FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Scotsgit on May 22, 2013, 01:27:41 pm
-
Reports are saying that his he was wearing a 'Help for Heroes' (a British military charity) T-shirt, he was hacked to death. The two men attacking him are said to have been shouting 'Allah Ackbar'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303)
-
Inb4 the BNP makes this a rallying point.
-
I really hope this doesn't lead to an Islamophobic backlash.
-
.....a british man was beheaded....and nobody...ok. I guess I'll be the one who does it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGMGwWWUkII
Ironbite-THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
-
I really hope this doesn't lead to an Islamophobic backlash.
Don't worry, it will, it always does, and the BNP will be at front lines.
-
I really hope this doesn't lead to an Islamophobic backlash.
Don't worry, it will, it always does, and the BNP will be at front lines.
Does the BNP hate Catholics too? It wouldn't surprise me, given that they seem to be stuck back in the 17th Century.
-
I really hope this doesn't lead to an Islamophobic backlash.
Don't worry, it will, it always does, and the BNP will be at front lines.
What if the victim was a Muslim too?
-
Holy Fucking Shit
A man believed to be a soldier has been beheaded in an attack on a street near the Woolwich barracks in London, witnesses report.
Metropolitan Police Commander Simon Letchford confirmed tonight that two men were shot by armed officers.
Exclusive ITV footage shows that one man was filmed wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and saying: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you."
He adds: "We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."
The Government is treating the attack as a terrorist incident.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/soldier-beheaded-in-street-as-two-shot-in-suspected-terrorist-attack-near-woolwich-barracks--attacker-shown-in-video-saying-we-will-never-stop-fighting-you-8627647.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/soldier-beheaded-in-street-as-two-shot-in-suspected-terrorist-attack-near-woolwich-barracks--attacker-shown-in-video-saying-we-will-never-stop-fighting-you-8627647.html)
This link is not for squeamish or those easily creeped out.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0f_1369235265
-
I really hope this doesn't lead to an Islamophobic backlash.
Don't worry, it will, it always does, and the BNP will be at front lines.
What if the victim was a Muslim too?
That will be quietly lost in the shuffle.
-
An eye for an eye, we'll all go blind. Nice job, fucko. Hope they throw the book at him, then beat him to death with it.
-
An eye for an eye, we'll all go blind. Nice job, fucko. Hope they throw the book at him, then beat him to death with it.
Reports are that he and another suspect were shot dead by police.
-
To the guy narrating the news clip: That's not a machete, that's a meat cleaver. The two are very different bladed implements.
Am I the only one that finds it weird that all those people are just standing around there while this guy's going on ranting?
-
"Remove your government, they don't care about you." Coming from the guy who beheaded another guy on the street, at the same time threatening that we'll never be safe. Yeah, something tells me people aren't going to be so inclined to listen to your message, fuckstick. Great job perpetuating the cycle of revenge.
-
To the guy narrating the news clip: That's not a machete, that's a meat cleaver. The two are very different bladed implements.
Am I the only one that finds it weird that all those people are just standing around there while this guy's going on ranting?
Not really, I'd expect that. That's normally how people tend to react to an unusual siuation they're unprepared for dealing with. They're in a crazy situation, most probably don't really know what's going on and the rest are likely in a kind of schock and they don't really know what to do because it. Like when you're told someone close to you has died and for ages you have almost no reaction to the news at all. I'd be far more suprised if they all jumped the guy and kicked the shit out him.
-
One eye witness reported that some women tried to shield the soldier at first. I think every body is just in shock, and I would not want to draw attention to myself from a dude with a bloody cleaver after seeing what he just did.
What an awful day today for blood lust. A Tamerlan Tsarnaev triple murder accomplice tries to stab an FBI agent interviewing him, not two miles from my house.....and then this unspeakably savage slaughter in London to top it off. :'(
-
.....a british man was beheaded....and nobody...ok. I guess I'll be the one who does it.
-snip-
Ironbite-THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
I think Hell is frantically trying to find a loophole to keep you out. :P
That being said I'm pretty sure this topic already exists in Politics and Government... Hmm. Should I merge them?
