How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

Isn't it called "war" when one soldier kills another after war is declared?

You see, some norwegian soldier got shot in Afghanistan today. And, since we're a tiny nation, it's all over the news. And it has consistently been called a "terrorist attack", committed by "terrorists". So, as it turns out, when a soldier kills an enemy, he's a terrorist. I still don't know if a soldier is a terrorist before he kills someone though, whether it's being a soldier that makes you a terrorist, or if you only become one after your first kill. Anyone got an answer to that?



And another thing... Why are we so sad when soldiers die? I mean.... they went down there to die for their country, right? Shouldn't we be congratulating them on a job well done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Isn't it called "war" when one soldier kills another after war is declared?

You see, some norwegian soldier got shot in Afghanistan today. And, since we're a tiny nation, it's all over the news. And it has consistently been called a "terrorist attack", committed by "terrorists". So, as it turns out, when a soldier kills an enemy, he's a terrorist. I still don't know if a soldier is a terrorist before he kills someone though, whether it's being a soldier that makes you a terrorist, or if you only become one after your first kill. Anyone got an answer to that?

---

I somewhat agree. But considering what those people were doing when not attacking soldiers, like enforcing the Taliban's laws, calling them terrorists isn't far off.

Quote:

---

And another thing... Why are we so sad when soldiers die? I mean.... they went down there to die for their country, right? Shouldn't we be congratulating them on a job well done?

---

That's damn cold blooded.

They didn't go to die; they went to try and secure a better future for Afghanistan. We're sad because these people gave up their lives to better the lives of others.

CR

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

~Gen. George S. Patton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I somewhat agree. But considering what those people were doing when not attacking soldiers, like enforcing the Taliban's laws, calling them terrorists isn't far off.

---

Enforcing despotic laws is terrorism? I thought that was despotism... Isn't terrorism quite restricted to killing/scaring civilian populations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That's damn cold blooded.

---

Many thanks :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

They didn't go to die

---

So all this talk about "dying for your country" is all a scam? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Enforcing despotic laws is terrorism? I thought that was despotism... Isn't terrorism quite restricted to killing/scaring civilian populations?

---

I see the point you're making, and there's some truth in it. Two armed groups going at each other is difficult to classify as "terrorism." It might be what the U.S. military calls "asymmetrical warfare," though. The calling card of real terrorism is that the targets tend to be non-military, such as blowing up a vegetable market in Kirkuk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So all this talk about "dying for your country" is all a scam? :inquisitive:

---

No, not a scam; soldiers who fall in the line of duty really have died for their country. But that's never the goal, you see. You want to make the other guy die for his, as Patton put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I see the point you're making, and there's some truth in it. Two armed groups going at each other is difficult to classify as "terrorism." It might be what the U.S. military calls "asymmetrical warfare," though. The calling card of real terrorism is that the targets tend to be non-military, such as blowing up a vegetable market in Kirkuk.

---

In-deedeli-doodely. I mean, it's not too different from what the resistance movement did here during the war, the real difference is simply advances in warfare(excluding when targeting civilians, of course). Blowing up enemy soldiers, police stations, assassinating natives who work with occupiers, etc etc, it was all done here during the war, and I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like calling our resistance movement terrorists...

I thought you had to join the army to become a soldier? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I thought you had to join the army to become a soldier? :inquisitive:

---

So.... All guerillas are terrorists in your opinion? Why do we then have words like "resistance movement" and "guerillas"? Is it all part of the big liberal plot to make the church accept gays?

Oh dear a strawman.

I agree, targeting soldiers is not terrorism.

As for your thoughts on soldiering a certain Orwell quote comes to mind but I can't bring myself to be that cliche or elementary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Blowing up enemy soldiers, police stations, assassinating natives who work with occupiers, etc etc, it was all done here during the war, and I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like calling our resistance movement terrorists...

---

Did they target civilians (say, by throwing acid at them)? The Taliban does things like that. Just because they killed some soldiers does not make them less of terrorists - they are still a terrorist group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Did they target civilians (say, by throwing acid at them)? The Taliban does things like that. Just because they killed some soldiers does not make them less of terrorists - they are still a terrorist group.

---

As we say here in norway; now's the time to separate snot from mustaches(yess, that's a saying). In the news, they've said that the soldier died in a terrorist attack. Not "killed by a terrorist". The attack itself was terrorism. And I can't see how that can be true, as this was an attack targeted specifically at foreign soldiers, it was not targeted at civilians, nor was it random in any way.

