Was the Attack on the USS Cole an act of terrorism?

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: kage69
Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

Can you explain the connection between being a sovereign state and war and terrorism? Are you suggesting that all non-state entities who are violent are terrorists? If you aren't, then you have not provided any reasons why it is terrorism.

Simple. Where do you draw the line between those who can declare war and those who cannot? If I hate the US and start killing every military guy I see, did I declare war on the US or am I commiting murder?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: kage69
Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

Can you explain the connection between being a sovereign state and war and terrorism? Are you suggesting that all non-state entities who are violent are terrorists? If you aren't, then you have not provided any reasons why it is terrorism.

..and thus a "logical fallacy?"

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

WTF are you talking about? everyone knows Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so the attack on the Cole, which was what this guy is asking, was an act of terrorism. Stop drifting off subject.

"everyone knows"? Ok, in NK everyone knows that Americans are dirty murdering scumbags, does that make it true?

If it's not by the actions people are judged but by the judgement of some foriegn leader in a far away land i think that most people are terrorists in someones eyes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't much like the idea of killing other human beings, but killing murdering terrorists, well that's OK.

Absolutely, because by killing him you are preserving the lives of those he would kill in the future. Anyway, your point is wrong IMO, because even if it was considered an act of war, we would kill other human beings. That's what happens in a war. We aren't trying to classify them as terrorists to enable us to kill them without our conscience bothering us, because we would do that in a war too.

Yup, I never worry about the people I kill in a war. War is hell so just my being in it is self punishment enough for me.

 

[biostud]

No, it was not meant to terrorize the civilian population.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ThePresence
If I see a soldier walking down the street one day, and I kill him, am I a murderer or a terrorist?

To simplified. Who are you, where are you, who is the soldier?

I'm a guy who hates the US. I'm in some foreign country when I see a US soldier.

EDIT: My original question was worded wrong. Terrorists and murderers are not mutally exclusive. Terrorists = murderers. It should read "am I a murderer or a legitimate fighter"?

You would be a murderer and would be tried and possibly convicted of murder, eh, what kind of a question is that?

Now, if you were an American soldier, occupying my country, i would not be a murderer but a soldier if i were to engage in combat with you and kill you.

I agree that terrorist acts are acts of murder, however, how do you fight an overwhelming force? Do you just give up or will you use whatever force you can?

You see, terrorists, is what the larger army always calls the smaller army because even though firebombing, mortars and tenths of thousands of deaths in "collateral damage" is the result of the larger armies actions, the simple bombs of the smaller army are usually placed where they can get them, in bars, in restaurants, not in a heavily guarded military facilities.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

WTF are you talking about? everyone knows Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so the attack on the Cole, which was what this guy is asking, was an act of terrorism. Stop drifting off subject.

"everyone knows"? Ok, in NK everyone knows that Americans are dirty murdering scumbags, does that make it true?

If it's not by the actions people are judged but by the judgement of some foriegn leader in a far away land i think that most people are terrorists in someones eyes.

is people in NK everyone? NO
And its not one foreign leader, its every one of the worldwide leaders in the UN have agreed that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

WTF are you talking about? everyone knows Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so the attack on the Cole, which was what this guy is asking, was an act of terrorism. Stop drifting off subject.

"everyone knows"? Ok, in NK everyone knows that Americans are dirty murdering scumbags, does that make it true?

If it's not by the actions people are judged but by the judgement of some foriegn leader in a far away land i think that most people are terrorists in someones eyes.

is people in NK everyone? NO
And its not one foreign leader, its every one of the worldwide leaders in the UN have agreed that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization.

Now that is just stupid, which everyone are you talking about, you, Bush and Cheney? Everyone in the world? Every leader in the world?

I am not arguing that Al Quaida ISN'T a terrorist organization, i believe it is, but not because Bush says so, but because of their actions.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

WTF are you talking about? everyone knows Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so the attack on the Cole, which was what this guy is asking, was an act of terrorism. Stop drifting off subject.

This is a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum and hence does not support your position. I highly recommend you read the following entry:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: KlixxerYou would be a murderer and would be tried and possibly convicted of murder, eh, what kind of a question is that?

Precisely. Now where do you draw the line between me with gang of my friends and Al Qaeda?

Now, if you were an American soldier, occupying my country, i would not be a murderer but a soldier if i were to engage in combat with you and kill you.

I wasn't aware that we were occupying a country at the time? We may have had a presence there, but we were not occupying anything.

I agree that terrorist acts are acts of murder, however, how do you fight an overwhelming force? Do you just give up or will you use whatever force you can?

There are peaceful means of protest.

You see, terrorists, is what the larger army always calls the smaller army because even though firebombing, mortars and tenths of thousands of deaths in "collateral damage" is the result of the larger armies actions, the simple bombs of the smaller army are usually placed where they can get them, in bars, in restaurants, not in a heavily guarded military facilities.

Correct, and I find that despicable. They place the value of their political agenda above the value of innocent human life. Such people need to be wiped off the face of the earth.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

WTF are you talking about? everyone knows Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so the attack on the Cole, which was what this guy is asking, was an act of terrorism. Stop drifting off subject.

