill a "terrorist" requires no explanation - they are terrorists so they should die!!

I have also been reading how vicious these terrorists are . They are murderers who do abominable things to people, are therefore "evil" and should be killed. These are the reasons certain posters use to rationalize killing innocent people, invasions of countries, denial of human rights to populations and indiscriminate killings.

Unfortunately for these posters, these "evil" people are later to be found to be rational, caring and normal people. The "Murdering Huns" and "Yellow Peril" of WWII are now our friends and trading partners, those "Slant Eyed Chinks" of Vietnam now supervise Western tourists tours of their country.

I also read about those outrageous tactics used by these modern "terrorists" in the Middle East; Burning and/or drowning prisoners in cages, beheading journalists etc. What barbaric actions!

I remember reading about "savages" who would capture clergymen, pull out their nails, tie them to stakes and burn them. Sometimes they would bury their enemies up to their necks, pour honey over their heads and let the insects devour them. During battles, they would use sharp knives to peel the skin off the heads of their enemies (many still alive) and tie the hairy clumps to their belts to show their victory. I think it was called scalping and those clumps of skin and hair are called scalps.

Now these "savages" are being referred to as the "noble aboriginal". In those Cowboys and Indians Saturday Matinees I saw as a child they were called "Injuns" and we all cheered when the soldiers attacked their camps and killed men, women and children using rifles and machine guns against arrows and spears These aboriginals (natives, Indians, Six Nations ...) are now heroes who were only trying to protect their land from the white man (protecting your land - who could use such an outrageous excuse? ).

Our movie heroes infiltrate enemy compounds, blow up the works, fight their way out by taking out everyone in the area, be it civilian or enemy soldier and bring home the heroine to our cheering - leaving behind a trail of death and destruction. These are our heroes.

I have no particular reference for a personal view on the morality of "terrorism". There are thousands of sites looking at this issue from different angles. But if I require one for this OP then :

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/chattanooga-shooting/chattanooga-shooter-abdulazeez-was-against-terrorism-family-lawyer-n396991

This is why you have to determine relativity before using the word good or evil. Unlike what religion has taught us, Good and evil dose not really exist. We made it up to explain what is good or bad relative to ourselves. Your trying to use it in the wrong sense as if such a thing existed, as a natural force.The idea that good and evil are a absolute force of nature is false, and leads many of us to erroneous conclusion.

Like you have done, just now.

Even if the idea of true good or true evil is poetic, and romantic, It's not the reality of our lives. You watch way to many HollyWood movies.

Your approaching the whole subject of terrorism, with the idea of God(good)/Devil(evil)

That's why you can't make sense of it. Because you're logic is not based on a solid foundation of reality. It's a flawed logic based on religious belief.

If you want to understand how the world works, first you're going to need to re-evaluate the foundation on which you base your logical thoughts.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Freddy

[Big Guy]

To Freddy - Thank you for your opinion. I disagree with your premise that my views are based on religion. I believe just the opposite. There are many different religions but only one "humanity". I believe that being "human" means that we are all born the same. We may have some birth biological advantages of survival in a particular region based on the mothers physiology but the rest of the person is free to be formed. Some people call it the "tabula rasa" theory where we are a clear slate ready for development.

I also suggest that your reading that good and evil are a basis of my evaluation is incorrect. What is "good" for one side is "evil" for the other and vice versa. They are points of view relative to the evaluator. In fact, in my PO I had tried to indicate that those who were considered "evil" during war time are no longer so and in fact are now "good".

As to my watching too many Hollywood movies, you may be correct but I would like to think that my opinions are based on research and documentation rather then fiction.

You may also be correct in that I have difficulty in finding the sense of why people believe what they believe and that I do not know how the world works. I have been seeking those answers for over 70 years. If you have those answers I would appreciate your sharing them with me.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on my postings.

[Big Guy]

For those who still believe that our government does not have a vested interest in scaring the Canadian public with the "terrorist" scares and is just reporting what is happening in the world:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bureaucrats-told-to-provide-rob-nicholson-3-terrorism-related-statements-a-week-1.3163333

Looks like the Harper government has instructed of Department of Foreign Affairs, the department that controls and dictates our relationships with the rest of the world, to report - not what is current- but what is happening relating to its definition of "terrorism". This is supposed to be a politically impartial department whose role in communications is to tell us what is happening in the world.

