Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March

[Mr. Tea]

Fucksake, not this again. It was allegedly "0.7%", not 2%, and I pretty thoroughly debunked the misuse of statistics at the time. Let's move on.

 

[craner]

Droid will never live to forget posting that pie chart.

 

[craner]

I was saying to Luke earlier, Dissensus is like the ultimate co-dependant, toxic family. Introduce a new partner to the dinner table and they would flee in horror at the casual contempt being thrown around, but members can never leave.

 

[droid]

lol. That chart was completely and utterly correct. It measured the number of terrorist incidents in Europe over a given period.

As I said at the time, you can argue about deaths caused, severity of attacks etc, but the frequency of incidents is immutable. The numbers dont lie.

Also, I dont remember anyone 'debunking' anything, I do recall someone slinking off after throwing their toys from the pram though (and not for the first time).

Guess my memory is faulty - shame we cant just go and check.

 

[droid]

Case study # 1: Hamas

Case study # 2: Contras

Case study # 3: MEK

Case study # 4: Kurdish Peshmerga

Let's do it.

Case Study 1: UK & US in Iraq

Case Study 2: Israel in Gaza

Case Study 3: Israel in Lebanon

Case Study 4: UK in Northern Ireland

 

[craner]

We can do them all Droid. Let's compromise our lists. One of yours then one of mine. You start with UK and US in Iraq.

 

[craner]

I mean, my list was weighted against me in two cases, which is why I chose them (for balance) and yours is all pet causes, but otherwise...let's still do it.

 

[trza]

mke?

 

[droid]

There's nothing complicated about this. Its very simple in fact.

But I'm happy to go with the definition you posted, I am questioning the way you are using it - with unsaid insinuation and subtext. So let's go to the details.

That was a US federal definition, I actually dont wholly agree. Here's the one that makes most sense to me.

The use of force which targets civilians for political, economic, religious, social or military aims.

As 'unlawful' is almost meaningless when states can create laws to justify violence.

So, if we presumably object to terrorism as defined above, it is on moral grounds, and morality must be universal or it is meaningless, regardless if it is committed by state or non-state actors.

In no particular order:

Hamas rockets in Israel - terrorism
Fatah suicide bombs in pizzerias - terrorism
Hezbollah assassinations of politicians - terrorism
IRA bombing off-duty soldiers in Birmingham - terrorism
Basque letter bombs sent to councilors - terrorism
Paris, Mumbai, London, Madrid - terrorism
Israel bombing of Gaza, Lebanon - terrorism
Turkish attacks on PKK politicians - terrorism
Death squads in El Salvador - terrorism
The Blitz - terrorism
Firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg - terrorism
Murder of civilians on Bloody Sunday - terrorism
Shelling of Grozny - terrorism
US/UK bombing of Belgrade - terrorism
Hiroshima, Nagasaki - terrorism
US in Vietnam - terrorism
Shock & awe and invasion of Iraq - terrorism (you supported this one IIRC?)

You can argue about the severity of each act, the possible justifications, extenuating circumstances etc. Obv state terror tends to be on a much greater scale, but the principle is the same.

 

[droid]

I mean, my list was weighted against me in two cases, which is why I chose them (for balance) and yours is all pet causes, but otherwise...let's still do it.

lol 'Pet causes' Funny that the most youve talked about politics in years is on a thread about your particular obsession.

Any sign of the revolutionary guard yet? Have you checked under the stairs?

 

[craner]

So you have expanded the argument so far that even the Blitz counts, which handily helps you to elude the open challenge I laid down. I'm not hiding here, Droid, this is the 'New Politics'. UK and US in Iraq: how did they support terrorism in this case?

 

[droid]

Really? :slanted:To take just one example, they deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure with the openly declared aim of putting pressure on the Iraqi people to oust Saddam.They didn't 'support' terror, they were the terrorists.

"the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."... ..."You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

'Eluded'? The blitz is self-evidently an act of terror. Textbook in fact

Here's one for you.

Is it hypocritical to condemn one group for their actions whilst supporting others as they commit similar (or much worse) acts?

 

[craner]

No, I don't consider state military to be terrorist organisations. That's a completely useless starting point. I knew from the beginning that your argument was going to end up being "the US are the terrorists" - it just took a bit longer to get it out of you than I expected.

 

[craner]

What a waste of time, though.

 

[droid]

No, I don't consider state military to be terrorist organisations. That's a completely useless starting point.

Yes, useless for your purposes, thats true.

I knew from the beginning that your argument was going to end up being "the US are the terrorists" - it just took a bit longer to get it out of you than I expected.

Im applying a moral principle based on a definition you agree with. Seeing as you agree with that definition, please explain why its not terrorism when a state bombs civilians but it is terrorism when other groups do. Its a very simple question.

Or you could just weasel out of it with some tired insinuations - your choice.

 

[sadmanbarty]

No, I don't consider state military to be terrorist organisations. That's a completely useless starting point.

Earlier you said you were happy to use the definition Droid posted, but now you're adding the caveat that it can't include a countries military.

Edit: Looks like droid beat me to it.

 

[droid]

What a waste of time, though.

I dunno. Its been an interesting glimpse of your moral universe.

 

[droid]

Earlier you said you were happy to use the definition Droid posted, but now you're adding the caveat that it can't include a countries military.

Edit: Looks like droid beat me to it.

It's the old 'state/non-state' distinction beloved by security analysts, politicians and professional slimeballs. It obviously slipped past him. He's a bit rusty at this game.

 

[craner]

Eh? The concept of state terrorism is massively contested, and has no legal basis. When you talk about 'Shock and Awe' you seem to be talking about a war crime.

It's not the definition of terrorism that's at issue, but the way you are applying it.

 

[droid]

Eh? The concept of state terrorism is massively contested, and has no legal basis. When you talk about 'Shock and Awe' you seem to be talking about a war crime.

It's not the definition of terrorism that's at issue, but the way you are applying it.

There's absolutely no reason it can't be both.

And the concept of 'terrorism' is massively contested and probably has less legal basis (in IL) than 'state terror'.