You're just arguing semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You're just arguing semantics.

---

I'm annoyed, so yes.

HoreTore, here is the definition I found on Wiki:

Quote:

---

Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants.

---

An attack by a combatant who is not part of the regular army attacking a force which is essentially trying to be a stabilizing force could be interpreted as 1 or 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

An attack by a combatant who is not part of the regular army attacking a force which is essentially trying to be a stabilizing force could be interpreted as 1 or 2.

---

So.... The norwegian resistance movement were terrorists after all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... The norwegian resistance movement were terrorists after all?

---

No. They were not striking fear into the local population, just into the occupying forces, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

No. They were not striking fear into the local population, just into the occupying forces, correct?

---

So.... The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the local population when they attack foreign soldiers to strike fear into foreign troops? :dizzy2:

And yes, they were most certainly trying to scare norwegians from working with the nazi's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the local population when they attack foreign soldiers to strike fear into foreign troops?

---

The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the population of Afghanistan (where have you been?), and I think killing soldiers is only one part in that.

Quote:

---

And yes, they were most certainly trying to scare norwegians from working with the nazi's.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the population of Afghanistan (where have you been?), and I think killing soldiers is only one part in that.

---

Their ultimate goal now is to re-establish control of afghanistan and stabilize the country. Where have you been? They're not trying to terrorize the population just to terrorize them, they're doing it to ensure loyalty. But getting foreign occupiers out and bringing down the traitor(in their eyes) government is the most critical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Their ultimate goal now is to re-establish control of afghanistan and stabilize the country. Where have you been? They're not trying to terrorize the population just to terrorize them, they're doing it to ensure loyalty. But getting foreign occupiers out and bringing down the traitor(in their eyes) government is the most critical.

---

Heil Osama!!!

But srsly, I would agree that teh Taliban do want to bring stability to the country, very admirable of them. But its the kind of stability they want to bring and the way in which they are doing it which I belive gives people justification in calling them terrorists, though tbh alot of the fighters are actually poor locals who have had enough of U.S backed warlords, so its a rather hit and miss kind of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

But srsly, I would agree that teh Taliban do want to bring stability to the country, very admirable of them. But its the kind of stability they want to bring and the way in which they are doing it which I belive gives people justification in calling them terrorists, though tbh alot of the fighters are actually poor locals who have had enough of U.S backed warlords, so its a rather hit and miss kind of thing.

---

I'm not arguing whether to call them terrorists or not. I'm arguing whether it's correct to call an attack on enemy soldiers a terrorist attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The Taliban are trying to strike fear into the population of Afghanistan (where have you been?), and I think killing soldiers is only one part in that.

---

I see what your argument is but you put it a little bit too simple.
If I was an Afghan I would target soldiers because that's the best way to let the country pull out the troops.
Remember Rwanda genocide where they beat up 4(?) beglian soldiers to death and the public opinion shifted so terrible that the goverment pulled out its troops. Which destabilized the country even more and made the killing possible even more?
(The post is not soley reflecting on EMFM)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They're not trying to terrorize the population just to terrorize them, they're doing it to ensure loyalty.

---

This sentence alone proved my point. The point is that they are doing it. It doesn't matter why - terrorism is a tactic, not an end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

If I was an Afghan I would target soldiers because that's the best way to let the country pull out the troops.

---

You are a Taliban fighter, not an ordinary Afghan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm not arguing whether to call them terrorists or not. I'm arguing whether it's correct to call an attack on enemy soldiers a terrorist attack.

---

Well, if they are brutal insurgents who commit acts of terror in order to impose a brutal regime, then yes it would be a terrorist attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You are a Taliban fighter, not an ordinary Afghan.

---

Don't be square. You know what I meant. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

Don't be square. You know what I meant. ;)

---

As has been said, the hypothetical you is still terrorizing the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

As has been said, the hypothetical you is still terrorizing the population.

---

Yes. That's terrorism by definition.

But the question that has been asked is if it can be called terrorism when a Taliban kills a regular soldier.
I see your point and I agree to it to the most extend, but I have to say it is a fair question.

Quote:

---

As has been said, the hypothetical you is still terrorizing the population.

---

It isn't terrorising the population , its a shock and awe campaign .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

But the question that has been asked is if it can be called terrorism when a Taliban kills a regular soldier.