-
.....a british man was beheaded....and nobody...ok. I guess I'll be the one who does it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGMGwWWUkII
Ironbite-THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Good thing this thread isn't about a bombing, this might be considered distasteful :P
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
-
One eye witness reported that some women tried to shield the soldier at first. I think every body is just in shock, and I would not want to draw attention to myself from a dude with a bloody cleaver after seeing what he just did.
What an awful day today for blood lust. A Tamerlan Naraev triple murder accomplice tries to stab an FBI agent interviewing him, not two miles from my house.....and then this unspeakably savage slaughter in London to top it off. :'(
http://www.businessinsider.com/ingrid-loyau-kennett-stands-up-to-woolwich-attacker-2013-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/ingrid-loyau-kennett-stands-up-to-woolwich-attacker-2013-5)
-
I wasn't trying to take a shot at Ironbite, just seemed odd to me. Joeys response to the whole thing made it easy to hate him, though.
-
I wasn't trying to take a shot at Ironbite, just seemed odd to me. Joeys response to the whole thing made it easy to hate him, though.
Wasn't trying to accuse you of taking a shot at Ironbite, either, it was just that your post made me think.
Also I'm going to merge these threads now.
-
Just goes to show that there's crazies everywhere in the world. Such a sad story.
-
We haven't heard anything on the US news stations. I found out thru our OP (Scotsgit), dad heard thru the internet grapevine.
This is horrid and I hope the person(s) responsible get what's coming to them.
-
One of the attackers went up to a TV camera holding up a bloodied cleaver. He basically says that hes sorry that women had to see the murder, but women in his country see it all the time. And then says that the people will never to be safe and to remove the government
-
The woman who kept the attacker busy while police closed in has serious balls.
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
Because I'm a snarky bastard and made my post firmly with tongue in cheek?
That said, this is horribly despicable act and if these bastards haven't been shot dead by the cops, I hope they get death.
Ironbite-monsters don't deserve life.
-
A part of me, at the risk of sounding like one of the CSTDT whackjobs we quote so much, wonders if this is Munchausen by proxy. Say, for instance, that you suspect that werewolves exist, and you want the world to know. If you're going through Munchausen by proxy, you won't just make like a Bigfoot hunter. You'll dress up like a werewolf, attack victims like one, and shy away from potential weaknesses of the werewolf, all in the hopes of waking the public at large up.
Then again, I might have played too much Hunter: the Reckoning (fuck New WOD), and his faith is what he says it to be.
My condolences to his family, and I hope those responsible are caught and brought to justice, whatever the case may be. And a big salute to the woman who tried to fend him off while the cops closed in.
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
It bothers me, there is such a thing as too soon!
The backlash has already started (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-anti-muslim-reprisals).
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
That said, this is horribly despicable act and if these bastards haven't been shot dead by the cops, I hope they get death.
Ironbite-monsters don't deserve life.
We don't have the death penalty. And thank fuck, tbh.
-
Here's the account from the woman who talked to the two guys who killed the solder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account
It seems he wasn't beheaded at all but there was a crashed car on the scene. Perhaps the guy was hit with the car, then stabbed/chopped/slashed.
Looking at the photo of the perp I get the feeling of either "homegrown, lone-wolf British convert" or "African national Islamozealot".
At one point, the woman said that the dead man MIGHT have still been alive.
Here's another article about one of the attackers. His name is Michael Adebolajo.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-latest-developments-live?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
According to a former neighbor, Mike & his Dad were rather maladjusted. Sounds like a guy who was an aggressive sociopath punk (raised by an aggressive, sociopath dad) who was always a violent, angry jerk who got into Islamozealotry and decided one day that he was going to hack some guy on the street (who happened to be a soldier). Another neighbor says he had no real beef with the family and that they were very Church-going and that his wife would take them to Church. They moved away when there was a divorce. The family are described as Christians of Nigerian background. I think Dad was abusive & Mom wisely dumped him. Dad & Michael were the nasty ones but apparently Mom & the sister were okay, hence the conflicting stories about the family).
With a name like Michael, I doubt he was born a Muslim. Sounds more like some random wackjob using Islamozealotry & the wars in the Mideast as an excuse to cause mayhem. I doubt he gives a damn about all those dead innocent civilian Afghans & Iraqis.
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
Is it because the victim is a soldier?
