patrick.net

Terrorism is the deliberate murder of random people.

Within a targeted population or group with the intent of advancing your cause.

Now if you engage in military action for fabricated reasons, and know beforehand that you may kill 100,000 women, children and elderly in this military action, is that terrorism?

You can find use and misuse of the word "terrorism" going back many decades.

Blurtman says

you may kill

if that means you're not trying to kill them, it's not terrorism.

if that means you're not trying to kill them, it's not terrorism.

You knowingly murder 100,000 people in a grab for the country's oil versus murdering 100,000 people to establish your group's reputation. I see little difference.

the question is intent. no one set out to murder 100,000 people in iraq, if that's what you're referring to.

not supporting the war, it was incredibly stupid and evil, especially since iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

but terrorism is not the same thing as war. if america had set out to kill iraqis the same way muslim terrorists deliberately kill random people, all the iraqis would be dead.

For the record it is 250,000 "inadvertently" killed in the Middle East.

Inadvertently does not make it acceptable.

So it would be 2nd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter involuntary manslaughter or even 1st degree murder.

Would you say the US actions were not premeditated? Since the ratio of enemy to civilian kill ratio is generally 10 civilians to 1 enemy killed, how can you say that the US actions are any less horrific?

Occam's razor would say these people were killed therefore the intent was to kill them. You can only argue to what degree is the indifference.

By equipping the phrase with more adjectives.

Terrorism is the deliberate murder of random people without intent to kill the innocent

indigenous says

Since the ratio of enemy to civilian kill ratio is generally 10 civilians to 1 enemy killed, how can you say that the US actions are any less horrific?

SoftShell says

Terrorism is the deliberate murder of random people without intent to kill the innocent

That makes sense, NOT.;

To what fucking end???

the question is intent. no one set out to murder 100,000 people in iraq, if that's what you're referring to

What difference does it make (oops) if you know you will kill randomly kill civilians when you invade a country, invade the country, and kill civilians, versus killing civilians as a means to achieve a different goal? I could understand the intent argument if you didn't know you would randomly kill civilians when you invade, but you do kill civilians nonetheless. It is knowledge beforehand that makes the two quite the same. That is why war should be an absolute last resort, to be engaged in when the lives of your people are at stake. That is my argument, and I rest my case..

indigenous says

For the record it is 250,000 "inadvertently" killed in the Middle East.

I was referring to the Johns Hopkins Lancet publication that determined that 100,000 civilians, mostly women, children and the elderly, were killed in the last invasion of Iraq. It is quite astounding to listen to John Kerry lecture Russia on killing civilians in Syria. Shameless, soulless liar.

Blurtman says

What difference does it make

it's the difference between negligent homicide and first degree murder:

Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against people who, through criminal negligence, allow others to die.

Negligent homicide is a lesser included offense to first and second degree murder...

we punish them differently, which is as it should be, since they are not morally equivalent, even if someone is dead in both cases. dead is dead, but motives matter. george w bush is a lying sack of shit who should at the very least be in jail for starting a war under false pretenses, resulting in so many deaths. but it wasn't first degree murder. (except perhaps in the case of saddam hussein)

terrorism is yet lower than even first degree murder, since terrorists don't even have any particular person in mind. it is the sheer bloody minded hate and desire to kill as many random people as possible that makes it the lowest possible crime.

blurtman's subtext seems to be his approval of actual terrorism.

You also have to consider context. 250,000 non combatants killed by the US compared to to 140,000 by terrorists.

I have to admit I did not realize that terrorists have killed this many in the same time frame. Not that the US conduct is any less malicious.

blurtman's subtext seems to be his approval of actual terrorism

Not at all. I condemn it no matter who commits it.

Blurtman says

You knowingly murder 100,000 people in a grab for the country's oil versus murdering 100,000 people to establish your group's reputation. I see little difference.

The only ones who grab a country's oil are Muslims......Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, ISIS in Iraq etc.
We never murdered anyone. War is not murder even if the war was a mistake to begin with.

Strategist says

War is not murder even if the war was a mistake to begin with.

The US did not declare war on Iraq.

indigenous says

You also have to consider context. 250,000 non combatants killed by the US compared to to 140,000 by terrorists.