We are being played like a fine fiddle!

[eyeball]

I think it sounds more like a kid banging away on a xylophone with a hammer.

Edited July 24, 2015 by eyeball

[Freddy]

To Freddy - Thank you for your opinion. I disagree with your premise that my views are based on religion. I believe just the opposite. There are many different religions but only one "humanity". I believe that being "human" means that we are all born the same. We may have some birth biological advantages of survival in a particular region based on the mothers physiology but the rest of the person is free to be formed. Some people call it the "tabula rasa" theory where we are a clear slate ready for development.

I also suggest that your reading that good and evil are a basis of my evaluation is incorrect. What is "good" for one side is "evil" for the other and vice versa. They are points of view relative to the evaluator. In fact, in my PO I had tried to indicate that those who were considered "evil" during war time are no longer so and in fact are now "good".

As to my watching too many Hollywood movies, you may be correct but I would like to think that my opinions are based on research and documentation rather then fiction.

You may also be correct in that I have difficulty in finding the sense of why people believe what they believe and that I do not know how the world works. I have been seeking those answers for over 70 years. If you have those answers I would appreciate your sharing them with me.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on my postings.

I know The mental shift you need to do , but I lack the ability to express it In a way that makes it clearer, then what I've already expressed. Maybe if I had to restart, I'd put less accent on religious beliefs, but still mentioning that it has influenced us down a wrong path..... logically speaking, as fare as humans are concerned. Edited July 24, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

Relativity, Keeps changing, and good and bad is based on relativity.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

When white people landed on these shores, natives where a danger to their survival. And we were a danger to theirs. We were in direct competition for the resources of this land.

Now that Natives are no longer a threat, The "relativity" has changed. They are no longer a threat to our survival.

[poochy]

For those who still believe that our government does not have a vested interest in scaring the Canadian public with the "terrorist" scares and is just reporting what is happening in the world:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bureaucrats-told-to-provide-rob-nicholson-3-terrorism-related-statements-a-week-1.3163333

Looks like the Harper government has instructed of Department of Foreign Affairs, the department that controls and dictates our relationships with the rest of the world, to report - not what is current- but what is happening relating to its definition of "terrorism". This is supposed to be a politically impartial department whose role in communications is to tell us what is happening in the world.

We are being played like a fine fiddle!

SO, where are the examples of these statements being passed along to the public? Things seem to be pretty quiet on that front, so if this is what you claim it to be, where are these statements and why haven't i heard them?

[Freddy]

I think it sounds more like a kid banging away on a xylophone with a hammer.

Then it's probably to complex for you to understand.

[eyeball]

No, I doubt that's the problem...it's probably related to my tinnitus.

[WIP]

I have been reading about and writing about my view of the "terrorist" label. I feel it has become a convenient label that any country or group can use to rationalize the killing of somebody without having to explain the reason.

If someone is killed because they are "bad" then there is an implied responsibility to explain why they are "bad". But to kill a "terrorist" requires no explanation - they are terrorists so they should die!!

I have also been reading how vicious these terrorists are . They are murderers who do abominable things to people, are therefore "evil" and should be killed. These are the reasons certain posters use to rationalize killing innocent people, invasions of countries, denial of human rights to populations and indiscriminate killings.

Unfortunately for these posters, these "evil" people are later to be found to be rational, caring and normal people. The "Murdering Huns" and "Yellow Peril" of WWII are now our friends and trading partners, those "Slant Eyed Chinks" of Vietnam now supervise Western tourists tours of their country.

Our movie heroes infiltrate enemy compounds, blow up the works, fight their way out by taking out everyone in the area, be it civilian or enemy soldier and bring home the heroine to our cheering - leaving behind a trail of death and destruction. These are our heroes.

I believe the terrorism label is valid in the cases where attacks are deliberately targeting civilians in the hopes of creating fear, panic, internal divisions and extreme over-reactions.....9/11 anyone!