Would you call not-funny if it would be a man going to his white-collar job?
Would you call not-funny if it would be a woman, any civilian profession?
Would you call not-funny if it would be a woman soldier?
Would you call not-funny if it would still be a male soldier, but we'd know more about him as a person, his family, his hobbies?
Thing is, I wasn't particularly perturbed by Fe-bite's post either. I have to answer the same questions. Let's explore our shortcomings as humans.
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
Would you call not-funny if it would still be a male soldier, but we'd know more about him as a person, his family, his hobbies?
I think this is it, right here. Well, to a more extreme degree; from what I remember, Joey's quip was right in the middle of a bunch of posters trying to comfort a forumite who had just learned a close family friend had been seriously injured. Yeah. I can tolerate black humor just fine, but, well, good comedy is 90% delivery.
EDIT: It helps that Ironbite isn't acting like we're his own personal Antichrists for not thinking he's the second coming of George Carlin.
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
That said, this is horribly despicable act and if these bastards haven't been shot dead by the cops, I hope they get death.
Ironbite-monsters don't deserve life.
We don't have the death penalty. And thank fuck, tbh.
Lucky you.
-
Now that I think about it I wonder why Ironbite's post didn't bother me and Joey's did.
Would you call not-funny if it would still be a male soldier, but we'd know more about him as a person, his family, his hobbies?
I think this is it, right here. Well, to a more extreme degree; from what I remember, Joey's quip was right in the middle of a bunch of posters trying to comfort a forumite who had just learned a close family friend had been seriously injured. Yeah. I can tolerate black humor just fine, but, well, good comedy is 90% delivery.
EDIT: It helps that Ironbite isn't acting like we're his own personal Antichrists for not thinking he's the second coming of George Carlin.
Last paragraph before the edit nails it. There is such a thing as "too soon" sometimes.
-
Dude at my job was talking about this- said if england allowed guns it would've been stopped, and he couldnt believe everyone just stood there. I said england does allow guns and theres this thing where everyone thinks someone else will help, so no one does, and he looked at me, then looked away and said well if england had concealed carry permits, this couldve been stopped. Smh.
-
Dude at my job was talking about this- said if england allowed guns it would've been stopped, and he couldnt believe everyone just stood there. I said england does allow guns and theres this thing where everyone thinks someone else will help, so no one does, and he looked at me, then looked away and said well if england had concealed carry permits, this couldve been stopped. Smh.
Surely a gun would only have stopped hm after the attack anyway? Unless he is suggesting people should shoot other people premptivley? Coz I can't see how that could go wrong, nope.
Plus, does he really trust the average random tosser on the street to own a gun responsibly and use it effectivley in a confusing situation where they're panicking and afraid? I wouldn't trust half the people I run into on an average day to use a fucking sandwhich properly, never mind a gun.
I mean christ when I'm playing a multiplayer FPS game it turns into a total disaster when my adrenaline starts pumping too much. I start shooting at everything that moves and even thigns that don't. I can't imgine how much worse it would be in a real life situatiion.
And I think gun crime in parts of London is high enough as it is without making the laws on gun ownership looser.
-
Dude at my job was talking about this- said if england allowed guns it would've been stopped, and he couldnt believe everyone just stood there. I said england does allow guns and theres this thing where everyone thinks someone else will help, so no one does, and he looked at me, then looked away and said well if england had concealed carry permits, this couldve been stopped. Smh.
But of course that almost never happens though. Not even in the US where we have load sof guns and would be dirty harry's.
I mean for one, someone still has to have a gun
Then we still have bystander syndrome as already described.
Then we have the fact that, believe it or not, most humans are repelled at the idea of killing. Talking about it all macho before is easy but when faced with the actual thing, most of us balk. (the military does a lot of means to get around this, of course)
Not to mention, if random citizens can have easy access to guns, that means random crazy people can too. And it may not have been just one guy murdered.
The thing is guns play into human nature and how we often deal with horrific things like this.
We second guess, wondering how they could have been avoided.
And we also look for things that will give us security in a frightening world. Even if it's just psychological.
So guns get seen as some kind of super power. They can give us the feeling that we have the power to keep bad things like this from happening, even if we may still be powerless.
I'm sure there's some kind of psychological term for that.