I have to admit I did not realize that terrorists have killed this many in the same time frame. Not that the US conduct is any less malicious.

Indigenous......driving cars kills people, and we still drive. That would make us all murderers.
Police rescuing kids from crazy killers could end up killing kids. That would make the all the police murderers.
Ambulances answering 911 also kills people. That would make the paramedics murderers.
I'm sure you want to redefine your accusations.

Blurtman says

Strategist says

War is not murder even if the war was a mistake to begin with.

The US did not declare war on Iraq.

An undeclared war is still war. Makes no difference.

Strategist says

An undeclared war is still war. Makes no difference.

By your definition, ISIS is engaged in war.

Blurtman says

Strategist says

An undeclared war is still war. Makes no difference.

By your definition, ISIS is engaged in war.

ISIS is engaged in terrorism, because they deliberately target the innocent. We do not kill innocent people, because we do not benefit by killing innocent people.
Comparing the US to ISIS is rather silly.

Strategist says

Indigenous......driving cars kills people, and we still drive. That would make us all murderers.

Police rescuing kids from crazy killers could end up killing kids. That would make the all the police murderers.

Ambulances answering 911 also kills people. That would make the paramedics murderers.

I'm sure you want to redefine your accusations.

Show me the numbers. Maybe the car accidents, the rest are not in league with what I'm talking about.

I do not want to change my accusations. This country is controlled by warmongers. The memes are swallowed hook line and sinker by a very oblivious citizenry. Compare that with what is coming out of Germany.

Strategist says

We do not kill innocent people, because we do not benefit by killing innocent people.

Comparing the US to ISIS is rather silly.

Sure we do 250,000 since 2003

Ironman says

I think Dan would disagree with you on that point.

-

He always does when it comes to cops. I'm trying to figure out why. Could be that he was treated unfairly by cops (or so he thinks) for distributing pot to friends, and ever since he has developed this anger towards them.

Strategist says

Blurtman says

You knowingly murder 100,000 people in a grab for the country's oil versus murdering 100,000 people to establish your group's reputation. I see little difference.

The only ones who grab a country's oil are Muslims......Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, ISIS in Iraq etc.

We never murdered anyone. War is not murder even if the war was a mistake to begin with.

LOL times 10. The history of the middle east and africa has been a non stop series of oil grabs by the western nations. No one in the entire planet except you really believes the Iraq war didn't have something to do with Iraq having the second largest oil reserves in the world. Do you believe the yahoo chickenhawk draft dodger oilmen running the country somehow weren't aware that Iraq had oil? Just bringing in democracy is all. Honest officer I was just helping the sheep over the fence.

So all the people that died since WWII, the last legal war, were suicides that threw themselves into the path of bullets fired by US soldiers or bombs dropped by US warplanes or shells from US artillery? Then there were people just had bad luck where they were walking when CIA assassins happened to be in the area doing peaceful target practice?

Sometimes you manage to be really and truly funny.

bob2356 says

LOL times 10. The history of the middle east and africa has been a non stop series of oil grabs by the western nations.

So where's all the free oil? Why would we even want to steal oil, when it's cheaper to just buy it, and have the money come right back when they visit Disneyland.

bob2356 says

No one in the entire planet except you really believes the Iraq war didn't have something to do with Iraq having the second largest oil reserves in the world.

It was obviously oil. Not because we wanted to steal it, but we wanted to prevent Saddam Hussein from controlling the world's supply of oil as it would suffocate us.

bob2356 says

Honest officer I was just helping the sheep over the fence.

I thought it was the goats that turned you on.

bob2356 says

So all the people that died since WWII, the last legal war, were suicides that threw themselves into the path of bullets fired by US soldiers or bombs dropped by US warplanes or shells from US artillery? Then there were people just had bad luck where they were walking when CIA assassins happened to be in the area doing peaceful target practice?

They died because of a war, just like the countless who died in wars throughout human history. As usual they were all our fault.

bob2356 says

Then there were people just had bad luck where they were walking when CIA assassins happened to be in the area doing peaceful target practice?

