If you can demonstrate that the attack was launched despite knowledge that there was no military target present, then it could be labeled terrorism. This paragraph reads like agreement with me so I have no dispute here.


The primary basis for evaluation should be factual. Reputation and character are vague and useless, totally dependent on the eye of the beholder. It would not be acceptable for establishing guilt in a court of law and it is of no value in this discussion.

Intention is not subjective. We can simply look at the facts of the case. When Hitler gassed 6 million Jews who were powerless, imprisoned and completely in his power you have factual evidence that simply overwhelms any "lip service". Asserting that my model could justify his actions is not even remotely rational. I am surprised that you tried to go there.

Iraq was a mistake imo, but probably not for the reasons you think. Concerning the residents of the area it probably is a bit of a wash. The oppression shifted so that different groups are suffering, but there was terror and murder before we toppled Sadaam and there was terror and murder after the event.

What we did achieve is to create a vacuum that allowed renegade terror groups like Al Qaeda and ISIL to expand. The same is happening in Syria. Assad and his cronies are murderous tyrants but by trying to topple him we are just creating opportunities for terror groups while giving their supporters the opportunity to point their fingers at the inevitable civilian casualties. IMO we should just let the dictators sit on those countries unless we get solid information that they are enabling strikes against us, such as happened in Afghanistan.

No, I still see no problem with my comments. I have pointed out the problems with yours however. I would not go so far as to call them "stupid" but they were poorly conceived.

That's good since I was merely reiterating your definition so we could be clear about it. I guess that kind of worked. You spell out an implication of your definition which highlights another shortfall in its reliance on what what people knew. This can be as elusive as 'intention'. In the case of Iraq, for example, it appears as though people chose to pretend that demonstrably wrong intelligence was believable. The ultimate military targets, the WMDs, were not present. You should avoid definitions which depend heavily on what people believe. Focus on actions and their predictable outcomes.

That is not true at all. So if a man was accused of killing his wife the court wouldn't be able to hear that he had previously physically abused her? In case you really don't know, the answer is no, the court would be able to hear that. Just forget the torture thing and let's focus on your definition of terrorism, what it implies and why it fails.

You're really starting to break down. Intention is obviously highly subjective. It's hard enough to determine intent of individuals. When you try to deduce the intent of a single action comprised of many interacting people and institutions it only gets exponential worse.

Look at the Iraq war. Our initial stated intention was to end the threat of WMDs controlled by Saddam. Did you believe that was the true intent? Did you also believe that the intention was actually, when it was switched during the war, to bring democracy to Iraq? Many people think that the chief intention of the war was to gain tighter controls over valuable resources like oil or the money in the U.S. treasury. Bush at one point blurted out, in reference to Saddam, "he tried to kill ma dad!". So add personal revenge into the consideration. Also, there is a large group of people who still believe (more who believed before the war) that Saddam committed 9/11 and that's why we went to war. Fortunately, we can say that the invasion was a crime because there are guidelines for determining that which are not so conditioned on intent.

Hitler used widely held racist views about Jews and components of the eugenics movement developed in the U.S. to justify his actions. His intent, as stated, was to protect his people from injury and suffering for which Jews were held as scapegoats. That rational of intent made sense to many people and you can't really prove it didn't. Trying to tease out what the actual intentions are in a prosecutable manner is not possible and that is significant because we are ultimately concerned with a legal standard. Genocide is a crime and if you do it doesn't matter what your intentions are. The whole "I was just following orders" thing doesn't even excuse it. Do you mean to suggest that it is possible to deduce whether some Nazi really wanted to murder Jews or whether he was trying to save his own ass? and on that basis we should apply the consequences for breaking a law or not? It doesn't matter. He did it. Hang him.

You have to consider what people knew because in war information is incomplete or not fully reliable. Actions still have to be taken and mistakes will occur. Friendly fire casualties range from 2-20% in wartime which illustrates the risk inherent in combat.

Concerning Iraq, the WMD thing was certainly a failure in intelligence. One does have to remember that hindsight is always 20/20. There was intelligence indicating that Sadaam had WMD. He did not help his situation by playing games with the prospect of inspections. The decision makers had to consider the fallout if they did not act and weapons made their way to terrorists who used them against us. I think the war was a mistake, but as I said earlier, for different reasons.

This is incorrect. The courts would be very slow to let information about his previous convictions get to the jury because of the prejudicial effect of that knowledge. They might if allow it if he was convicted after lying on the stand about beating her and he was going to testify in his own defense for the murder charge. They would not use that for establishing guilt, but only for questioning his honesty. It is almost certain that they would not allow the evidence if the man was not going to testify in his own defense. You have to convict him on evidence of the killing. Just because he punched her does not prove that he killed her.