---

Yes. It really depends why that soldier is being killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It isn't terrorising the population , its a shock and awe campaign .

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Yes. It really depends why that soldier is being killed.

---

Like I said I agree with you.
I have to admit though that I know nothing about what really happend.

Also my reference to the belgian soldiers in Rwanda being withdrawn backs up your argument.

With Horetore on this one.

Killing a soldier doesn't make you a terrorist in itself, so its not an act of terrorism. But then, many of those carrying out such attacks will have links with terrorist organisations. Are they terrorists... maybe. But not because they killed a soldier.

Horetore:

Does this really boil down to frustration at the loss of a countryman in a conflict of which you don't feel he should be a part?


It's clear that attacking a military target, whether the attack is done by a regular combatant or not, does not of itself constitute terrorism. Sloppy word work by the media outfit in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Isn't it called "war" when one soldier kills another after war is declared?

You see, some norwegian soldier got shot in Afghanistan today. And, since we're a tiny nation, it's all over the news. And it has consistently been called a "terrorist attack", committed by "terrorists". So, as it turns out, when a soldier kills an enemy, he's a terrorist. I still don't know if a soldier is a terrorist before he kills someone though, whether it's being a soldier that makes you a terrorist, or if you only become one after your first kill. Anyone got an answer to that?



And another thing... Why are we so sad when soldiers die? I mean.... they went down there to die for their country, right? Shouldn't we be congratulating them on a job well done?

---

Briefly;

It is ok to target the military of another nation or group; not its civilians who are not participating in aggressive activities. Terrorism is when you attack the civilian population of a group intentionally, for the purposes of spreading fear; or destroying high profile targets like national monuments for the purposes of lowering morale. In my opinion.

Why is it sad when soldiers die? Because they don't stop being human beings when they are a soldier. And dying for their nation isn't their function; their function is to defend their nation from aggressors.

I wouldn't call anyone who attack a soldier a terrorist. That person may or may not be a terrorist based on what his past activities, but attacking a soldier in itself isn't an act of terrorism. It's propaganda...

I remember a decade ago (it's been that long, what do you know), when nato bombed Serbia and Montenegro - few of nato (american) pilots were captured and suddenly nato was screaming about Geneva Convention and prisoners of war. What prisoners of war, what Geneva Convention? Nobody declared war on Serbia. Lawfully, those pilots were terrorist, I mean, what would you call armed force that attacks civilian targets without declaring war?

He was a soldier and he knew the risks - no matter how disgusting I find the regime in Afghanistan, Afghani still have right to defend themselves...

It can potentially be an act of terrorism, as explained above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

It is ok to target the military of another nation or group; not its civilians who are not participating in aggressive activities. Terrorism is when you attack the civilian population of a group intentionally, for the purposes of spreading fear; or destroying high profile targets like national monuments for the purposes of lowering morale. In my opinion.

---

No, that's not your opinion, that's pretty much the textbook definition of terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

No, that's not your opinion, that's pretty much the textbook definition of terrorism.

---

I've learned to qualify most statements I make as being "in my opinion" in the backroom so they don't come off as arrogant, and I don't have to give evidence or proof of everything I say. More out of laziness and clarity than anything else. More often than not in these backroom discussions, people challenge definitions of words; and many people have different interpretations of words, in spite of the existence of dictionaries.

To avoid quibbling over semantics and definition, I just toss an "in my opinion" after defining things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

HoreTore, here is the definition I found on Wiki:

Quote:

---

Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants.

---

An attack by a combatant who is not part of the regular army attacking a force which is essentially trying to be a stabilizing force could be interpreted as 1 or 2.

---

This definition has three necessary conditions, shown by the use of and just before number 3, instead of the word or. Being possibly interpreted as 1 or 2 is not enough; it must be demonstrated to be 1, 2, and 3 to count as terrorism by this definition. An attack aimed exclusively at soldiers, even if committed by a terrorist, is not in itself an act of terrorism. I agree with HoreTore: it was inaccurate and possibly deceptive use of language.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

This definition has three necessary conditions, shown by the use of and just before number 3, instead of the word or. Being possibly interpreted as 1 or 2 is not enough; it must be demonstrated to be 1, 2, and 3 to count as terrorism by this definition. An attack aimed exclusively at soldiers, even if committed by a terrorist, is not in itself an act of terrorism. I agree with HoreTore: it was inaccurate and possibly deceptive use of language.