It's OK to assassinate certain people like Bin Laden in order to save lives. Torture them too. :)

Not sure how ISIS comes into this picture.

IMO the real motivation with Iraq was they were the boogeyman du jour. Similar to Iran today.This is the MO of the US

Strategist says

bob2356 says

LOL times 10. The history of the middle east and africa has been a non stop series of oil grabs by the western nations.

So where's all the free oil? Why would we even want to steal oil, when it's cheaper to just buy it, and have the money come right back when they visit Disneyland.

Countries don't steal oil to give to the people, they steal oil to give to the oligarchs who paid for the politicians to go steal the oil in the first place..

Strategist says

bob2356 says

No one in the entire planet except you really believes the Iraq war didn't have something to do with Iraq having the second largest oil reserves in the world.

It was obviously oil. Not because we wanted to steal it, but we wanted to prevent Saddam Hussein from controlling the world's supply of oil as it would suffocate us.

Too funny, you're killing me here. Like we are suffocating from the lack of oil right now.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Honest officer I was just helping the sheep over the fence.

I thought it was the goats that turned you on.

Sorry farm animals are CIC's gig.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

So all the people that died since WWII, the last legal war, were suicides that threw themselves into the path of bullets fired by US soldiers or bombs dropped by US warplanes or shells from US artillery? Then there were people just had bad luck where they were walking when CIA assassins happened to be in the area doing peaceful target practice?

They died because of a war, just like the countless who died in wars throughout human history. As usual they were all our fault.

When the US is in a totally unjustified military adventures in places that represent no possible threat to the US just to satisfy neocon wet dreams like vietnam and iraq then yes it is our fault.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Then there were people just had bad luck where they were walking when CIA assassins happened to be in the area doing peaceful target practice?

It's OK to assassinate certain people like Bin Laden in order to save lives. Torture them too. :)

Bin Ladin was a wanted man with a long list for criminal charges in many jurisdictions, killing perfectly justified. What about all the times we have assassinated people for regime change because we didn't like the way they run their country. How is that justified?

indigenous says

IMO the real motivation with Iraq was they were the boogeyman du jour. Similar to Iran today.This is the MO of the US

Hussein was the boogeyman. Any dictator gaining control of the world's most important commodity, oil, is unacceptable.
Iran becoming a nuclear power would result in radical Muslims gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz and the oil that goes through it. It is not acceptable, as once again the world would be at their mercy.

Strategist says

SIS is engaged in terrorism, because they deliberately target the innocent. We do not kill innocent people, because we do not benefit by killing innocent people.

So you think our bombs are so smart that they only kill the bad guys? And beyond killing civilians in a war whose rationale was false and a lie, and one which the president laughed about, we also abuse POW's and civilians, including murdering them, as in Abu Ghraib.

Strategist says

Iran becoming a nuclear power would result in radical Muslims gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz and the oil that goes through it.

That is straight from war monger central. Bullshit, Iran is not a threat. Over the years there has been a number of incidents that indicate that they are not a threat.

Hussein would not have been a threat either if not misled by Bush senior, even then how was Iraq a threat?

You need to peel your eyes to this meme.

Blurtman says

So you think our bombs are so smart that they only kill the bad guys?

I have never denied bombs cause collateral damage. It's regrettable. We do everything possible to prevent collateral damage.

Blurtman says

we also abuse POW's an civilians, including murdering them, as in Abu Ghraib.

Again, we murdered no one in prisons. Yes, we did humiliate them, but I there are more important things to worry about. Someone being paraded naked on a leash is no big deal, especially considering what they do to us. It's war dude, not a walk in the park.

Strategist says

I have never denied bombs cause collateral damage. It's regrettable. We do everything possible to prevent collateral damage.

Short of actually dropping them. We have to justify the defense budget somehow.

indigenous says

Strategist says

I have never denied bombs cause collateral damage. It's regrettable. We do everything possible to prevent collateral damage.

Short of actually dropping them. We have to justify the defense budget somehow.

Indi, you feel all wars we engage in are unjustified. That is not true. The war against terror is fully justified and must be won at all costs. Controlling Islam, the breeding ground of terrorists is an absolute must even though politicians are loathe to admit it.