On the world stage... as I see it, the greatest perpetrator and purveyor of terrorism in the world today is not ISIS or Al Qaeda; it's the United States of America! Because America (incl. our dickless go-along leaders) uses its vast military forces as a threat to nations that refuse to follow US military and trade&commerce policies. It was a mystery to me and many others for years why US military spending kept increasing year after year after the Cold War ended, and puts the American Empire right where every other world empire in history has ended up previously: on the verge of bankruptcy! But the American Empire...like previous great and lesser empires cannot end its addiction to waging wars and military spending, because those military bases, command centers, carrier fleets that spread out around the world, are America's leverage to maintain its' grasp on controlling international banking and trade.

I also read about those outrageous tactics used by these modern "terrorists" in the Middle East; Burning and/or drowning prisoners in cages, beheading journalists etc. What barbaric actions!

I remember reading about "savages" who would capture clergymen, pull out their nails, tie them to stakes and burn them. Sometimes they would bury their enemies up to their necks, pour honey over their heads and let the insects devour them. During battles, they would use sharp knives to peel the skin off the heads of their enemies (many still alive) and tie the hairy clumps to their belts to show their victory. I think it was called scalping and those clumps of skin and hair are called scalps.

Notice how, in recent years, the US military operations are allowing or deliberately using torture and other tactics that were condemned in previous times. Worth noting that terrorist shock tactics often occur when a marginalized enemy feels there is no alternative other than resorting to "asymmetric warfare." In a world where revolution and mass uprising is made virtually impossible because of new high tech weapons and 'counter-insurgency' tactics, the remaining holdouts are likely more inclined to go for shock value like the ISIS phenomena.

Now these "savages" are being referred to as the "noble aboriginal". In those Cowboys and Indians Saturday Matinees I saw as a child they were called "Injuns" and we all cheered when the soldiers attacked their camps and killed men, women and children using rifles and machine guns against arrows and spears These aboriginals (natives, Indians, Six Nations ...) are now heroes who were only trying to protect their land from the white man (protecting your land - who could use such an outrageous excuse? ).

Well, let's go with the evidence...which you're not going to find a lot of coming from Hollywood regardless of who's side their on! The plain facts of history of the European Conquest are that native populations of the Americas were largely annihilated through both accidental (disease spread) and deliberate ethnic cleansing as America's leaders right from the outset, decided they had to push westward....and push out the people who were living there. Which is why surviving east coast tribes like the Seminoles and Cherokees are mostly found half way across the country in Oklahoma today! Portraying the cowboys as heroes is the typical travesty that happens when the victors of wars provide the only historical accounts that are taught to children and succeeding generations, while true historical accounts have to be sought out from academia.

I have no particular reference for a personal view on the morality of "terrorism". There are thousands of sites looking at this issue from different angles. But if I require one for this OP then :

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/chattanooga-shooting/chattanooga-shooter-abdulazeez-was-against-terrorism-family-lawyer-n396991

And when it comes to lone gunman-lone wolf types of mass shootings being labeled terrorist attacks, it's being noted today since this latest lone wolf mass killing in a movie theater in Lafayette Louisiana, that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in America are being committed by right wing racist white men! This is the real face of terrorism in America:

[-1=e^ipi]

So because Big Guy grew up in ancient times when people were racist, today calling islamic terrorism terrorism is somehow racist? Is that the implication?

Do different groups just blindly label all those they disagree with as terrorists? Yes. For example, I am a terrorist by definition according to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All atheists are terrorists according to our ISIS funding, Wahhabi spreading 'ally'.

[Big Guy]

The idea is to de-humanize your enemy. Even our short Canadian excursion into Afghanistan needed a reason. It was obviously to let little girls go to school (and what if the culture precluded that?) but to indiscriminately kill those folks who opposed that notion we needed a better reason. General Hillier provided that reason - "These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties". That was a good enough reason for us to hunt them and kill them. The fact that we were on their land and planning to send their little girls to school made no difference.

Later we found out that what they really wanted was to be left alone and detested our interference in their civil war. To-day these scumbags and murderers are in negotiations with the current Afghan government and everyone agrees that they will be part of it.

