Page 5 of 162 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 2421
  1. #61
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    ... they (or at least the great majority) have not endorsed the deliberate killing of civilians; and are motivated by a desire to improve Iraq rather than destroy it.
    And I suppose you think the majority of muslims endorse the killing of civilians and are motivated by a desire to destroy Iraq?

    That's why you have those qualifications, isn't it?

    AR

  2. #62
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    When they captured Saddam.

    When they were involved in direct fighting with Iraqi troops.

    When they were driving supply convoys and got attacked by guerillas.

    When they captured prisoners rather than executed them.

    When they held elections.

    ...
    You seem to be answering another question. Let me word it simpler for you:

    Are you saying no Iraqi civilians were killed or terrorised by American forces?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #63
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    You seem to be answering another question.
    I answered the question you asked, even though I knew it probably wasn't the one you meant. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Let me word it simpler for you:

    Are you saying no Iraqi civilians were killed or terrorised by American forces?
    Of course not. What I am saying is that the US is not engaging in terrorism.

    (Which is not deny that some of their conduct has been reprehensible).
    http://www.peterballard.org

  4. #64
    CC International Master four four two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DeltaQuadrant4...
    Posts
    1,771
    Interesting link Belthasar,seems many fundamentalist christians feel the greatest threat to a christian world is homosexuality,and not islam.
    Sanfrancisco and Sydney better watch out!

    The point I think many people miss when they discuss the issue of "islamic" terrorists is that Al-Qaeda[The base] doesnt have the apparatus of a state to inflict its ideas on people. The fundamentalist christian movement in the USA however does.They have only to persuade key elements in the US government,namely the american president who is the official head of the american military.
    Often when people see a governments military commit acts of violence against a civilian population they excuse it by saying its unavoidable.They coin euphemisms like "collateral damage" to justify indiscriminate carpet bombing. Failing to realise that when these civilians are killed by their army in a so called "just" war that the civilian population ends up being terrified . The 1st and 2nd Iraq war isnt the only example of american firepower being used against a civilian population in a so called "just" war that ends up terrifiying the locals. Over 1 million civilains were killed in Vietnam,and predominately by carpet bombing.
    So as you can see wearing a uniform makes you no less qualified to terrorise people.

  5. #65
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    And I suppose you think the majority of muslims endorse the killing of civilians
    No, but a reasonable minority do.
    http://www.peterballard.org

  6. #66
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    Of course not. What I am saying is that the US is not engaging in terrorism.
    Do you remember saying...

    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    I was commenting on terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #67
    CC International Master four four two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DeltaQuadrant4...
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard

    I understand your point... but Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism does have a lot of popular support among Muslims. I've seen figures of between 25 and 75% support in Muslim countries. No doubt it's much lower among Muslims here, but there is obviously some level of support.
    Still standing by these numbers Peter?,or are you adjusting them?

  8. #68
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    Of course not. What I am saying is that the US is not engaging in terrorism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Do you remember saying...
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    I was commenting on terrorism, which I would define as deliberate killing of civilians with an aim to cause terror.
    Yes.

    I maintain that the US is not doing that.

    (Leaving aside theories of rogue elements of their army not admitting all they're up to, etc.)
    http://www.peterballard.org

  9. #69
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by four four two
    Still standing by these numbers Peter?,or are you adjusting them?
    Before I answer...

    You said the numbers were "utter rubbish", that I got them from the right wing press and I wasn't using my brain; and you suggested that 10% of the supporters would actively fight. Do you stand by that?
    http://www.peterballard.org

  10. #70
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    I maintain that the US is not doing that.
    Which bit aren't they doing? Deliberately killing civilians or doing so with the aim to cause terror?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #71
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Which bit aren't they doing? Deliberately killing civilians or doing so with the aim to cause terror?
    Neither.
    http://www.peterballard.org

  12. #72
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    Neither.
    Not deliberately killing civilians? I find that very hard to believe. Unless you believe the cities they have bombed contained only combatants how is that possible?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #73
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Not deliberately killing civilians? I find that very hard to believe. Unless you believe the cities they have bombed contained only combatants how is that possible?
    Emphasis on the word "deliberately". I'm sure you've heard the argument so I won't rehash it.

    Let me turn it around. Do you see no difference between US operations in Iraq, and terrorism?
    http://www.peterballard.org

  14. #74
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by pballard
    Let me turn it around. Do you see no difference between US operations in Iraq, and terrorism?
    It is impossible to answer that question until I get a handle on what you mean by terrorism. The US deliberately bombed cities in which it knew civilans were living. How is that not deliberately killing civilians?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  15. #75
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    It is impossible to answer that question until I get a handle on what you mean by terrorism. The US deliberately bombed cities in which it knew civilans were living. How is that not deliberately killing civilians?
    Because the civilians were not the target.

    I would define terrorism as an attack on a target with no military value, a deliberate attack on civilians purely to create terror. In which the aim is to maximise civilian casualties, not minimise them. Examples include 9/11, Bali, London bombings, bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants, and numerous bombings of Iraqi civilians because of real or perceived associations with the Americans.

    Do you see a difference between terrorism by this definition, and the war on Iraq?

    p.s. I did oppose the war, BTW, and I'm not saying it was a good thing. But I assert that at least it is possible to frame a justification for invading a country, while I can't see any for terrorism, as defined above.
    http://www.peterballard.org

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. life as an atheist in Australia
    By qpawn in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 24-06-2006, 07:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •