Ableton Forum

pilcrow wrote:But it's historically short-sighted and disingenuous to lay it all at the feet of "the west." There was nothing particularly civilized about the expansion of Arabia in the 7th century. Nothing civilized about the Rape of Nanking in 1937. etc., etc., etc....

the difference is, we like to think of and call ourselves civilized...and for the most part, these past cases are comparitively, not.

computo wrote:

pilcrow wrote:But it's historically short-sighted and disingenuous to lay it all at the feet of "the west." There was nothing particularly civilized about the expansion of Arabia in the 7th century. Nothing civilized about the Rape of Nanking in 1937. etc., etc., etc....

the difference is, we like to think of and call ourselves civilized...and for the most part, these past cases are comparitively, not.

You don't think they liked to think of and call themselves civilized?

pilcrow wrote:heh. I guess if we're calling ANY act of resistance "terrorism," then sure, whatever. It's a good idea, though, to actually try to use words a bit more precisely than that.

Look, don't take this the wrong way, but please at least let me say whatever it is you want to disagree with me on, if in fact you disagree.....

I never said ANY act of resistance is terrorism, basically any act of violence for political reasons that comes from a group of people with no formal army, and little or no real claim to the land. IE the yanks, Al Quada, IRA, Palestinians etc.
Now to some degree, I thought the IRA and the Palestinians have valid reasons for their anger, but that in no way changes the nature of the act.
Once the American rebels had a defined military, then you could say their acts of violence were acts of war.
Insurgents is an appropriate term for the american revolutionaries, but partisan works much better for the rebels in Iraq. It's not a matter of my emotional attachment to any ideal, it's simply using the proper terms, period.

Terrorism isn't really defined by acts of violence against civilians populations, it's defined by any act of violence for political means by other than a military force, but politicians in countries who are subject to terrorism define it that way. It's become a buzz word, and it's starting to lose it's original meaning.

The CIA and KGB have been accused of acts of terrorism for instance.

Machinesworking wrote:Insurgents is an appropriate term for the american revolutionaries, but partisan works much better for the rebels in Iraq. It's not a matter of my emotional attachment to any ideal, it's simply using the proper terms, period.

I'll go along with ya on the American revolutionaries being insurgents, insofar as that's defined as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government." Yup, that was us.

Machinesworking wrote:Terrorism isn't really defined by acts of violence against civilians populations, it's defined by any act of violence for political means by other than a military force, but politicians in countries who are subject to terrorism define it that way. It's become a buzz word, and it's starting to lose it's original meaning. The CIA and KGB have been accused of acts of terrorism for instance.

Well, then I guess we need another word to describe people who prefer to target civilian, nonmilitary populations for acts of violence in the hopes of causing terror and bringing about political change. We can call 'em Smurfs for all I care. There's a lot of it going on, so we're gonna need a way to talk about it. What do you suggest?

pilcrow wrote: Well, then I guess we need another word to describe people who prefer to target civilian, nonmilitary populations for acts of violence in the hopes of causing terror and bringing about political change. We can call 'em Smurfs for all I care. There's a lot of it going on, so we're gonna need a way to talk about it. What do you suggest?

are you actually suggesting the US military has only been targetting military populations?

beyond a brief battle at the start most of the targets and casualties have been non military

pilcrow wrote:Well, then I guess we need another word to describe people who prefer to target civilian, nonmilitary populations for acts of violence in the hopes of causing terror and bringing about political change. We can call 'em Smurfs for all I care. There's a lot of it going on, so we're gonna need a way to talk about it. What do you suggest?

Well, if the people are a government who have declared a cold or straight war with an enemy, then it's simply an act of war, and possibly a war crime.

If it's a group of people who have decided to seceded from a government, and have no formal territory to call their own, old or little claim to the property to begin with, and not much in terms of a formal army, then their acts of war fall into the category of terrorism.

