Fair definitions of terrorist and terrorism

[Cyrus]

I replied to a specific statement you made and showed you that it was factually incorrect.

Your "example" is wrong, and thats what I was pointing out. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ. You really do love to hear yourself bable on, and on, and on about objectivity. I am going to clue you in, I don't care. Thats not what I was complaining about. Am I clear now? Can you finally see what I am saying?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Y'know what - hey, I'll pretend for your sake that I didn't respond to this fact issue as soon as you made that claim. Yeah, let's talk about the facts of Afghanistan as if this thread isn't about terminology.

So - forget the fact that legal / illegal as part of a definition of “terrorist” is subjective, which is what I was pointing out by saying that the invasion of Afghanistan would be illegal under Afghan law, which your evidently-far-superior-to-mine reading skills did not seem to grasp at the time. I guess you were just claiming that it's not possible for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to be subjectively labeled as a “terrorist” action within just the context of the U.N.

You seem to be arguing something like it's legal, rather than criminal, under the rules and regulations of the U.N. for the U.S. to invade the sovereign U.N. member state of Afghanistan without a resolution from the U.N. Security Council? What were the “facts” you presented that I was unable to read properly? I don't see any U.N. resolutions that authorize or even endorse the invasion of Afghanistan anywhere. The thing you quoted is something about establishing a new government in Afghanistan after the invasion. Feel free to cite something and drop some knowledge on my illiterate head any time you want.

Because I do care about the trollish argument about the details of the action in Afghanistan you decided to inject into the middle of this thread about the meaning of the word “terrorist”, I really really do.

Oh, here's another nifty little thing I noticed: even though I evidently completely misunderstood that you weren't talking about objectivity because I can't read, funnily enough you [post=1627235]quoted a bunch of my comments[/post] about objectivity and claimed to have addressed them. But what do I know, I can't read.

⚛​

 

[binzing]

Don't get Cyrus started. He will hold his opinion as sacred text and fight you to the death over it. The original question seems to have been answered...

 

[Cyrus]

CQ, you made the following statement:

I just pointed out that by the U.N.'s definition as quoted by Russ, the Afghans could as easily label it terrorism as many of them label the Soviet invasion terrorism rather than the actions of the Mujahideen.

I showed how this was not true. Thats all I showed.

So - forget the fact that legal / illegal as part of a definition of “terrorist” is subjective, which is what I was pointing out by saying that the invasion of Afghanistan would be illegal under Afghan law, which your evidently-far-superior-to-mine reading skills did not seem to grasp at the time. I guess you were just claiming that it's not possible for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to be subjectively labeled as a “terrorist” action within just the context of the U.N.

Do you not understand that I've been saying this is a STUPID point all along? NO country would have such a law that would say invation of their country is legal. I already said this. And what do you mean claiming. What claim am I making here? I am stating a fact. I already said that if the actions on the part of the US were considered Illegal, then it would be a terrorist act. They are not illegal, and therefore it is not considered a terrorist act. This is pretty much agreed upon by the world community in terms of Afghanistan. The soviet invation of Afghanistan was considered illegal, because it was an imperalistic takeover. Moreover, a criminal act is determined by the rules of international law agreed to by members of the United Nations. Not what is written in the constitution of the Taliban, so why are you even bringing this up?

For the last time, you chose a BAD example, and THATS ALL IM SAYING.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

You can discuss objectivity all you want, just don't use BAD examples in the process. Thats what I am taking issue with.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Do you not understand that I've been saying this is a STUPID point all along? NO country would have such a law that would say invation of their country is legal. I already said this.

Yeah, you're right. Kinda seems to indicate… oh, I don't know, that legality and criminality are just a little bit subjective? But I'm not sure, I have awful reading comprehension, y'see.

And what do you mean claiming. What claim am I making here? I am stating a fact. I already said that if the actions on the part of the US were considered Illegal, then it would be a terrorist act. They are not illegal, and therefore it is not considered a terrorist act. This is pretty much agreed upon by the world community in terms of Afghanistan.

Oh, I see, you're saying that “positively viewed in world opinion” is the same thing as “legal”. You're right, that's ever so factual. Doesn't even need to be proven or supported at all.