"everyone knows"? Ok, in NK everyone knows that Americans are dirty murdering scumbags, does that make it true?

If it's not by the actions people are judged but by the judgement of some foriegn leader in a far away land i think that most people are terrorists in someones eyes.

is people in NK everyone? NO
And its not one foreign leader, its every one of the worldwide leaders in the UN have agreed that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization.

Now that is just stupid, which everyone are you talking about, you, Bush and Cheney? Everyone in the world? Every leader in the world?

I am not arguing that Al Quaida ISN'T a terrorist organization, i believe it is, but not because Bush says so, but because of their actions.

Well now if you had said that earlier we wouldn't have had this argument. I thought the whole time you were arguing that Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist organization.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: kage69

Seeing as how Al Qaeda isn't a sovreign country, and no state of war existed between us, the fact that the Cole is a military target is immaterial. Some putz living in a cave declaring war doesn't count. It's terrorism.

Can you explain the connection between being a sovereign state and war and terrorism? Are you suggesting that all non-state entities who are violent are terrorists? If you aren't, then you have not provided any reasons why it is terrorism.

..and thus a "logical fallacy?"

JohnGalt, I do not think this is one of the common logical fallacies, but I could be wrong. That said, I do not think the poster's statement supports the position that the attack on the Cole was terrorism.

 

[Infohawk]

"I wasn't aware that we were occupying a country at the time? We may have had a presence there, but we were not occupying anything."
I am curious how you define an occupation.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: KlixxerYou would be a murderer and would be tried and possibly convicted of murder, eh, what kind of a question is that?

Precisely. Now where do you draw the line between me with gang of my friends and Al Qaeda?

Now, if you were an American soldier, occupying my country, i would not be a murderer but a soldier if i were to engage in combat with you and kill you.

I wasn't aware that we were occupying a country at the time? We may have had a presence there, but we were not occupying anything.

I agree that terrorist acts are acts of murder, however, how do you fight an overwhelming force? Do you just give up or will you use whatever force you can?

There are peaceful means of protest.

You see, terrorists, is what the larger army always calls the smaller army because even though firebombing, mortars and tenths of thousands of deaths in "collateral damage" is the result of the larger armies actions, the simple bombs of the smaller army are usually placed where they can get them, in bars, in restaurants, not in a heavily guarded military facilities.

Correct, and I find that despicable. They place the value of their political agenda above the value of innocent human life. Such people need to be wiped off the face of the earth.

They could always just peacefully protest and be bulldozed to death?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: maddogchen
man must be a slow day when everyone is arguing over a definition of a word.

My view: the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda which is a terrorist organization so its a terrorist attack. Doesn't matter what the target is.

Who get's to play this game? Label an organization a terrorist organization and all their actions are terrorist actions?

If the US admin doesn't label an organization a terrorist organization and that organization explicity target only civilians, are they not terrorists?

WTF are you talking about? everyone knows Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization so the attack on the Cole, which was what this guy is asking, was an act of terrorism. Stop drifting off subject.

"everyone knows"? Ok, in NK everyone knows that Americans are dirty murdering scumbags, does that make it true?

If it's not by the actions people are judged but by the judgement of some foriegn leader in a far away land i think that most people are terrorists in someones eyes.

is people in NK everyone? NO
And its not one foreign leader, its every one of the worldwide leaders in the UN have agreed that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization.

Now that is just stupid, which everyone are you talking about, you, Bush and Cheney? Everyone in the world? Every leader in the world?

I am not arguing that Al Quaida ISN'T a terrorist organization, i believe it is, but not because Bush says so, but because of their actions.

Well now if you had said that earlier we wouldn't have had this argument. I thought the whole time you were arguing that Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist organization.

:beer:

However, it is the same reason i do not believe the Iraqis fighting an occupying force are terrorists, because their actions are attacks on military targets within their own country. Their actions are not different from those of the resistance movements in Europe during WWII, would you say that those were terrorist actions?

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
They could always just peacefully protest and be bulldozed to death?

Elaborate? You're confusing me.

 

[kage69]

Can you explain the connection between being a sovereign state and war and terrorism? Are you suggesting that all non-state entities who are violent are terrorists? If you aren't, then you have not provided any reasons why it is terrorism.

Yes, I could, but I fail to see how it would be relevent. Let's keep on topic. If the attack we are discussing was perpetrated by a terrorist organization, then it was a terrorist attack. If you are trying to suggest that al Qaeda wasn't behind the USS Cole attack, well then you're just wrong.
If a group doesn't represent an internationaly recognized sovreign state, and resorts to violence to further their political/religious agenda, then I have absolutely no problem with classifying them as terrorists.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
However, it is the same reason i do not believe the Iraqis fighting an occupying force are terrorists, because their actions are attacks on military targets within their own country. Their actions are not different from those of the resistance movements in Europe during WWII, would you say that those were terrorist actions?

