Blogcritics Comments on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Comment by troll on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:42:21 EST

don't forget to knock one back for ol' St Marcellus today - his feast day - and spend a moment contemplating objections to violence based on conscience

Comment by troll on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:31:26 EDT

what a bunch of crap... terrorism is that which terrorizes and terrorists come in all shapes from the wacko rapist to the suicide bomber on up to the man who ordered 'shock and awe' and a slightly different tack - please list the major conflicts in which civilians have not ended up bloodied pawns

Comment by SHARK on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:19:54 EDT

Shark smiles as SFC Ski hurls massive Truth Bomb into naive Canadian's lap. === B.Jones: "The deliberate killing of un-armed, non-uniformed citizens is terrorism." Shark grins as B.Jones cuts through "intellectual" relativist rhetorical ponderings and plants definitive Truth Bomb under naive Canadian's feather bed.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:19:19 EDT

All good points, but going back to the article, I have to agree with the Canadian courts that including religious motivation in the definition of terrorism is just crazy. Dave

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:55:42 EDT

Whar SFC SKI said: Replace Israel with America, and for the most part I go along. Side note to SFC SKI: Armies have been ordered to do illegal things - i.e. expelling the citizens of their own countries from their homes for NO GOOD REASON other than keeping the prime mnister's son out of jail. That is why I say, "for the most part".

Comment by SFC SKI on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:42:18 EDT

This might not make any difference to anyone, but I could compare and contrast a few actions organized, approved and conducted by terrorists versus those approved for US Soldiers. I can't go into specific details on Rules of Engagement, but you can read about restrictions we are under in Iraq in a lot of newspaper reporting. Terrorists: Hide among civilian populace to conduct attacks against Iraqi security forces and US Military personnel; use any and all means to cause casualties. Collateral damage is acceptable; terrorists will blame US forces in any case. US Military: Restrict gunfire to only certain targets and only if no civilians are in areas; with minimum necessary force . Terrorists: Murder or threaten any citizens, especially Iraqi security force members, who might be aiding US military, or otherwise impeded the terrorists freedom of movement and operation. US Military: Try to build contacts amongst local populace; encourage their cooperation with Iraqi Security forces; minimize impact of military operations on civilians. Terrorists: Encourage children to observe and report of US military activity; carry contraband, including explosives and weapons. US Military: Build schools and infrastructure; pass out school supplies and soccer balls to kids. As an beer and pretzels discussion, moral relativity is all fine and well. Personally, I find it a bit insulting that anyone who considers themselves informed enough to have an opinion can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. Let me know the day you see terrorists holding their own accountable for executing hostages.

Comment by Bob Jones on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:23:36 EDT

The deliberate killing of un-armed, non-uniformed citizens is terrorism. Now, is it hard to prove it is deliberate? Not really, do American Soldiers target Boing 747s? No. Do they choose to launch attacks on civilian workplaces? No. Now Osama Bin Laden did both of those. Now, if you are being semantic - attacking The Pentagon might be a war movement and not a terrorist one because it contains armed and uniformed workers of the government - but he still used a civilian plain to do it. It isn't hard to draw clear lines between terrorist movements and war movements, if OBL doesn't want to believe that and continue to brainwash Muslims (and others) that we are the terrorists, who cares? We know who is the terrorist and the law should match that. There is no need for freedom fighters in the US, a democratic country - now Iraq is a psuedo-democracy so maybe there is an excuse for "freedom fighting" (although I doubt they are fighting for freedom).

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:32:05 EDT

I agree with Donnie 100%... And, with statements like these,"We are never going to be able to come up with definitions of terrorism that will not in some ways paint us with [the] same brush." It truly shows that its really up to what propaganda you subscribe to and the limitations of each individuals p.o.v. from their imperfect finite minds as to what is definitley right or wrong. It also shows that this debate will far surpass my lifetime..

Comment by Donnie Marler on Defining Terrorism: Violence Is Violence

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:02:42 EDT

I'm not saying that I'm na�ve enough to believe that there are not times when the only course of action is to take up arms, but I don't believe that we can differentiate between acts of violence by labelling them with words that denote one as being better than another. Blowing up a civilian aircraft is despicable and cowardly and is the action of people who have no regard for human life. But why is it considered more of an affront then mobilizing thousands of people and pieces of equipment with the intent of taking life and destroying property? I'm sorry, this just left me shaking my head, Richard. I know what you're trying to say in your article but this simply blew me away. Do you honestly not see a difference between an army conducting combat operations under the authorization of it's civilian leadership and a terrorist blowing up an airplane? Yes, I realize dead is dead, thus the end result is the same. However, one is done under the laws of a nation and should be a last resort after all diplomatic channels are exhausted. The other is mass murder as a political statement. I'm having difficulty accepting the logic of this statement, Richard.