It's not that you're using the words “illegal” and “factual” to conjure support for your argument out of thin air, and claiming to have “showed” something when I pointed that you quoted a completely irrelevant U.N. document, no not at all.

And speaking of bad examples, it's not like the International Law Wikipedia article you linked to gives the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter" as an example of international law. And it's not as if the very first statement in that document, Chapter I, Article I, says:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

You're so right, there's just no way at all that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan could be considered illegal from any viewpoint on international law whatsoever. And there's no way that Afghanistan insisting on trying bin Laden themselves couldn't be considered legal justification for aggression against a sovereign U.N. member state, because… oh, that's right, you haven't even attempted to present any evidence about that.

Well it seems like someone in this thread is really bad with examples, that's for sure. Have you ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection" , Cyrus?

When you start throwing around claims about inability to read and bad or incoherent examples, you ought to make sure you aren't the one doing exactly those things or you're liable to make yourself look foolish. But I don't mind, it's fun shooting fish in a barrel.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

So per the U.N. Charter, a document of international law by his own Wikipedia definition, and his statement in the latter quote above, Cyrus considers the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to be an act of terrorism. I will relish citing him on this in the future, that's why I've put this in a separate post. Good thing for me that per his own assertion objectivity and subjectivity don't enter into matters of international law, so he doesn't think there's any disputing of this sort of dictate of international law.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

You're so right, there's just no way at all that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan could be considered illegal from any viewpoint on international law whatsoever. And there's no way that Afghanistan insisting on trying bin Laden themselves couldn't be considered legal justification for aggression against a sovereign U.N. member state, because… oh, that's right, you haven't even attempted to present any evidence about that.

So I guess those UN soldiers have super soakers for guns? Spare me your hippie tirade.

Also, can you spare us the whimpering?

You're so right, there's just no way at all that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan could be considered illegal from any viewpoint on international law whatsoever.

Its not considered illegal, so this point is stupid. What other hypothetical nonsense do you want to talk about next? Or are you going to complain about who can read better. No one cares man, seriously. Enough with the third grade insults.

I have work to do, I am going to leave you to your own fantasy land where you can debate hypotheticals all you want that don't reflect reality. Have a great day. We are done.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

So I guess those UN soldiers have super soakers for guns? Spare me your hippie tirade.

Also, can you spare us the whimpering?

Are you referring to some U.N. soldiers who participated in the invasion of Afghanistan? Because that would be the first time I'd heard of anything like that.

There are U.N. soldiers and other personnel http://www.uniraq.org/" . Doesn't have anything at all to do with whether the invasion of Iraq was legal by international law.

Its not considered illegal, so this point is stupid. What other hypothetical nonsense do you want to talk about next?

Well, let's talk about the hypothetical nonsense that there's any sort of proof that the invasion of the sovereign U.N. member Afghanistan was legal by international law. Because that has bearing on the one single claim you were supposedly making: that it's impossible to characterize George Bush as a terrorist by the U.N.'s definition of terrorism. Which, on the contrary, it's entirely possible to do.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Or are you going to complain about who can read better. No one cares man, seriously. Enough with the third grade insults.

Hilarious! Mister “Learn to read!” is actually admitting he resorted to throwing out third grade insults as responses. Another one for the history books. This thread has been like watching you punch yourself in the face repeatedly.

I have work to do, I am going to leave you to your own fantasy land where you can debate hypotheticals all you want that don't reflect reality. Have a great day. We are done.

And he's out! Yet again turning tail and running because he can't take the heat or acknowledge that he makes completely erroneous unfactual statements. Be careful, Cyrus, you might make a name for yourself.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

Just an fyi here - you keep talking about me, but I'm not going to participate in this thread anymore. You've put words in my mouth while at the same time you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. That said:

So you have a definition for “terrorist” and you objectively apply it to every individual who fits it? That would be pretty impressive if it was true.

You cut and pasted a definition in up above. If I start naming people who fit the definition and who don't, you'll really just accept all the ones who fit it as terrorists and all the ones who don't as non-terrorists? Without displaying any political or nationalist subjectivity? And then I can quote you in future conversations about who you say is a terrorist and who is not?

Why do I not buy that?