Ajax

---

I agree that attacking soldiers is generally not terrorism. However, let us say that these soldiers are in their own nation not harming anyone, or keeping the peace between rival factions and not getting involved except to protect each from the other, or keeping free people safe from oppressive and violent regimes; these are legitimate and enlightened uses for soldiers. Those who attack such soldiers are cruel and oppressive in my opinion, if not terrorists. I'd go as far as to say they are terrorists, because those targets are not part of self-defense in my opinion.

However, peacekeeping and fighting terrorists is done by fallible human beings who make mistakes and kill the innocent at times, and therefore, armed resistance to such may or may not be terrorism. I say it depends on the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I agree that attacking soldiers is generally not terrorism. However, let us say that these soldiers are in their own nation not harming anyone, or keeping the peace between rival factions and not getting involved except to protect each from the other, or keeping free people safe from oppressive and violent regimes; these are legitimate and enlightened uses for soldiers. Those who attack such soldiers are cruel and oppressive in my opinion, if not terrorists. I'd go as far as to say they are terrorists, because those targets are not part of self-defense in my opinion.

However, peacekeeping and fighting terrorists is done by fallible human beings who make mistakes and kill the innocent at times, and therefore, armed resistance to such may or may not be terrorism. I say it depends on the circumstances.

---

Well, I'm not about to say I think the wiki definition is perfect. I would agree with you that attacking soldiers in their home country could easily qualify as terrorism, depending on the circumstances. I do not think, however, that attacking foreign soldiers occupying your own nation qualifies.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I do not think, however, that attacking foreign soldiers occupying your own nation qualifies.

---

What if this is being done to sow terror among the civilian population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Well, I'm not about to say I think the wiki definition is perfect. I would agree with you that attacking soldiers in their home country could easily qualify as terrorism, depending on the circumstances. I do not think, however, that attacking foreign soldiers occupying your own nation qualifies.

Ajax

---

I think that there is room for disagreement and debate on the issue. Your views seem like a valid counter to my own.

:bow:

It is my belief that if a combatant fires upon, or causes any intentional harm, to a civilian or civilian population, that combatant has committed terrorism. However, should he kill another soldier in combat, it is not.

As already stated, soldiers are human. They have girlfriends, wives, parents, cousins, daughters, sons, aunts and uncles like you and me. True, they are trained to fight, kill, and face the reality of being killed, however, they are deserving of the same mourning one would show a citizen killed in a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixiwee

I have to admit though that I know nothing about what really happend.

---

Some guy with a car full of explosives drove into a military column. Bang.

Or they got blown up by a roadbomb. Last time I checked, they still hadn't decided which.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Does this really boil down to frustration at the loss of a countryman in a conflict of which you don't feel he should be a part?

---

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

---

Shameful. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

---

I really don't understand this, from any political viewpoint. One may not agree with the mission a soldier is given, but he has a mother who will grieve.

Even a pacifist values the human life of the military, if not their role.

Shameful is one description. Morally bankrupt is another. I admit to some degree of surprise.

Flashy stories sell papers. Terrorist is more emotive and topical. Few will be picking up the inaccuracy when a countryman gets shot a few thousand miles away trying to secure some teritory for a pipeline (well at least that's possible, the idea of peace is a joke!)

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Shameful is one description. Morally bankrupt is another. I admit to some degree of surprise.

---

Celebrating the death of a soldier would be shamefull, even for that I wouldn't use morally bankrupt. Not caring because you know what you are getting in to, perfectly valid opinion.

Just my :2cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Some guy with a car full of explosives drove into a military column. Bang.

Or they got blown up by a roadbomb. Last time I checked, they still hadn't decided which.



Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

---

Are you like this in real life?

To be frank, the amount of hatred you seem to carry for so many divergant groups is disturbing.

Soldiers do a job which is very dangerous, most of the ones who see combat have night terrors, PTSD etc. My Grandfather cries every armistice day because he was the only one to survive his AA gun being hit.

So, why no compassion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Are you like this in real life?

To be frank, the amount of hatred you seem to carry for so many divergant groups is disturbing.

Soldiers do a job which is very dangerous, most of the ones who see combat have night terrors, PTSD etc. My Grandfather cries every armistice day because he was the only one to survive his AA gun being hit.