Here is a website that explains this concept carefully since you seem to be uninformed on the subject.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...o-testify.html


Intention can be quite clear. Are you confused as to Hitler's intention towards the Jews? I think you are reaching to try to fog up what is meant by intention in our discussion. Hitler's intention was for the Jews to die. He targeted them and they were killed. He was not trying to destroy some military target and they happened to be in the way. He gathered them up and murdered them in cold blood. Where is the difficulty in deducing the intent there?

A nation goes to war for many reasons, not for a single reason. But this is distorting the original debate. We were talking about casualties that occur when the intention was to strike a military target. Now you are trying to change the subject to a much more complex decision that will be complicated by a structure of strategic imperatives.


Again, not the issue. His intention was to kill the Jews. They were the target. Terrorists intend to kill civilians. That is their target. They may have rationalizations but that does not change anything.

When the US targets terrorists who are hiding behind civilians, the intent is to kill the terrorists. The civilians are only involved because the terrorists chose to involve them. If you can show that the US targets civilian areas simply to produce civilian casualties, then you have a point. But you know full well that you cannot do that, so you are trying to cloud the issue to manufacture a point that does not really exist.


It is genocide because you intended to kill the innocent victims. What doesn't matter is your rationalization.


Of course he intended to murder the Jews. He did not kill them accidentally while trying to attack someone else. That was his intention. What motivated that intention is another subject.

To put this differently, I used the word intention in the description of the decision to attack. The US intended to attack a military target. The terrorists intended to attack civilians. Here the intention matters a great deal.

Hitler intended to kill the Jews. Hitler intended to free Germany from the tyranny of Jews. I used the same word. In the first sentence the intention has great significance. In the second, it is used with an empty justification. Just because you can use the same word in situations with very different implications, does not change the underlying point.

Illegal wars, torturing, death drones that kill 90% civilians......America is guilty of its own brand of terrorism.

That depends on who you ask. From the perspective of people who had been obsessing about invading Iraq for decades and who have made their case from atop a mountain of lies to accomplish it (such as those people who ran the government at the time, for example), the "WMD thing" might be seen as a triumph in the use of intelligence.

Intention is usually not clear and, even when it is, it is easily disputed. Intention is the predictable outcome of action expected by the actor. When we drone strike a crowd of people because a suspected affiliate of a terror group is in target range, we know we are going to kill innocent people. In that case, we intentionally kill innocent people as well as intentionally kill the target. You might argue that we don't really want to kill the innocent people (suspending for a moment the question of whether or not the suspect isn't also innocent until proven guilty). At least, presumably, most people involved would rather not. But, since they know they are doing it, it is therefore intentional. You might be confusing intention with, like, your projected idea of the wishes of the actors, or something like that. Intentions are not ideals.

Now that you mention it, I suppose I am, partially. I know he intended to kill the Jews. That's what I am arguing, that intention includes what you knowingly do. But I don't think I understand the rationality behind whatever his longer term intentions. I'm sure he thought he did, and so did his many followers. You can't deny that, in their minds, they had what they saw as good intentions. This is why intentions are not nearly as relevant to responsibility as are actions. Your constant reliance on indiscernible, idealistic, projected intentions when it comes to Americans killing innocent people is a form of apologetics.

I'm addressing the intentions of the war, intentions which changed mid war as the charade of the WMD removal intention became impossible to maintain as the facts wouldn't play along. You said intentions determine terrorism or not terrorism, so according to you it's relevant.

No, showing that the U.S. targets civilian areas simply to kill civilians for the sake of it is not the bar. We are really arguing about whether the U.S. commits terrorism. By any appropriate definition, it does. You think your definition provides some protection by allowing subjective projections about intentions to be the controlling issue. But even your definition doesn't always stretch far enough.

In 1998 Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. It is estimated that tens of thousands of people died as a result. Under your definition, there needs to be a military target to legitimize (I suppose any level of) civilian deaths. It turns out in this case there wasn't.

At the time, republicans were crying "wag the dog" over this. Others suggest that it was more pure terrorism, something done to punish a civilian population that happened to live in a country containing Al Qaeda elements. Intention is always hard to figure, not being a mind reading species. In this case we can eliminate one intention, that of going after a military target.

I have bolded a few statements here because they have crystallized the discussion for me. The dispute here is around possibly two issues.

1. Is it terrorism to cause civilian casualties without exception?

2. Is violent action against terrorists outside of the US subject to the restraints of law enforcement?

I know my opinions and from the posts I think I know yours.

1. I would say "No". I think you effectively say "Yes".

2. I would say "No". I think you would say "Yes".

There is not much more to debate. We are starting to play around with words to try to "win", but there is no win. I am going to continue to think and more importantly vote in line with my opinions and you with yours. Best of luck.