If it will be shown that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and fighting the US, would you still think that it's not terrorism?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: kage69

Can you explain the connection between being a sovereign state and war and terrorism? Are you suggesting that all non-state entities who are violent are terrorists? If you aren't, then you have not provided any reasons why it is terrorism.

Yes, I could, but I fail to see how it would be relevent. Let's keep on topic. If the attack we are discussing is perpetrated by a terrorist organization, then it's a terrorist attack. If you are trying to suggest that al Qaeda wasn't behind the USS Cole attack, well then you're just wrong.

If a group doesn't represent an internationaly recognized sovreign state, and resorts to violence to further their political/religious agenda, then I have absolutely no problem with classifying them as terrorists.

"If you are trying to suggest that al Qaeda wasn't behind the USS Cole attack, well then you're just wrong."
I was not trying to suggest that. But if I had been, "well then you're just wrong" would not have been a very helpful response.

"If a group doesn't represent an internationaly recognized sovreign state, and resorts to violence to further their political/religious agenda, then I have absolutely no problem with classifying them as terrorists."
So were the various resistance groups under nazi occupation in europe be terrorists? Under your definition, they would be. They did not have a state and they were using violence to further their interests. Moreover, the American revolutionaries had a state that at first was not internationally recognized. Were they terrorists?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Klixxer
However, it is the same reason i do not believe the Iraqis fighting an occupying force are terrorists, because their actions are attacks on military targets within their own country. Their actions are not different from those of the resistance movements in Europe during WWII, would you say that those were terrorist actions?

If it will be shown that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and fighting the US, would you still think that it's not terrorism?

Only if they are Iraqis.

Foreign troops belonging to Al Quaida are not fighting for their country, not fighting an occupying force and are only there to fight Americans.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
However, it is the same reason i do not believe the Iraqis fighting an occupying force are terrorists, because their actions are attacks on military targets within their own country. Their actions are not different from those of the resistance movements in Europe during WWII, would you say that those were terrorist actions?

It would depend on what actions they did. Attacking coalition forces, convoys are resistance. Attacking Iraqi police stations is borderline. Attacking civilian places where civilian foreigners hang out like hotels, and they even bombed an Iraqi restaurant on new years, is a terrorist action to me.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Klixxer
However, it is the same reason i do not believe the Iraqis fighting an occupying force are terrorists, because their actions are attacks on military targets within their own country. Their actions are not different from those of the resistance movements in Europe during WWII, would you say that those were terrorist actions?

If it will be shown that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and fighting the US, would you still think that it's not terrorism?

Only if they are Iraqis.

Foreign troops belonging to Al Quaida are not fighting for their country, not fighting an occupying force and are only there to fight Americans.

Wow. We have found common ground. Hell has frozen over. :beer:

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Klixxer
They could always just peacefully protest and be bulldozed to death?

Elaborate? You're confusing me.

Five armed men are outside your house, you have a gun and a sign written Peace on, what would you grab?

In many areas of the world, peaceful protests have lead to people being massacred, and the next day all is business as usual.

Some people are fighting for the right of their people, when the occupying force see you as worth less than their house pets, you won't matter much if all you are carrying is a sign.

The large army will always label these people terrorists and a peaceful protest will just make them dead.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Klixxer
They could always just peacefully protest and be bulldozed to death?

Elaborate? You're confusing me.

Five armed men are outside your house, you have a gun and a sign written Peace on, what would you grab?

If they're not threatening me and if they have no reason to feel threatned by me?

In many areas of the world, peaceful protests have lead to people being massacred, and the next day all is business as usual.

Many times those "peaceful" protests are less than peaceful.

Some people are fighting for the right of their people, when the occupying force see you as worth less than their house pets, you won't matter much if all you are carrying is a sign.
The large army will always label these people terrorists and a peaceful protest will just make them dead.

They generally get treated that way when the larger army has reason to feel threatened by them. And again, those peaceful protests are generally not so peaceful.

 

[kage69]

I was not trying to suggest that. But if I had been, "well then you're just wrong" would not have been a very helpful response.

I'm concerned with the topic, not helping you.

So were the various resistance groups under nazi occupation in europe be terrorists?

You're trying to detract again, but I'll humor you. I don't think you can be a terrorist if you are fighting on behalf of a government in exile while still in your own country. Keep in mind many of the resistance fighters in Europe during WWII were civilians, politicians, and soldiers fighting to oust the invading Hun. Do I need to draw you picture on how different that is from a fundamental zealot who travels outside his country to attack a non-invading entity all because of ideological reasons?

Moreover, the American revolutionaries had a state that at first was not internationally recognized. Were they terrorists?

Yes, I guess they would have been, at least at first. After being recognized by France and Prussia, the pursuit of expelling those not born on our shores no doubt aided their image to the international community, that being a transformation from 'terrorists' or 'insurrectionsists' to legitimate freedom fighters. But then there's the whole goverment thing. How many terrorist organizations have you heard of that have gone and made their own constitution, formed their own army, and elected their own leaders?