So, why no compassion?

---

"Hatred" is the wrong term. "Uncaring" is a better one.

And I do differentiate between a defender and an invader, and one who had a choice and one who did not.

Quote:

---

I really don't understand this, from any political viewpoint. One may not agree with the mission a soldier is given, but he has a mother who will grieve.

Even a pacifist values the human life of the military, if not their role.

Shameful is one description. Morally bankrupt is another. I admit to some degree of surprise.

---

So does every soldier. Including enemy soldiers. The thing is I should only care about "my own", right? I don't have to care about "the enemy"?

I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I refuse to care about German soldiers who lost their lives in WW2, Vietcong soldiers who lost their lives in the Vietnam war, NATO soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan or Taliban soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Most people only care about one of those four. I don't see how I'm morally bankrupt or shameful because I don't care about any of them.

Let's try not to dogpile on top of HoreTore. We may not agree with his views, but I don't think he's said anything all that offensive here. In one sense, I agree with HoreTore; soldiers who sign up for a mission which involves being in someone else's lands, where they may be ordered to fire upon the enemy, are legitimate targets. There is always the option not to interfere in other countries; not that I agree with it all the time.

I think he's trying to express himself freely; which I do believe is a right many of these soldiers themselves would admit they are trying to preserve.

There is, and I believe, a legitimate alternative viewpoint of pacifism which regards soldiers fighting in war to be on the wrong path. Mohandas Gandhi was a person who believed in this; for example. And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country, nor was he a shameful man. He was a saint in my opinion.

We should respect HoreTore's right to disagree with our viewpoint, in whole or in part, that there is a legitimate use for armed soldiers, if used correctly and within reason and with strict ethical and moral guidelines. But he can freely speak out against the use of violence, and while I may not agree with him completely, I sympathize with certain sentiments.

I don't agree with the way he's presenting his arguments, but I think it's possible for there to be more than one valid opinion on the use of force, where we may all peacefully and politely coexist with the alternative viewpoint without acting all offended. I've heard people say far worse and far less gracefully too, might I add.

The Taliban arn't soldiers. They're students.

Oh and they did have a choice, they just chose wrong.

What about the soldiers killed by the Real IRA outside their barracks in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago? Does that make the Real IRA guerillas or terrorists?

Murderers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What about the soldiers killed by the Real IRA outside their barracks in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago? Does that make the Real IRA guerillas or terrorists?

---

Were they attacking the soldiers of a group they are in a declared war with? Has their group attempted to resolve the matter peacefully, and if so, were their demands reasonable? Situations involving political entities can get very complicated. Also, judging the morality or worth of a group of people is much messier than judging each individual, as one should.

I am certain for example, there are members of the Taliban who are less extreme, believe in their cause, and side with extremists among them so they can have a better chance at achieving their goals. Not everyone inside an organization we're at war with is a soulless killing machine. I'm reminded of the United States civil war... I believe that one side held the moral high ground (or higher ground... neither was saintly) but that the side that did not was not comprised of wholly evil people. People need to stop looking at things in black and white terms, in my opinion. All of us contain within us a seed of evil and a seed of good; it's what grows from those two seeds which determines whether you're in the right or the wrong; whether you hold the moral high ground, the legitimacy of the use of force, and so on. People should be judged individually by their works, and groups should be judged also by their works.

I don't buy into the "us versus them" mentality. Some among the enemy are the enemy and will never make peace; others can be talked to. Nothing is solved by eradicating everyone who opposes you, because there will always be those who oppose you; and the more people you eradicate, the more people will oppose you. And then you're an enemy of all mankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country

---

Are you calling me patriotic? :inquisitive::whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What about the soldiers killed by the Real IRA outside their barracks in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago? Does that make the Real IRA guerillas or terrorists?

---

Is a war declared?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Murderers.

---

Yeah, obviously. I was playing devil's advocate. The IRA ("Real" or otherwise) are bastards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Are you calling me patriotic?

---

Not calling you patriotic or unpatriotic; the point was you can be loyal to your peaceful convictions and not be some kind of evil subversive. Gandhi was hailed as the father of India, and I don't believe he fought anyone with violence. I admire that, even though I cannot follow his rigid brand of pacifism. I would take up arms and defend my country as long as I were within my borders, or there was a real, present danger from a military target which could be destroyed, and attempts at diplomacy have failed.