So when the Soviets were in there the Taliban were good, good and got our financial and military support. When we went in there they suddenly became bad, bad, scumbags who had to be obliterated, now they are kind of bad and kind of good and we have decided to leave them alone.

Will the real Taliban please stand up!

I suggest it is not the Taliban who went from nationalists to terrorists to part of the governing structure but their usefulness to the West just changed.

What happens when those ISIS fighters, the only members of all of the groups fighting there who are from there, are again citizens of their land. Will they have been sprinkled with non-terrorist dust.

At this point in time ISIL is a reality. It is an area currently in control of ISIS, those folks who come from there. They have an infrastructure, political structure, police forces, markets etc. and it does not look like the West or Assad or Turkey or Baghdad or whatever are making any gains in the area. Right now it looks like just a matter of time until somebody will recognize it as a nation and then what?

As to what to call it? - I think it really does not matter to them or to me. What is more important to me is to find out why they are doing what they are doing. If we understood that about Afghanistan we never would have gone there, or Vietnam or Somalia or Iraq or got involved in any of those civil wars that we caused. Yes - that we caused.

It is now uncontested that the reason for all of the problems in the Middle East is because we went in with superior military might and created power vacuums and now the locals are trying to fill them.

[Freddy]

If you don't take every precaution necessary to arm and protect yourself, and can't defend yourself against other countries, Then you deserve to be exterminated. Good and evil has nothing to do with it. When you have something valuable someone else wants, You buy yourself a alarm system. It's the same thing. If you're relying on someone's good hart your a fool.

[waldo]

If you don't take every precaution necessary to arm and protect yourself, and can't defend yourself against other countries, Then you deserve to be exterminated. Good and evil has nothing to do with it.

and here I thought: the "good" U.S. regime changers were freedom fighters... and the "bad" resisting the illegal invasion of a sovereign country were terrorists! Your "might is right" view is just so much simpler to digest and really shuts this thread down - nothing more to discuss!

.

[Freddy]

and here I thought: the "good" U.S. regime changers were freedom fighters... and the "bad" resisting the illegal invasion of a sovereign country were terrorists! Your "might is right" view is just so much simpler to digest and really shuts this thread down - nothing more to discuss!

.

It's only illegal if we say it's illegal. See how it's all relative to ourselves.

Why do we get to decide you ask?

Because we have the power of sovereignty to execute our will.

If you guys want to live in a fantasy world where you believe there is such a thing as good and evil, I'm not going to fool myself. Might gets to decide what is right. Always has. Always will.

If you want to to make something illegal, start by building yourself a army to enforce your rule instead of whining like a little rainbow kitten.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Freddy

[waldo]

It's only illegal if we say it's illegal. See how it's all relative to ourselves.

Why do we get to decide you ask?

Because we have the power of sovereignty to execute our will.

If you guys want to live in a fantasy world where you believe there is such a thing as good and evil, I'm not going to fool myself. Might gets to decide what is right. Always has. Always will.

If you want to to make something illegal, start by building yourself a army to enforce your rule instead of whining like a little rainbow kitten.

ya ya... RogueNations-R-Us! A world, apparently your world, in which nations aren't beholden to international laws/courts or treaties. Your "might is right" babble... brought to you by the military-industrial-complex! A sure prescription for ever escalating weapons buildup... and never ending warfare! Talk about your fantasy world!

[Freddy]

ya ya... RogueNations-R-Us! A world, apparently your world, in which nations aren't beholden to international laws/courts or treaties. Your "might is right" babble... brought to you by the military-industrial-complex! A sure prescription for ever escalating weapons buildup... and never ending warfare! Talk about your fantasy world!

It's always been like this since the beginning of humanity. It's possibly the biggest reason humans are so technologically advanced compared to all other life. You have to embrace the good with the bad.

Without this competition we would still be living in dirt huts. We certainly would not be discussing this on a forum over a internet. Rainbow kittens are so limited. They can't see the bigger picture.

That everything is relative.

Without might is right, none of this would exist. It's what pushed humans to be mighty. Everyone wants to be right.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Freddy