-
If the other attacker had not had a gun himself, a citizen with a Taser or a stun gun baton could have more effectively and safely stopped the butcher knife attack than a citizen with a gun. It would have been very risky to try it though, dealing with two maniacs at once, regardless if they had a gun or not.
As it is, I believe these two monsters specifically planned that the gun wielder would keep an eye out and shoot anyone who tried to break up the attack on the soldier.
-
And now there appears to have been a copycat attack in France.
The 23-year-old was patrolling in uniform with two other soldiers as part of France's Vigipirate anti-terror surveillance plan when he was approached from behind around 6 p.m. and attacked with a knife or a box-cutter.
A police union spokesman said surveillance footage of the attacker showed him as tall and bearded, aged about 35, possibly of North African origin and wearing a white Arab-style tunic.
Hollande, in the Ethiopian city of Addis Ababa, commented on the stabbing to say police were hunting for the attacker but did not provide any details about his identity or any possible motivation for the attack.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/25/us-france-stabbing-idUSBRE94O09420130525 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/25/us-france-stabbing-idUSBRE94O09420130525)
-
Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?
Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.
-
Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?
Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.
It's because the guy is supposedly a muslim.
-
Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?
Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.
This was a terrorist attack done by religious extremists. Just because it was done by two guys with no apparent relation to Al Gaida or other major players or the lack of explosives or huge casualties do not change that fact.
Yes, only one dead and the killers were arrested (which was part of their plan) but it is a new kind of threat: This type of attack is really hard to predict since there is no connection to any larger organisations and the attacker used whatever was available and he had skills for. If they had known how to make explosives out of household items or had a gun they could have done that but they just used a knife and a car and were still able to make their statement.
-
Terrorism isn't about death toll, its about intent.
-
Is it just me or is the world's media (and the British government) shitting themselves over nothing. Cameron said it was an "attack on Britain" but "we will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms." Really? Is this guy with an axe actually a threat to Britain, in custody, under arrest? And what would the alternative to "not giving in look like? You're going to negotiate terms of surrender with this guy?
Look, there are hundreds of murders in London every year. This was one of them, nothing more.
This was a terrorist attack done by religious extremists.
I'm not clear on why we should be more concerned about a murder motivated by a desire to bring down the government than a murder motivated by money or love. Why should motivations enter into the equation? Surely it's threat alone we should care about. If you're a paralytic terrorist, you are not a threat and everyone can calm down. On the other hand, if you have a nuclear weapon and will use it to extort money, you are a threat and we should pay attention. Motivation is irrelevant. These guys had an axe, not a nuke.
Nor is this terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to create fear in order to cause some political end. They murdered a soldier, not a civilian. That is not an act of terrorism. It's murder, not terrorism.
Nor is even the worst terrorism a serious threat. Even the worst terrorist attack in history killed few people and did little damage compared to basically ignored social phenomena like lack of medical care. Ironically, these much more serious problems have gone unfunded in the name of a (failed) attempt to reduce terrorism.
This is irrational. We should calm down and think this through.
-
Nor is this terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to create fear in order to cause some political end. They murdered a soldier, not a civilian. That is not an act of terrorism. It's murder, not terrorism.
It would be easier to agree on what is terrorism if there was a consencus on what terrorism means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of people by non-government political activists for political reasons, often as a public statement.
This definition would mean that this particular act can be said to be terrorism, but the same article states that there is no international consencus or laws that define terrorism just some subjective views and separate laws.
Nor is even the worst terrorism a serious threat. Even the worst terrorist attack in history killed few people and did little damage compared to basically ignored social phenomena like lack of medical care. Ironically, these much more serious problems have gone unfunded in the name of a (failed) attempt to reduce terrorism.
Does the fact that there are bigger threats mean we should ignore the smaller ones?
If car crashes kill more people than plane crashes does this mean we should remove all the laws and regulation concerning planes until we have fixed the problem with the cars?
-
Nor is this terrorism. Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to create fear in order to cause some political end. They murdered a soldier, not a civilian. That is not an act of terrorism. It's murder, not terrorism.