One does not necessarily have to be either a warmonger or a surrender-monkey; there is room in between. Lots of room in between. For people of many varying viewpoints, and I think most of us fall in the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

"Hatred" is the wrong term. "Uncaring" is a better one.

And I do differentiate between a defender and an invader, and one who had a choice and one who did not.

---

But that differentiation is not what you wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nope. As far as I'm concerned, people are dead when they sign the contract to go to war. If they come back, then woo-hoo, if not, well, it was to be expected.

---

That implies soldiers, regardless of motivation, should be considered dead (and by extension, I suppose, undeserving of any rights or compassion). I can't see the moral reasoning for that statement, and "because I don't care" brings no illumination. It's a kind of nihilism, and therefore strikes me as morally bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So does every soldier. Including enemy soldiers. The thing is I should only care about "my own", right? I don't have to care about "the enemy"?

I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I refuse to care about German soldiers who lost their lives in WW2, Vietcong soldiers who lost their lives in the Vietnam war, NATO soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan or Taliban soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Most people only care about one of those four. I don't see how I'm morally bankrupt or shameful because I don't care about any of them.

---

I have never said that you should care only about your own. Soldiers are trained to objectify an enemy so that they too "don't care" about the lives they are required to take. That training however, does not in most cases remove the moral dilemma that killing in a cause brings to one's psyche. For you to dismiss all such men and women with such casual disdain strikes me as a rather brutal generalisation.

But then that is the tragedy of hard-line socialism - it always comes down to caring more about the concepts than the human beings, despite bleating loudly that the latter's interests are it's raison d'etre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Let's try not to dogpile on top of HoreTore. We may not agree with his views, but I don't think he's said anything all that offensive here. In one sense, I agree with HoreTore; soldiers who sign up for a mission which involves being in someone else's lands, where they may be ordered to fire upon the enemy, are legitimate targets. There is always the option not to interfere in other countries; not that I agree with it all the time.

I think he's trying to express himself freely; which I do believe is a right many of these soldiers themselves would admit they are trying to preserve.

There is, and I believe, a legitimate alternative viewpoint of pacifism which regards soldiers fighting in war to be on the wrong path. Mohandas Gandhi was a person who believed in this; for example. And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country, nor was he a shameful man. He was a saint in my opinion.

We should respect HoreTore's right to disagree with our viewpoint, in whole or in part, that there is a legitimate use for armed soldiers, if used correctly and within reason and with strict ethical and moral guidelines. But he can freely speak out against the use of violence, and while I may not agree with him completely, I sympathize with certain sentiments.

I don't agree with the way he's presenting his arguments, but I think it's possible for there to be more than one valid opinion on the use of force, where we may all peacefully and politely coexist with the alternative viewpoint without acting all offended. I've heard people say far worse and far less gracefully too, might I add.

---

Ya. Bit surprised by the outrage I am perfectly fine with his words, opinions don't kill. I am ten times as immoral. If dutch troops kill Taliban do you really think I mourn the loss of life, they have moms to but :daisy: and die. I support the invasion of a foreign country, and I don't care about the afghan people, if I hear a civilian was killed I feel sorry for him/her but I don't really care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That implies soldiers, regardless of motivation, should be considered dead (and by extension, I suppose, undeserving of any rights or compassion). I can't see the moral reasoning for that statement, and "because I don't care" brings no illumination. It's a kind of nihilism, and therefore strikes me as morally bankrupt.

---

No, that implies that I do my mourning when they sign the contract.

But anyway, Banqou, since you say that socialists don't care about human beings, I take it you're not a socialist? And that would mean that you weep for the fallen Taliban soldiers, right? Every last one of them? And.... That would also mean that you're willing to protect them, right? Because weeping at people's death and not wanting to do anything to prevent their deaths, that strikes me as kinda... How'd you put it? "Morally bankrupt"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ya. Bit surprised by the outrage I am perfectly fine with his words, opinions don't kill. I am ten times as immoral. If dutch troops kill Taliban do you really think I mourn the loss of life, they have moms to but :daisy: and die. I support the invasion of a foreign country, and I don't care about the afghan people, if I hear a civilian was killed I feel sorry for him/her but I don't really care.

---

I consider the needless loss of any life to be a tragedy. These are all human beings. All precautions should be taken to avoid the needless loss of life. Whether it impacts you emotionally or not; lives do matter and it is at the very least illogical to destroy senselessly.