Strategist says

Again, we murdered no one in prisons.

Wrong again.

"Manadel al-Jamadi (Arabic: مناضل الجمادي‎) was an Iraqi who died in United States custody during Central Intelligence Agency interrogation at Abu Ghraib Prison on 4 November 2003.[1] His name became known in 2004 when the Abu Ghraib scandal made news; his corpse packed in ice was the background for widely-reprinted photographs of grinning U.S. Army specialists Sabrina Harman and Charles Graner each offering a "thumbs-up" gesture."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Manadel_al-Jamadi

You also said "We do not kill innocent people," and then admitted we do as "collateral damage." You seem to be contradicting yourself, as well as making comments which are absolutely false.

Strategist says

Indi, you feel all wars we engage in are unjustified. That is not true.

The context is that the US MO is to instigate a war so as to make it look like it is justified. E.G. The Lusitania and WW1, Fort Sumter and the Civil War, embargoes on Japan before WW2, the Vietnam War and Gulf of Tonkin, the Iraq war and WMDs, embargoes on Iraq and 500,000 children staving to death

This is the epitome of what I'm talking about:

www.youtube.com/embed/RM0uvgHKZe8

Blurtman says

Strategist says

Again, we murdered no one in prisons.

Wrong again.

"Manadel al-Jamadi (Arabic: مناضل الجمادي‎) was an Iraqi who died in United States custody during Central Intelligence Agency interrogation at Abu Ghraib Prison on 4 November 2003.[1] His name became known in 2004 when the Abu Ghraib scandal made news; his corpse packed in ice was the background for widely-reprinted photographs of grinning U.S. Army specialists Sabrina Harman and Charles Graner each offering a "thumbs-up" gesture."

He DIED in US custody. Does not make it murder. As for the thumbs up gesture....Good.

indigenous says

Strategist says

Indi, you feel all wars we engage in are unjustified. That is not true.

The context is that the US MO is to instigate a war so as to make it look like it is justified. E.G. The Lusitania and WW1, Fort Sumter and the Civil War, embargoes on Japan before WW2, the Vietnam War and Gulf of Tonkin, the Iraq war and WMDs, embargoes on Iraq and 500,000 children staving to death

This is the epitome of what I'm talking about:

Claiming we imposed embargoes just so countries like Japan would attack us is ridiculous. We refused to sell oil to Japan at the time is true. So what. We don't have to do business with someone we don't want to, especially when it's not to our benefit.

Strategist says

Claiming we imposed embargoes just so countries like Japan would attack us is ridiculous. We refused to sell oil to Japan at the time is true. So what. We don't have to do business with someone we don't want to, especially when it's not to our benefit.

The Japanese diplomat bent over backwards to prevent war, when ever Japan acquiesced FDR would add to the stipulations in order to have war.

Besides what about the other incidents?

Terrorism is the deliberate murder of random people

Then I think this would make Bill Ayers and Diana Oughton terrorists as well? At least Diana and Ted Gold got what they deserved. Ka-BOOM!

Terrorism is the deliberate murder of random people.

So if the KKK deliberately murders non-random targets like blacks, that's not terrorism? So if ISIS targets a non-random group of school children, say girls attending high school, that's not terrorism? So if someone blows up Congress because he wants to kill high-ranking government officials, that's not an act of terrorism?

What exactly constitutes random, and what exactly constitutes deliberate? If someone places a bomb in a public place in order to kill someone specific knowing that it will also kill many bystanders is that deliberate murder of random people? What if the bomb was launched from a drone? Is it no longer deliberate murder of random people in addition to the intended target?

I would argue that the acceptance of collateral damage makes the U.S. the largest terrorist organization under that definition of terrorism.

My definition of terrorism: the use of violence or the threat of violence to instill terror in people. And by that definition, our government is the largest terrorist organization in the world. Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. We could prosecute the terrorists in our government, in our country, and in other countries. Laws prohibiting terrorism by anyone for any reason and enforcement of these laws at the international level is the only way to end terrorism. No one, not even the president of a superpower, should be above such laws.

Ironman says

Definition of Terrorism

What every goat experiences when CIC visits the petting zoo.