Can we all agree?

[twonky]

Can we all agree that ridding the world of terrorists is a good thing for not just the world, but America as well? Someone in another thread asked how the war in Iraq is benefiting the U.S.

I say it's benefiting us the same way it is the world. Rid the world of terrorists and the world (including America) is a safer place.

Safe world.
Good thing.

Before this turns into arguments about Bush being a terrorist and the like, can we just agree on that first and then make our arguments as to who is a terrorist or not?

[prism68]

Originally Posted by twonky

Can we all agree that ridding the world of terrorists is a good thing for not just the world, but America as well?

I can absolutely agree with this. Terrorists have been terrorizing the WORLD forever.

[auryn]

I'm sure we all agree with that.

It's just that I think by attacking Iraq (who never attacked us, who never attacked an American civilian anywhere else) we pretty much let the terrorists who actually attacked us go. We also did a bang up job of creating new terrorist cells.

[CagedTroll]

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom-fighter"... I'd agree that ridding the world of violence would be a wonderful thing... But we financed "terrorism" against the Soviets. We financed "terrorism" in South America. We've pretty much ignored "terrorism" in the U.S., in part because it's never been as organized or as open; still no arrests in the anthrax attacks, though we did get the guy with the cyanide bomb in Texas.

So who's a terrorist? What is "terrorism"? Can we even agree on that?

[auryn]

So who's a terrorist? Can we even agree on that?

Good point. The Patriot Act doesn't even know!

[CagedTroll]

Why not ask if ridding the world of evil would be a good thing??? Could we agree? <nudge!><nudge!>

[auryn]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

Why not ask if ridding the world of evil would be a good thing??? Could we agree? <nudge!><nudge!>

But then if we all went around loving one another , the world would just get (more) overpopulated.

I don't believe in the concept of good or evil. I believe that there is love and fear, and that everything else comes from those two emotions. So, the thing is, just like CT said above, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If a 15 yr old straps a bomb to his chest and walks onto a bus to detonate it, he probably isn't doing it to be evil. Like, how many of us have ever referred to our ex-husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends as evil? You know you've uttered the word a few times, or at least thought it.

Basically, the intent of some terrorists is probably not evil at all. Even if what I refer to as evil is used to express their feelings, maybe they really aren't so evil to begin with. My basic view about terrorists is that no, they shouldn't do it. No, the people who were celebrating on the streets after 9-11 shouldn't do it. But I understand completely why they DO do it.

[twonky]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom-fighter"...

Good point. Let's take an example and work through that. (Humor me about this one and then we can look at another that may have more gray area.)

9/11. A lot of folks hijacked airplanes carrying civilians and flew them into buildings occupied by mostly civilians and killed a lot of them.

Can we agree that that is a terrorist act and then agree that the people that commited those acts are terrorists?

I'd agree that ridding the world of violence would be a wonderful thing... But we financed "terrorism" against the Soviets. We financed "terrorism" in South America. We've pretty much ignored "terrorism" in the U.S., in part because it's never been as organized or as open; still no arrests in the anthrax attacks, though we did get the guy with the cyanide bomb in Texas.

I imagine there are all kinds of deals we made with our best interest in mind. I can't comment on those because I don't know enough, but I'd be willing to look into them to gain more knowledge. If it's true that we funded terrorist acts, I would be very disgruntled. (I know, watch out for a disgruntled twonky!! Scary!!)

So who's a terrorist? What is "terrorism"? Can we even agree on that?

I think it has to be determined on a case by case basis some of the time. Generally I think we could all agree on a basic definition though. I'll start a list:

1. Kills innocent civilians on purpose

Let's all add to it. (Try and keep it a simple definition without any politics. Remember, we're building a list of basic terrorist attributes.)

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom-fighter"... I'd agree that ridding the world of violence would be a wonderful thing... But we financed "terrorism" against the Soviets. We financed "terrorism" in South America. We've pretty much ignored "terrorism" in the U.S., in part because it's never been as organized or as open; still no arrests in the anthrax attacks, though we did get the guy with the cyanide bomb in Texas.

So who's a terrorist? What is "terrorism"? Can we even agree on that?