A dollar bill has no emotional impact on me, but if I were to burn it, it would be a senseless waste. Destruction without purpose, or destroying the wrong target, is at the very least a bad mistake, and at worst a crime. Now instead of one dollar bill, imagine a hundred thousand, burning them one at a time with deliberate intent. Seems a hundred thousand times more wasteful, and a lot more of a crime. Now imagine instead of silly paper money, these are living human beings, which are valued immeasurably more than a dollar, and cannot even be quantified in such terms.

It is an unfathomable waste, and a cruel cruel bit of ignorance, to have no reaction to senseless death. If you don't care, that's fine; just make sure you don't vote or anything. If apathy is the watchword, follow through and remain totally neutral. Don't speak out for or against it; and don't affect the democratic process, should there be one.

:2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

It is an unfathomable waste, and a cruel cruel bit of ignorance, to have no reaction to senseless death.

---

That is why I'm not going to take the higher moral ground. There isn't anything noble about what we are doing there it just needs to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That is why I'm not going to take the higher moral ground. There isn't anything noble about what we are doing there it just needs to be done.

---

If it isn't noble, then why are we doing it? Why does what need to be done? If the Taliban are the enemy, and we pushed them out of power, isn't our duty simply to aid the Afghan government against the Taliban fighters and get permission from Pakistan to wipe out the last pockets of armed terrorist resistance? There's no need to sit in their nation for decades making no progress. Either get the job done and leave, and do it right, or don't do it at all. And if we don't care about Afghan civilians; why not just carpet bomb them until they are all dead? We're bound to hit Taliban eventually.

To run a legitimate war, you have to care about details like human lives. They aren't just details. I'm not trying to shut you down, but I'm not sure what you're arguing for, if anything; and if you're arguing it in a way I understand. No biggie either way. :bow:

Quote:

---

But then that is the tragedy of hard-line socialism - it always comes down to caring more about the concepts than the human beings, despite bleating loudly that the latter's interests are it's raison d'etre.

---

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

If it isn't noble, then why are we doing it? Why does what need to be done?

---

Killing these terrorist opponents needs to be done. Because if we don't we will have to it it in 10 years with cosiderably more loss of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

---

I think the right also believe their cause to be just, and they do pretty much whatever when they are in power, too.

:2thumbsup:

Any of your partisan groups believe in their cause, I'd suspect; and I find partisans cause the most damage to us all.

Quote:

---

Killing hatebeards needs to be done. Because if we don't we will have to it it in 10 years with cosiderably more loss of life.

---

According to which political party's propaganda pamphlet? BTW- who are the "inappropriate group bashing term"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

According to which political party's propaganda pamphlet? BTW- who are the "inappropriate group bashing term"?

---

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

I don't think it's necessary to say "no offense", frags, you know we all love you ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

I don't think it's necessary to say "no offense", frags, you know we all love you ~;)

---

@HoreTore or Fragony, (anyone really)

I dislike the gross oversimplification of a person's cultural, social, ethical, moral, religious, legal, government, and global philosophy/worldview into the false dichotomy of "left" and "right". It seems like a lazy way of referring to a very vague concept without having to actually state what you believe or where you stand, and it lends itself to false assumptions; such as- if a person is a right winger, they must of course support the death penalty and oppose stem cell research.

I always thought people were entitled to have individual views on things, and weren't all cookie-cutter carbon copies of the stereotypical "liberal" and "conservative", if those words have any meaning whatsoever.

Back to the topic: Wouldn't a liberal who supports tolerance and free speech and progressive ideology oppose radical religious extremism more than your typical member of the "christian right"? I mean, the "liberal left" has less in common with Muslims than the "right" does. I think you'll find actually a great many of the "liberals" will oppose intolerant radical militant religious extremism just as much as "conservatives" do, and will support efforts to disarm or destroy these threats to civilized society. I think that there is room for disagreement as to how to go about doing so; such as being careful not to carpet bomb civilians, and not torturing people, for one.

Engaging in immoral and fear-based tactics like bombing civilians from the air is not how you fight extremism; it's how you spread it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But anyway, Banqou, since you say that socialists don't care about human beings, I take it you're not a socialist? And that would mean that you weep for the fallen Taliban soldiers, right? Every last one of them? And.... That would also mean that you're willing to protect them, right? Because weeping at people's death and not wanting to do anything to prevent their deaths, that strikes me as kinda... How'd you put it? "Morally bankrupt"?