Well its unfortunate you don't really understand my position, but that's understandable- I've mainly been critiquing your position. My position is I'm fine with the dictionary definition of terrorism, the one which reads pretty much like official U.S. policy.

The point isn't to win. I was simply trying to demonstrate that your definition carries some obviously immoral implications. I've done that but it's not a win. It's not a "win" that you (and millions like you) refuse the humanity of others on the basis that they happen to be, through no fault of their own, next to so called military targets.

No, you are not.

My definition:

"I believe that terrorism is the intentional infliction of violent attacks against noncombatants in pursuit of political goals."

The dictionary definition:

"the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal"


Then you are confused since my definition reads almost identically to the definition you accept.


No, you haven't. You have not even voiced a consistent position and you seem to be confused as to the course of the conversation.


But an attack against a military target that kills civilians is not an attack done to frighten people for political goals. It is an attack to destroy a military target for military goals. Thus it is not terrorism by the definition that you have already stated you accept.

However it is perfectly consistent with my summary of your position:

Apparently I understand your position better than you do. Or at least I am better able to state it.

The bold is an attempt to make an emotional statement to appeal to persons unable to think clearly. You should save that crap for someone else.

Finally from Reuters today:

///tread

Are you changing your definition? because originally you had the supplement:

I've tried to focus the conversation on your definition of terrorism and what it implies. My definition is the dictionary definition and it means the U.S. is a terrorist state. Your definition makes a feeble attempt to impart subjectivity into the definition by conditioning the act of terrorism on what individuals project as the ideals of the perpetrators. On that subjective basis, you wish to project what you imagine are the high ideals of Americans, ideals which result in blowing innocent people to bits in pursuit of usually illegitimate, so called "military targets".

Here is the simple definition of terrorism, no add-ins necessary:

"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

U.S. policy, decried as terrorism the world over, obviously conform to this definition. You want to focus on fear? There are many in Pakistan who, because of the terror of drones strikes, constantly fear merely going outside.

Many of these fear generating terrorist attacks don't even have a military target:

As you could imagine (if you were to entertain the idea that people in other countries are human like you), the attacks inspire great terrorizing fear:

The U.S. perpetrators of these attacks are not idiots. They know the effects. The definition of terrorism they spell out condemns their actions. The fact that they don't apply their own legal standard to themselves is exculpatory only to thoroughly brainwashed people.

We harbor known foreign terrorists right here in the U.S. If the countries who want to try those terrorists sent attack drones here and blew up your mother, supposedly in pursuit of those terrorists, you know damn well what you would do.

It's a plain interpretation of your position and so I wrote it just for you. Your position is inherently emotional, a psychological devotion to the idea that your 'side' is righteous which compels you into fantastic apologetics. This is a devotion to self-deception of the same sort indulged in by Nazis, ISIS, and every other morally repugnant national dedication to aggressive violence.

Position 1: I will hide behind civilians to use as human shields.

Position 2: I will deny the idea of human shields and will kill the so called shields along with my ultimate target.

Do you actually think one of these positions is worse than the other? At least the first position assumes some value for human life.

Did you not watch Speed?

We are starting to circle here and that is getting boring. However I do not want to overlook a substantive point in your posts should there be one concealed there.

I presented this summary of our disagreement:

1. Is it terrorism to cause civilian casualties without exception?

2. Is violent action against terrorists outside of the US subject to the restraints of law enforcement?

I know my opinions and from the posts I think I know yours.

1. I would say "No". I think you effectively say "Yes".

2. I would say "No". I think you would say "Yes".

If you believe there is more to it than this, would you succinctly state those additional points.

I was trying to discuss your definition, what you think and what it implies. I have no need to invent supplements to standard and appropriate definitions in order to cover up crimes which I have been primed to believe are being committed for my benefit- that's you.

You are not very good at talking about the debate. I have brought up a few examples of what I say is U.S. terrorism. I can bring up more. I've made some charges. At this point, if you want to use your definition to defend those specific cases I think that would be the way to go. If not, address something else. Don't try to play games with inaccurate oversimplifications of the issues here. There is no going around in circles. You are simply ignoring my arguments that you have no good answer for.

Your examples do not even meet your own definition of terrorism because they are not attacks on civilians for political purposes. They are attacks on military targets. This will never end. You can always ignore the definition of terrorism and simply use the term any way you want.

I asked a very simple question. Either I have summarized the disagreement or I have not. If not, you should be able to explain why I failed. You avoided it because stated clearly even you realize your position is ridiculous.

Let me try this. Given the activities of ISIS such as beheadings of prisoners and attacks on civilians far from any battlefield combined with their known willingness to use civilians as human shields, what do you think is the appropriate response. How should nations like the US, Britain and France respond?