It would be easier to agree on what is terrorism if there was a consencus on what terrorism means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
The only reason there is no consensus on the definition of terrorism is the usefulness of a meaningless word with negative connotations. If all force with a political motive is terrorism, obviously the Iraq and Afghan Wars are terrorism. If you deliberately, cynically include only non-state actors (and why not just make it any violence by Muslims or Catholics and be honest about it?) why does it have a negative connotation? Non-state violence isn't necessarily evil, any more than state violence is necessarily good.
But if you have no definition at all, these concerns vanish. They're terrorists and we're not because we say so and stop supporting the terrorists.
In any case, most people agree that you have to be acting outside the normal rules of war to count as a terrorist, or you have to choose an illegitimate target. It is not against the laws of war to murder a soldier with an axe.
Nor is even the worst terrorism a serious threat. Even the worst terrorist attack in history killed few people and did little damage compared to basically ignored social phenomena like lack of medical care. Ironically, these much more serious problems have gone unfunded in the name of a (failed) attempt to reduce terrorism.
Does the fact that there are bigger threats mean we should ignore the smaller ones?
If car crashes kill more people than plane crashes does this mean we should remove all the laws and regulation concerning planes until we have fixed the problem with the cars?
[/quote]
It does, however, mean that we should slash the shit out of (working) programs dealing with actually serious problem to fund a (failed) attempt to reduce the laughably unserious one. While ripping up our criminal justice system. It also means we shouldn't have politicians orally defecate their pants on national television. Calm down. Terrorism isn't a threat. Don't worry. Worry about something that might hurt or kill you- like cancer or something.
-
Which law would that be? I don't think a machete is a prohibited weapon, and I don't know that there is any law against wiping out off-duty soldiery. If you're at war and in the army you're fair game, as far as the LOAC is concerned. Not the case with domestic law o'course, so this dude is in prison forever.
-
I would argue that since the soldier in question was not on active duty - wasn't even deployed - that he was effectively a civilian.
-
I would argue that since the soldier in question was not on active duty - wasn't even deployed - that he was effectively a civilian.
The guy was unarmed, out of uniform and not deployed for combat. Might not make him a civilian but definitely a non-combatant.
-
I should be clear: I don't think he did the right thing, I just disagree with calling his brand of "the wrong thing" terrorism. It's murder.
-
Again, its about intent. Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun? Pleasure? Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?
The latter is terrorism. It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver. If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism. ...This really isn't a difficult concept.
The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act. The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act. 9/11 was a terrorist act. Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.
-
Inb4 someone says that even a simple murder can scare a population so everything could be considered terrorism.
-
Again, its about intent. Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun? Pleasure? Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?
The latter is terrorism. It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver. If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism. ...This really isn't a difficult concept.
The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act. The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act. 9/11 was a terrorist act. Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.
So is most military strategy based on surprise or shock; Desert Storm was explicitly this idea.
-
Again, its about intent. Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun? Pleasure? Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?
The latter is terrorism. It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver. If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism. ...This really isn't a difficult concept.
The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act. The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act. 9/11 was a terrorist act. Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.
So is most military strategy based on surprise or shock; Desert Storm was explicitly this idea.
As far as I remember Desert storm wasn't an attack targeting civilians and non-combatants. There is a bloody big difference between killing a soldier who is in uniform and carrying a weapon on a combat zone and going after a guy who is gathering money for charity.
-
Again, its about intent. Look at why the murderer killed: did they do it for fun? Pleasure? Revenge? Or did they do it to terrify others into taking their side, or at the very least, not supporting their opposition?
The latter is terrorism. It doesn't matter if they killed a baker, scholar, soldier, or a cab driver. If the intent is to inflict terror on a large (community, at the very least) scale, then the act is terrorism. ...This really isn't a difficult concept.
The Oklahoma City Bombing was a terrorist act. The sarin attack on a Japanese subway that was perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyo was a terrorist act. 9/11 was a terrorist act. Given the apparent motivations behind the murderers here, the act falls under the definition of terrorism.
So is most military strategy based on surprise or shock; Desert Storm was explicitly this idea.
As far as I remember Desert storm wasn't an attack targeting civilians and non-combatants. There is a bloody big difference between killing a soldier who is in uniform and carrying a weapon on a combat zone and going after a guy who is gathering money for charity.
Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
-
Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back. That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.