---

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the above paragraph, but I'll try to respond as I understand your point.

Firstly, no I'm not a socialist. However, I fail to understand why not being so automatically requires one to "weep" for the Taliban.

I am opposed to the war in Afghanistan, though I had some sympathy for reasons of the original attack. A continued occupation is foolish, in my opinion. I have campaigned against such wars. However, I think I have been consistent in my approach when mourning all loss of life. I understand why the Taliban take up arms, and would remove NATO soldiers from harm's way because we achieve nothing save more death. I would also mourn the dead yet to come when the likely murderous Islamic regime that the Taliban would instigate began its orgy of revenge.

I have taken up arms in defence of the things I believed in. I fought in a war against invasion by a dictatorship, and defended to the best of my ability the civilians of both my countries caught up in terrorism. I killed in that defence, and the faces of those dead men haunt me still - not because I was wrong, but because they were still human beings however much they wanted to kill me first. They are part of my life, and I feel it the more keenly because I lost someone dear to me too. I wish none of it had to happen.

Nowadays, I spend much of my time supporting Amnesty International to help preserve rights and human life. You may well consider writing letters, fund-raising and campaigning to be trivial but I feel part of something that I have seen bring results.

Your hatred of the war in Afghanistan should not extend to the men and women who are doing their best to bring a better life to the people of that benighted country - however Sisyphean that task. And you still haven't provided the moral framework for the statement you made, which is why I applied the term "morally bankrupt".

Of course, I would like us to be in the position where no-one has to die in wars or jails, pointlessly or otherwise. It's a rare soldier that having seen war and death, wishes it to go on needlessly. I have done, and continue to do, what I can to make that vision a reality. Maybe I have made wrong decisions. But at least I cannot be accused of "not caring".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

---

...Just like whenever social conservatives get into power, they try and enforce their morals upon everyone else :inquisitive:

people with strong beliefs always do. Part of a strong belief is that everyone else is either misinformed or just plain wrong.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy;2213476
According to which political party's propaganda pamphlet? BTW- who are the "[COLOR="DarkGreen"

people you seem to disparage so much[/COLOR]"?

---

Term Deleted is how we call them here, muslim extremists. This is pretty dangerous you know, the Afghan may be a dirt poor, but all these red flowers you when you watch pictures from Afghanistan, what do you think that is? That would be opium, in hands of the Taliban, and for whoever they are usefull for they are sitting on the greatest opium-production of the world. Unlimited funds. This is much more dangerous then some people think it is, all middle-east nations are artificial states. Taliban is gaining influence in Pakistan, now what does pakistan just happen to have. What will be the reaction?

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

Of course non taken :beam:

double post huh, I'll guess I'll try another time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I have taken up arms in defence of the things I believed in. I fought in a war against invasion by a dictatorship, and defended to the best of my ability the civilians of both my countries caught up in terrorism. I killed in that defence, and the faces of those dead men haunt me still - not because I was wrong, but because they were still human beings however much they wanted to kill me first. They are part of my life, and I feel it the more keenly because I lost someone dear to me too. I wish none of it had to happen.

Nowadays, I spend much of my time supporting Amnesty International to help preserve rights and human life. You may well consider writing letters, fund-raising and campaigning to be trivial but I feel part of something that I have seen bring results.

Your hatred of the war in Afghanistan should not extend to the men and women who are doing their best to bring a better life to the people of that benighted country - however Sisyphean that task. And you still haven't provided the moral framework for the statement you made, which is why I applied the term "morally bankrupt".

Of course, I would like us to be in the position where no-one has to die in wars or jails, pointlessly or otherwise. It's a rare soldier that having seen war and death, wishes it to go on needlessly. I have done, and continue to do, what I can to make that vision a reality. Maybe I have made wrong decisions. But at least I cannot be accused of "not caring".

---

I was going to write something about the soldier's mindset as I have encountered it, but Banquo is far more eloquent as usual.

I would add that in a democracy with a volanteer military many who join up do so on the principle that, If I don't do it someone else will have to."

Such men and women deserve our respect, regardless of their actions. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I would add that in a democracy with a volanteer military many who join up do so on the principle that, If I don't do it someone else will have to."

---

Or: If I can't find any other job, that one will have to do.

Well put, BG, well put.