The problem here lies in the way people think about these issues, us against them etc.
Iraq for instance, is a country that has recently been invaded by an aggressor. Now we all know that the guy running things there was an asshole, to the families of people who died when we took over, that's not the point. The point is their men, women and children died, because we decided to invade. Why did we go in? Well to them it looks like it might be about peak oil, and other concerns.
It's a well known fact that Bin ladin hated Saddam, they weren't on the same team, so going in to that particular country, to them anyway makes sense only if you look at the oil.
I'm not asking you to come up with reasons why it is better we went in than not, there are plenty of valid arguments that way. What I'm asking of you is to look at the situation from the perspective of the person who is sitting there listening to the standing government decry acts of terrorism/ the insurgents etc. yet proclaim the bombing of your house, the cutting off of your water, electricity, bridges, and roads, then coming in weeks later with the military... proclaiming the loss of your family as the birth of 'freedom" for your nation...

pilcrow wrote:I'll go along with ya on the American revolutionaries being insurgents, insofar as that's defined as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government." Yup, that was us.

There are no sides here, this is no game, we aren't on another "team". I certainly wasn't apart of the Boston Tea Party, neither were you. I will claim only that I would have fought in WWII, maybe against the British, but I certainly don't think I can blissfully forgive us for what we've very recently done to destroy human life.

Sure, other counties have performed acts of aggressive war, but in the last 20 years, it's pretty much impossible to locate another first world, democratic country that has, (except England of course) that's embarrassing to me.

forge wrote:

pilcrow wrote: Well, then I guess we need another word to describe people who prefer to target civilian, nonmilitary populations for acts of violence in the hopes of causing terror and bringing about political change. We can call 'em Smurfs for all I care. There's a lot of it going on, so we're gonna need a way to talk about it. What do you suggest?

are you actually suggesting the US military has only been targetting military populations?

beyond a brief battle at the start most of the targets and casualties have been non military

Since the initial offensive, the US has been targeting primarily insurgents and terrorists--most of whom, you're right, aren't regular military.

Machinesworking wrote:There are no sides here, this is no game, we aren't on another "team".

Man, it sure sorta feels that way. Read any of Bin Laden's fatwas lately?

Machinesworking wrote: I would have fought in WWII, maybe against the British

You're trying to bait me into being the first to invoke Godwin's Law in this conversation. I won't do it!

pilcrow wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:There are no sides here, this is no game, we aren't on another "team".

Man, it sure sorta feels that way. Read any of Bin Laden's fatwas lately?

A: He's a fucking engineer. He has no business issuing fatwas. He's not an Islamic scholar. His fatwas are void, ask most muslims and that's what they'll tell you.

B: Just because Osama, Bush, et al want to makes this thing be about white hats versus black hats does not mean the world has suddenly turned into a f*cking 3rd rate cowboy film. You're clearly not a stupid person, mate, there's no reason to pretend to be.

noisetonepause wrote:A: He's a fucking engineer. He has no business issuing fatwas. He's not an Islamic scholar. His fatwas are void, ask most muslims and that's what they'll tell you.

yeah, yer right.. he and his bunch are probably harmless. I mean if the man can't even issue a legitimate fatwa, how could he be a problem?

noisetonepause wrote:You're clearly not a stupid person, mate, there's no reason to pretend to be.

Thanks. That's a load off.

montrealbreaks wrote:

Moonburnt wrote:

montrealbreaks wrote:So, am I left or right? Go ahead, label me - you decide

I accept the challenge to label you.

Let's see, hmmm well like myself, you have a seemingly contradictory bunch of opinions that no doubt make sense to you, which i'd say puts you somewhere in the healthy middle. It's the fundamentalists that are scary - but fundamentalism is a very appealing style of politics (and religion), because people love simple. If I had to label myself I'd say I was a leftie, but I also have a few so-called right-wing beliefs (did someone say arctic slave labour camp?)

How come there are so few of us nowadays? I don't get it, so many of my peers are either extreme one way or another, it's getting pretty lonely in the middle. this is a recipe for a lot of dischord in Western Civilization if you ask me.

Back on topic; I agree that regardless of whether 100,000 or 1,000 people died in the invasion of Iraq - any loss of life is a waste. When we're talking numbers like this, people can't imagine them properly. Think of it this way;

95,000 people live in Albany NY. Imagine if the city were hit with a thermonuclear device. Would that make a difference in the scale of the tragedy? Would it make a difference if that many people died in a year in a country due to smoking? Would it make a difference if they were killed across an entire country over the course of 18 months of medium intensity conflict?

What if a town of 10,000 people were nuked? Would that be less of a tragedy? I mean, really - it's the act of the nuclear attack that would shock and horrify the world, not the number of people. Economically and in numerically there's a difference, but I see these numbers as emotionally (and therefore culturally) indistinguishable from each other.