-
Desert Storm was declared publicly by the United States to the entire fucking world, especially to Saddam Hussein, 24 hours before the attack commenced.
We do not "Pearl Harbor" against enemy nations, Fred. We walk all over them, and fuck up just about everything our ginormous military juggernaut touches....but we do not perform ninja stabs as the opening salvo.
-
In all fairness, the opening strikes were made with stealthy weapons with an eye to blinding/crippling the enemy before going in for the kill. We just told them that the ninjas were coming to get them (which is more than fair).
-
Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back. That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.
Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.
Desert Storm was declared publicly by the United States to the entire fucking world, especially to Saddam Hussein, 24 hours before the attack commenced.
We do not "Pearl Harbor" against enemy nations, Fred. We walk all over them, and fuck up just about everything our ginormous military juggernaut touches....but we do not perform ninja stabs as the opening salvo.
Again, I disagree that surprise alone characterises terrorism. Surprise characterises a lot of military operations, I don't see why there should be negative connotations attached to that.
We should not deliberately write a definition in order to exclude what we do while including what they do. That's dishonest.
-
Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back. That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.
Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.
No, he's a terrorist not because he only killed one soldier, he's a terrorist because his intent was to scare the civilian populace into submission. If he were specifically targeting soldiers for the sake of damaging the British military and its ability to fight, that wouldn't be terrorism. However, because ultimate target audience was civilians, it's terrorism.
It's really not that hard a concept.
Oh, and derp. I accidentally a word or two.
-
Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back. That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.
Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.
No, he's a terrorist because he only killed one soldier, he's a terrorist because his intent was to scare the civilian populace into submission. If he were specifically targeting soldiers for the sake of damaging the British military and its ability to fight, that wouldn't be terrorism. However, because ultimate target audience was civilians, it's terrorism.
I think that's reasonable, though it still includes most warfare.
-
Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back. That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.
Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.
No, he's a terrorist because he only killed one soldier, he's a terrorist because his intent was to scare the civilian populace into submission. If he were specifically targeting soldiers for the sake of damaging the British military and its ability to fight, that wouldn't be terrorism. However, because ultimate target audience was civilians, it's terrorism.
I think that's reasonable, though it still includes most warfare.
Most warfare aims to knock out the opponent military's ability to fight, especially when the end goal is something that doesn't involve conquest. Not that it doesn't happen at all in conventional warfare (terror bombing, for example), it's just not as common as the more direct approach.
-
Desert Storm very much targeted sleeping soldiers, retreating soldiers, off-duty soldiers, ect. Clear terrorism, by your definition (which, mind, I think is wrong).
Yes, soldiers...as in plural, with the intent of reducing the ability of the Iraqi army to fight back. That is different than attacking a single soldier and than waiting to be taken into custody while making statement to a crowd of people.
Right. So, had this guy killed at least two soldiers, he'd no longer have been a terrorist? Or perhaps making statements is the sign of terrorism. Being arrested? I'm not sure what your point is here.
No, he's a terrorist because he only killed one soldier, he's a terrorist because his intent was to scare the civilian populace into submission. If he were specifically targeting soldiers for the sake of damaging the British military and its ability to fight, that wouldn't be terrorism. However, because ultimate target audience was civilians, it's terrorism.
I think that's reasonable, though it still includes most warfare.
Most warfare aims to knock out the opponent military's ability to fight, especially when the end goal is something that doesn't involve conquest. Not that it doesn't happen at all in conventional warfare (terror bombing, for example), it's just not as common as the more direct approach.
That's total war, sure. You murder enough civilians, trash or occupy enough cities and factories to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. Most conventional war is aimed at destroying their will to fight- this was the strategy of both sides of Vietnam, and Korea- which fits firmly within your definition of terrorism.
-
That's total war, sure. You murder enough civilians, trash or occupy enough cities and factories to destroy the enemy's ability to fight. Most conventional war is aimed at destroying their will to fight- this was the strategy of both sides of Vietnam, and Korea- which fits firmly within your definition of terrorism.
It's not that broad. Terror is specifically destroying the civilian will to fight through fear for their safety. That's not the same thing as destroying the military's ability to fight (both sides in Korea, if I recall correctly) or destroying civilian will to fight through war exhaustion (Vietnam being the classic example).