The reason you don't buy that is that you think I'm like you. I'm not like you. Because of this, there really isn't anything to be gained by this discussion.

Cyrus is banging his head against a wall trying to make you understand things here. I wish him luck. The best advice I can give you, though, is to read other peoples' posts twice before responding. Your responses don't follow what you are reading, which implies you aren't understanding what you are reading.

 

[Art]

Just for some factual clarification the soldiers in Afghanistan are NATO forces NOT UN forces.

As for definitions of terrorism - we've had that discussion here many times before. There can be no usable objective definition of terrorism because many of the blocks the definitions are built on are themselves subjective or the subject of controversy.

A recent example is the US invasion of Iraq; the US gov't believes it acted legally others including the then SG of the UN do not. The status of the death and destruction emanating from the invasion depends to a large degree on the righteousness of the invasion and as it's legality can not be objectively determined neither can the ensuing mayhem be objectively labelled.

In previous discussions on this I have taken the view that 'terrorist' is simply a pejorative word used to denounce one's enemies and if it is to be used it should be applied to specific acts which outrage moral decency.

Using the Irish example above. When the IRA planted bombs in pubs in England this was an act of terrorism however when they killed a couple of dozen soldiers in a battle at Warrenpoint this was not. Similarly when the British army gunned down peaceful protesters in Derry this was an act of terrorism but like the IRA this does not make the entire British Army a terrorist organisation.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The reason you don't buy that is that you think I'm like you. I'm not like you.

No, it's because you actually can't write an objective definition of terrorism which can be applied by everyone to reach the same conclusions about who is a terrorist and who is not. Like I said way up in the [post=1624841]2nd post[/post] in this thread, you have to agree with someone over who the bad guys are to agree with them on who the terrorists are AKA it's a subjective definition. It has nothing to do with me not understanding you. The fact that different people have different points of view is exactly what I said.

I am not the one who has reading comprehension problems, it's you and Cyrus who do, as evidenced by the fact that you both have restated things I've previously said out of the belief that you're contradicting me.

What has happened in the recent part of the thread is that Cyrus has sloppily tried to pretend that a whole bunch of people thinking something is the same thing as objectivity (or he has effectively tried to make that argument without understanding what objectivity is and by making statements and citations that contradict himself.)

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

Using the Irish example above. When the IRA planted bombs in pubs in England this was an act of terrorism however when they killed a couple of dozen soldiers in a battle at Warrenpoint this was not. Similarly when the British army gunned down peaceful protesters in Derry this was an act of terrorism but like the IRA this does not make the entire British Army a terrorist organisation.

I suppose that depends on how and where the decision to commit each of these acts was taken, and whether acts of terrorism are common practice in each of the organisation.

 

[Art]

I suppose that depends on how and where the decision to commit each of these acts was taken, and whether acts of terrorism are common practice in each of the organisation.

I'm not sure I know what you mean Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

 

[Yonoz]

Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

Pretty much. If the organization as a whole has a policy of terrorism then it is a terrorist organization.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Pretty much. If the organization as a whole has a policy of terrorism then it is a terrorist organization.

Yonoz, I don't know what you think about the War on Terror, but based upon your identification of the British Army as a terrorist organization, would you say that having Britain as the closest U.S. ally in the War on Terror is a bit incongruous?

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

your identification of the British Army as a terrorist organization

When was that?

 

[rudinreader]

This thread is SOOOO long.. can someone please get me up to speed on it?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

When was that?

I apologize, I must have misunderstood. I thought that was what you were saying here:

Do you mean for example if the British Army regularly targeted civilians or if the attacks were ordered by their leaders that would make them a terrorist organisation?

Pretty much…

If you don't think that the British Army is a terrorist organization then my question is meaningless, certainly.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This thread is SOOOO long.. can someone please get me up to speed on it?

I think that anyone summarizing the thread wouldn't really be able to do so in an unbiased manner. All there really is to say is that at the beginning several definitions of “terrorist” were presented, then argument ensued over them. 70 posts really isn't that long, especially considering that much of it is quotation of previous posts - it's like a two or three page essay to skim through.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

(accidental duplicate post, mod please delete)

 

[Yonoz]

I apologize, I must have misunderstood.

That's alright, I'm still getting over agreeing with Art.