I predict that you will evade that also. Even you probably realize that you cannot manufacture an answer that does not either look ridiculous or involves the same risk of civilian casualties that we see already. How will you evade, I wonder? Perhaps that the question does not fit the thread subject? Or that it is not your role to solve these problems? Or counterattack? Suggest that I am trying to change the subject to avoid your arguments?

Well, one thing I have learned in life is that criticizing a line of action without an alternative is a fool's exercise.

I believe the great noodle wazlib said we have to give them jobs. Its really that easy.

It seems as though you think attacks can either be on military targets or civilian targets but not both. Clearly that's not true. I have even cited some examples where there was no military target but you apparently didn't read those or don't want to admit the truth they demonstrate.

I know. It's tough to realize you're not the good guys. For you, maybe it is impossible.

I did give an explanation. I said you ignored my arguments and instead made inaccurate oversimplifications of the debate. I could spell this out further but I would rather see if you can make simple comparisons before I waste my time.

Not with more terrorism and not by shipping massive weapon loads to the Saudis and other gulf states who have seeded ISIS and continue to support it. In other words, stop proceeding with the same policies and strategies that have created ISIS. That's going to mean abandoning an array of strategic goals toward which a lot has already been spent, so it's not going to happen unless Hillary strokes out and Sanders is elected. ONE tiME!

But you are not interested in anything like that. You want to know if ISIS guy is holding an Arab hostage in front do you kill both of them? The answer is to treat that hostage like they were an American citizen (a white one).


Maybe there is some practical utility to that. As for me I'm more of a have some idea of what to do then do it type of dude. Engaging in actions to gratify short term goals without thinking or caring about the consequences is how we radicalized the ME in the first place.

No you did not. When I posted the question you said:


That does not explain how my summary was incorrect.


Well, this is not really a strategy. But it does say "stop attacking ISIS directly and stop arming other states that are attacking ISIS". That sounds like "do nothing". Of course, you did not say "do nothing" so there must be something that you think we should do. What is that exactly?

You do recall that our President is black, do you not? He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. You knew that, right?

Certainly there is, but more importantly if you cannot offer an alternative to a current line of action it is an implied admission that the current line of action is the only workable path. It is completely irrational to criticize the only option. You might regret it but you cannot condemn it.

So far all I have seen is a "criticize what others are doing even though I have no idea what to do" kind of dude.


So inaction? The Neville Chamberlin School of international relations. Sure the Nazis have grabbed some pieces of Europe and there are rumors that they are hard on the Jews, but war will kill a lot of innocent people. After all, not all of the Germans are Nazis. If we attack Hitler it will just force the moderate Germans to support him.

Haven't read it all, but I like the back and forth, guys. These issues polarize a lot of smart and well-meaning people. I wish Chomsky and Harris could have some public debates without Chomsky going nuts, but Dueces isn't a bad proxy .

Ouch!

I realize it was not meant to be a hostile comment but you have by implication made me a proxy for Harris, which is not a compliment.

I think you and he are mostly in agreement on this subject.

I will have to look into that. I have the feeling that he is anti-Arab in a far broader way than I am. But that may be incorrect.

Here's their brief and contentious exchange:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...s-of-discourse

Yeah, I happened to have caught that. So what? Does that automatically mean an upgrade of blacks to full citizen status in real terms, meaning, among other things, that they can't be observed to be murdered in cold blood with zero consequences to their killers or tortured into confessing to crimes there is no evidence they committed? If you were in a hostage situation you would want the authorities to know you were white and the race of the president has nothing to do with that.

Stopping the active fomenting of ISIS is not nothing. There was one guy I know of who voiced a little criticism of U.S. support for fascism across Europe (and Japan), which the U.S. elites saw as a bulwark against Bolshevism and other leftist movements. Put me in the Smedley Butler school of international relations. Google is showing me he was actually court martialed for some oblique criticism of Mussolini:

There are actually some informative parallels under in the topic you are misapplying. Just as U.S. officials and corporations saw fascism as compatible with U.S. interests, they now so see fundamentalist Islam and the ME dictatorships who make use of it. In a more specific parallel, you learn that whenever the U.S. refers to any group as "moderates", as they did Hitler and the rising Fascists of the day, those are actually violent extremists whose program is compatible with that of U.S. elites and whose image U.S. elites seek to soften. So when we saw that the U.S. was funneling weapons to "moderates" opposing Assad, the emergence of something like ISIS was predictable. Of course, we did it anyway.

It wasn't until Hitler attacked our interests directly that he became an "extremist", same with the radical fundamentalists who we have defended and armed for decades.

If you mean in terms of avoiding any real examples and dissembling by whining about the discussion, then yeah they are in total agreement.