Good Points CT...I was thinking also...is a terrorist also someone who supplies drug's into the United States? Here's a definition of terrorism: The state of being terrorized or the act of terrorizing; the use of intimidation to attain one's goals or to advance one's cause.

[bobbcat]

2. A terrorist is also someone who carries out violent acts against others in a quest to bring about political change.

Page of definitions:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by twonky

1. Kills innocent civilians on purpose

Staying away from textbook? I likes that.

Problem with this one, that I'm having, is then we have to define "innocent." I don't wanna do that. But, in the minds of "terrorists/freedom-fighters"..., we're not always "innocent civilians". We remain "willfully ignorant", about how our government is effecting their lives, because we don't want to pay $6 per gallon for gasoline, or $350 for our kids' sneakers. That sort of makes us culpable, without us ever realizing it.

Not saying they're right for blaming us, just saying that we're wrong for a supporting a government that supports another government that keeps 30% of it's population unemployed, denies half it's adult population the right to drive a car, and allows little girls to burn to death rather than allow them to run out of a burning building. IMO.

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

2. A terrorist is also someone who carries out violent acts against others in a quest to bring about political change.

Page of definitions:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Seems that the United States hasn't been consistent...We've supported violent acts against others to bring about political change..So you could see how other nation's could perceive our actions as terrorist's if you go by this definition...can we have it both ways??

clause: this is my opinion

[auryn]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

2. A terrorist is also someone who carries out violent acts against others in a quest to bring about political change.

I thought we weren't supposed to talk about Bush being a terrorist.

[bobbcat]

Not saying they're right for blaming us, just saying that we're wrong for a supporting a government that supports another government that keeps 30% of it's population unemployed, denies half it's adult population the right to drive a car, and allows little girls to burn to death rather than allow them to run out of a burning building.

You know, I'd love nothing more than to see the US and the rest of the nations of the world stop sucking off the teat of ME oil altogether. I just wonder though, if that is possible. I feel reasonably confident that if we were not so dependent upon their oil, that our gov't officials would not be involved with them.

But that is just a wish. "If wishes were horses...." Can't deal with what is not the reality. Reality is that we do depend on the ME for our energy needs, as do all these other nations of the world. Reality is that Islamofascists are waging war upon us by unceremoniously and mercilessly killing innocents. What do you recommend we do, Troll? Adopt Clinton's approach and just allow it to continue?

So you could see how other nation's could perceive our actions as terrorist's if you go by this definition...can we have it both ways??

Don't you think that it would make sense to look at the circumstances before you apply a one-size-fits-all definition here? Is the US in the habit of hijacking planes full of civvies and flying them into crowded buildings? Ditto that for all the other examples of terrorist acts on Americans by Islamofascists around the world in the past 11 years or so.

I pose the same question to you as I did above to Troll. What do you recommend we do in response to large-scale terrorist attacks, particularly those which have occurred on our soil?

[mayor]

Originally Posted by auryn

I don't believe in the concept of good or evil. I believe that there is love and fear, and that everything else comes from those two emotions.

A few errors in this thinking.

Love is not an emotion. Love is a verb that requires an action. One can be "In love", but the feeling is not the basis for love. Real love is "seeking another person's highest good no matter what". One does not need to feel love in order to give love.

Good and evil, on the other hand, are nouns. They are labels to describe that which is good and that which is the opposite of good.

I know you don't believe in God or the Bible, so this won't carry any weight with you personally. In fact, it is your disbelief that allows you to not recognize the concepts of good and evil. But for the benefit of the rest of our readers...

God is good. In Him there is no evil. He seeks to love perfectly.

Satan is evil. In Him there is no good. He seeks to destroy all that is good.

Good and evil are thusly played out in human beings through doing those things which would either glorify God or glorify satan.

Yes, this is a simple overhead view of the topic, as we get involved with supposed gray areas, free will, etc and so forth. But to lay a foundation, one must define the terms properly.

America does not desire to kill Islamo-fascists, unless they wish to cause us harm. We wish peace on the world. We wish to liberate the enslaved from tyranny. This is good.

Islamo-fascists DO desire to kill Americans, regardless of whether or not we are in Iraq. This is evil.

Mayor