dondon151 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 This blew up in the wrong direction. I'm still deciding what to do about this. please stop being so trigger-happy about closing topics in SD when there is nothing wrong here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 please stop being so trigger-happy about closing topics in SD when there is nothing wrong here. This is neither the time nor the place to argue with administrative decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 This is neither the time nor the place to argue with administrative decisions. i think it would be wise to not close it. nothing is really happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 i think it would be wise to not close it. nothing is really happening. That's why it's staying open for the time being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) That's why it's staying open for the time being. Stop derailing and spamming the thread. Do not derail threads. Our definition of derailing a thread consists of going off-topic for 3 or more posts. It's been 4 posts. Congrats, you broke a rule! compared to what osama did, it really isn't that much... and when you see the world population, 2400 isn't that big of a number... would it be better if those lives could be saved? definitely. is a perfect world where stuff like this never happens plausible? sadly, no, or at least not for a long time. i prefer idealistic. if you could end 2400 lives to save 500000, wouldn't you do it? it is a shame that people die either way, but 500000 is much bigger than 2400, also proving my point on 2400 not being that big. though the fact that osama wasn't given a fair trail isn't exactly fair i will admit, regardless of the severity of his crimes... 500000 may be much more valuable than 2400, but that doesn't mean 2400 isn't very valuable. Edited May 27, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 comet won't be replying anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) what did osama do that killed 500k people? i don't think al-qaeda has directly killed anywhere near 100,000. really, it's us that have murdered tens of thousands of civilians (nearly 20,000 in afghanistan alone). it is really us that is the tirading monster in the middle east. I am unsure why you voted that Obama wasn't a terrorist in light of this post. Edited May 27, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I think a really strong case can be made in favor of this argument. According to a US Army manual, terrorism is: under this definition, the threat of war is terrorism. i think this is a bit too broad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 under this definition, the threat of war is terrorism. i think this is a bit too broad. It is terrorism. Threats are meant to inspire terror. What's your problem with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 My problem with this thread is that we're just arguing classification, and using a word with largely negative connotations to label the POTUS in an attempt to make some sort of argument. It's really just pure semantics and nothing of any actual substance. fuccboi said it better earlier, but if we're arguing the merits of Obama's presidency (which is kinda relevant except primaries are in a year and a half) then we should argue that. If we're going to classify certain parts of Obama's presidency and some of his actions, then we really get nowhere in discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 such a trivial definition of terrorism is not worth discussing. assassinations are terrorism, warfare is terrorism, embargoes and sanctions are terrorism (if going by the dictionary.com definition), etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) I am unsure why you voted that Obama wasn't a terrorist in light of this post. stolypin, dondon and lord raven said it. my personal definition of terrorism doesn't quite encompass obama, for one reason or another. now, if the question is whether i am happy with what obama and congress are doing in the middle east--a more important question--the answer is "fuck no." Edited May 27, 2014 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) under this definition, the threat of war is terrorism. i think this is a bit too broad. My problem with this thread is that we're just arguing classification, and using a word with largely negative connotations to label the POTUS in an attempt to make some sort of argument. It's really just pure semantics and nothing of any actual substance. fuccboi said it better earlier, but if we're arguing the merits of Obama's presidency (which is kinda relevant except primaries are in a year and a half) then we should argue that. If we're going to classify certain parts of Obama's presidency and some of his actions, then we really get nowhere in discussions. Looking at dondon's post, you can tell it's not just semantics. Because there are things that should and shouldn't be a part of any definition of terrorism: 1. The threat of war should be terrorism. The threat of war inspires terror in enemies and intimidates them, right? 2. Terrorism shouldn't have to be illegal. Just because terrorizing Middle Eastern countries is not illegal to the US (in other words, it's justified by the Constitution) doesn't mean it's not terrorism. According to Al Qaeda it's legal, since they follow Islamic law, which justifies it. That sounds absurd. Once we take the legalness of terrorism out of the definition, you'll find that Obama is guilty of terrorism. Edited May 27, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Looking at dondon's post I see it's exactly semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 i think we are more interested in talking about something like "are the US's actions in the middle east as morally reprehensible as al qaeda's, etc. actions against civilians" rather than "has the obama administration ever threatened another political entity with violence or sanctions." intuitively, when we think of terrorism, we think of organizations like boko haram or the khmer rouge who choose their targets more indiscriminately than the US government - but the definition of terrorism claims no such exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Looking at dondon's post I see it's exactly semantics. My point was that you can't define terrorism as being illegal, so it's not just semantics. You can't just define a concept as whatever you want to blame people. Why don't you explain why Obama isn't a terrorist? such a trivial definition of terrorism is not worth discussing. assassinations are terrorism, warfare is terrorism, embargoes and sanctions are terrorism (if going by the dictionary.com definition), etc. I don't see what the problem here is. Maybe you just have to think more broadly and not just think as what Al Qaeda does as terrorism. All of those things sound good to me. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/13200/the-effects-of-the-economic-sanctions-against-iran'>Sanctions are a really serious crime. The conditions of these days for me are as follows: medicines are rare, food costs an arm and a leg, unemployment is widespread, the cutting of the subsidies will continue till doomsday, smugglers are sheltered, mediators and dealers are getting fatter and fatter, boss-men and chief-executives are busy with looting, and profiteers from the sanctions are getting richer and richer every day while the rest of us suffer Edited May 27, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I don't see what the problem here is. Maybe you just have to think more broadly and not just think as what Al Qaeda does as terrorism. All of those things sound good to me. Sanctions are a really serious crime. the problem is that there's nothing to discuss. yes, obama is a terrorist (or rather, his administration has conducted acts of terrorism). there we go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 the problem is that there's nothing to discuss. yes, obama is a terrorist (or rather, his administration has conducted acts of terrorism). there we go. There's plenty to discuss, here are some examples: 1. How do we restrict acts of terrorism to those only done by Al Qaeda? 2. Can actions that are done by governments ever be acts of terrorism? intuitively, when we think of terrorism, we think of organizations like boko haram or the khmer rouge who choose their targets more indiscriminately than the US government - but the definition of terrorism claims no such exception. How would we find a restriction for just these sorts of groups? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 There's plenty to discuss, here are some examples: 1. How do we restrict acts of terrorism to those only done by Al Qaeda? 2. Can actions that are done by governments ever be acts of terrorism? How would we find a restriction for just these sorts of groups? You could choose a better way to word your thread if this is your point. You're basically saying Obama's terrorism = Al Qaeda's terrorism with very little context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 There's plenty to discuss, here are some examples: you should have said that to begin with! 1. How do we restrict acts of terrorism to those only done by Al Qaeda? 2. Can actions that are done by governments ever be acts of terrorism? the restriction implied in 2 works to achieve 1 (but it's a bit unsatisfactory because i think the answer to 2 is yes); alternatively, we can restrict terrorism to acts targeted against non-combatant civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) You could choose a better way to word your thread if this is your point. You're basically saying Obama's terrorism = Al Qaeda's terrorism with very little context. That is what I'm saying. I don't think any sort of restriction is going to be a meaningful one in the end, due to some counterexamples that we'll see now. Restriction 1: If something is a terrorist act, then it must not be conducted by a government. A government is: A government is the system by which a state or community is governed. So according to this, the Taliban is not a terrorist group, since they govern parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan (as far as I know). Restriction 2: If something is a terrorist act, then it must be targeted against civilians. Lee Rigby's murder was not a terrorist act since Lee Rigby was a soldier, in that case. There's a lot of counterexamples to this. Edited May 27, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwall Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 That is what I'm saying. I don't think any sort of restriction is going to be a meaningful one in the end, due to some counterexamples that we'll see now. this entire thread baffles me. you lead with a question that has a completely trivial answer if adopting the presented dictionary.com definition, and expect meaningful discussion; wait an additional three pages before finally saying "hey, maybe we need a more restrictive definition;" and finally say "okay, i don't think a more restrictive definition can be 'meaningful.'" to which i'm like, "okay, so what constitutes a 'meaningful' definition?" a definition that restricts the dictionary.com definition to acts you consider to have a net negative effect? a definition that restricts the definition to acts you consider evil (given your previously stated belief in the concept of ethics being objective, this should be something you consider "meaningful")? either question is more conducive to stimulating discussion than the trivially presented question (trivial if adopting the dictionary.com definition) in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRC Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 It seems disingenuous to me to compare a leader of a country that does bad things to a group that is willing to do just about anything to gain power and push their extremist agenda. Drone strikes and war are obviously detestable, which is why there is room for grey area here, but to compare that to the indiscriminate killing of civilians to cause fear and instability is baffling to me. While it's horrible that civilian deaths and acts of war go hand and hand, deaths of innocent civilians are not an intentional consequence of the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skynstein Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Osama was responsible the many, many, MANY dead people from 911 and other stuff, so why should we care if he's dead? 2400 really isn't that much... If there is a just cause, then there would be no reason not to do it, since that would save more lives rather than ending. And this. So no, I don't think Obama is a terrorist. American logic is funny. 3,000 people died in 9/11 attacks. That's "many MANY people". 2,400 people die by US drones. That's "not really that much". It's less, of course, but close enough to 3,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyWalk Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) American logic is funny. 3,000 people died in 9/11 attacks. That's "many MANY people". 2,400 people die by US drones. That's "not really that much". It's less, of course, but close enough to 3,000. I think we've been through Comet's misinformed/false comments enough already Edited May 27, 2014 by Alb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.