The fact that we as human beings need to quantify death is saddening. I don't know why, but I think it is... It devalues humanity when we assign numbers to death I guess... I don't know.

Why are you picking on Albany, NY???

What did we ever do to you?

pilcrow wrote:

noisetonepause wrote:A: He's a fucking engineer. He has no business issuing fatwas. He's not an Islamic scholar. His fatwas are void, ask most muslims and that's what they'll tell you.

yeah, yer right.. he and his bunch are probably harmless. I mean if the man can't even issue a legitimate fatwa, how could he be a problem?

noisetonepause wrote:You're clearly not a stupid person, mate, there's no reason to pretend to be.

Thanks. That's a load off.

I think the point he was making is that the majority of the Muslim world is not exactly behind the man...

and I'm sure he may need to be dealt with, but then I think WTC was his worst, I dont think he could do anything like that now, but more to the point he certainly has sweet FA do with Iraq.

pilcrow wrote:

forge wrote:

pilcrow wrote: Well, then I guess we need another word to describe people who prefer to target civilian, nonmilitary populations for acts of violence in the hopes of causing terror and bringing about political change. We can call 'em Smurfs for all I care. There's a lot of it going on, so we're gonna need a way to talk about it. What do you suggest?

are you actually suggesting the US military has only been targetting military populations?

beyond a brief battle at the start most of the targets and casualties have been non military

Since the initial offensive, the US has been targeting primarily insurgents and terrorists--most of whom, you're right, aren't regular military.

what kind of tactics do you think a small minority can use in a severely weakened country that has been invaded by the most powerful country on Earth? They cant use anything but "terrorist" or guerilla style tactics

calling them insurgents or terrorists might make everybody feel better but I'd be very surprised if the only people fighting against the invading forces now after so many are dead are only lunatic raghead fundamentalists who want to kill everybody.

You dont think there are many many many young boys and men who have had their families and communities blown apart by the invasion and now want to fight back? People who may not have cared either way about the US until they marched in and fucked their country up.

I think it's highly likely in that kind of situation that it tends to create more people desperate to sign on the dotted line and do their bit to hurl the sling shot at Goliath.

Big fucking woopy doo they have some kind of vague "Democracy" now, but given the very presidency of GWB is a complete farce I dont think the USA in the 21st C is probably the best authority on what constitutes democracy. Look up the term democracy in the sense the ancient Greeks meant it, I doubt it had much to do with Big Businessmen and oil tycoons buying their way into power - at least not in theory.

pilcrow wrote:Since the initial offensive, the US has been targeting primarily insurgents and terrorists--most of whom, you're right, aren't regular military.

OK, you simply aren't being realistic here, do you really believe that the US military is able through it's great tactical skills, to target only "insurgents and terrorists"?? Do you really think we haven't killed civilians who just wanted to stay alive, yet were caught in the middle between us VS them?
Please, don't tell me that you're that naive. You can't possibly think that the US army is capable of only killing the guilty?

I'm rubbing this in because you're not making any sense here. We are talking about Iraq, and you bring up Bin Ladin as an example of a black and white issue. What the hell does iraq have to do with Bin Ladin? Where do you make the connection? because even GWB is hard pressed these days to somehow glue that lie together.

I think you, and a lot of other well meaning americans have a hard time with admitting that our government isn't doing things in the best interest of anybody but themselves. It's hard to look at it from the other side, to see that we are the harbingers of death to a lot of people. Justify it all you want, but honestly, it just makes you look thick headed. how many facts on Iraq can you ignore?

the worst part is you are NOt the first american to stand up on a public forum and proclaim how we are not that bad, we had good reasons, BIN LADIN! , etc..

notice how little support outside the US this stance gets? Is it because they "hate our freedom!" in Denmark? or the netherlands? or germany? or france? ...... maybe they just have a little teensy bit more than we do now?

Ah these political threads are hilarious. Truly amusing.

It is like watching two guys with no arms try to beat each other to death.

Carry on...

By the way, this quote:

"OK, you simply aren't being realistic here, do you really believe that the US military is able through it's great tactical skills, to target only "insurgents and terrorists"?? "

This shows a complete ignorance of current military capability. If you don't know shit about modern warfare...keep your damn mouth shut eh? You will look less like a complete fool that way. This isn't WWII buddy.