|
It shouldn't be binary. An attack against a military target can be terrorism by its intent and effects and if we compare the effectiveness of this strike in military terms and in terms of publicity, I'd say it didn't hurt Iranian armed forces at all but it made international news.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
spaceships posted:awhazi separatists took responsibility according to this Surprised they have a Facebook page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It shouldn't be binary. An attack against a military target can be terrorism by its intent and effects and if we compare the effectiveness of this strike in military terms and in terms of publicity, I'd say it didn't hurt Iranian armed forces at all but it made international news. I agree, the goal of the attack determines if it's terrorism or not. The USS Cole bombing was absolutely a terrorist attack; Al-Qaeda wasn't trying to score a military victory against the US, it was trying to get the US to give in to their demands. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also terrorist attacks, with the goal being to scare the Japanese into surrendering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It shouldn't be binary. An attack against a military target can be terrorism by its intent and effects and if we compare the effectiveness of this strike in military terms and in terms of publicity, I'd say it didn't hurt Iranian armed forces at all but it made international news. Under this definition legitimate political activists could be slandered as terrorists simply based on how much the media covers their attacks. I don't think a good definition of terrorism is one that incorporates Nelson Mandela, given that terrorism at its core is perceived as senseless violence where mass death of non-combatants is the primary goal. It's not a label that should be thrown around casually. I think there's a distinction to be made between violence with the aim of altering policy and acts of terrorism. In this case it fits pretty clearly into the latter category.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Under this definition legitimate political activists could be slandered as terrorists simply based on how much the media covers their attacks. I don't think a good definition of terrorism is one that incorporates Nelson Mandela, given that terrorism at its core is perceived as senseless violence where mass death of non-combatants is the primary goal. It's not a label that should be thrown around casually. I think there's a distinction to be made between violence with the aim of altering policy and acts of terrorism. In this case it fits pretty clearly into the latter category. The most widely accepted definition of terrorism is violence against civilians which is committed for political reasons. Some psycho randomly shooting up a school full of kids, for example, isn't terrorism unless there's some form of political motivation behind it (as there was in the Beslan school siege). In both cases killing a bunch of people is the immediate goal, but it's the motivation which determines whether or not it's terrorism--a politically motivated school shooter is hoping to use the massive media coverage of such an event to proliferate their views. Politically motivated attacks against non-military government institutions are kind of a gray area, and obviously depending on who's doing the telling, sometimes people call attacks on military targets terrorism too, but that's just bias talking since dropping a bomb on those same sorts of targets from the sky is almost never called terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Under this definition legitimate political activists could be slandered as terrorists simply based on how much the media covers their attacks. I don't think a good definition of terrorism is one that incorporates Nelson Mandela, given that terrorism at its core is perceived as senseless violence where mass death of non-combatants is the primary goal. It's not a label that should be thrown around casually. I think there's a distinction to be made between violence with the aim of altering policy and acts of terrorism. In this case it fits pretty clearly into the latter category. I normally think you get more poo poo than you deserve because you often aren't technically wrong, but "violence with the aim of altering policy" is like the textbook definition of terrorism. Besides, the terrorist or freedom fighter dichotomy is at this point basically a deliberate ambiguity that refers more to the local power structure and/or individual sympathy than to the actual morality of any involved group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Under this definition legitimate political activists could be slandered as terrorists simply based on how much the media covers their attacks. I don't think a good definition of terrorism is one that incorporates Nelson Mandela, given that terrorism at its core is perceived as senseless violence where mass death of non-combatants is the primary goal. It's not a label that should be thrown around casually. I think there's a distinction to be made between violence with the aim of altering policy and acts of terrorism. In this case it fits pretty clearly into the latter category. Congrats on being willfully dense. What military purpose did killing 20 random, indiscriminately picked troopers serve, Mr. smart guy? If it served no military goal, it was terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Congrats on being willfully dense. What military purpose did killing 20 random, indiscriminately picked troopers serve, Mr. smart guy? Umtil you get a list of the dead and according ranks or family ties you really dont know. This is a bullshit semantics argument, just as other conflicts terrorism and military goals are almost the same for statues of uprisings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Umtil you get a list of the dead and according ranks or family ties you really dont know. This is a bullshit semantics argument, just as other conflicts terrorism and military goals are almost the same for statues of uprisings. I was almost tempted to respond to this hunk of nonsense, but then I realize who posted it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
the debate is stupid, terrorism can be good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
HorrificExistence posted:the debate is stupid, terrorism can be good. You think deliberately murdering civilians can be good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Umtil you get a list of the dead and according ranks or family ties you really dont know. This is a bullshit semantics argument, just as other conflicts terrorism and military goals are almost the same for statues of uprisings. If you're trying to define what is or isn't terrorism the argument is necessarily semantic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
I come to this thread for hot takes, and it seldom disappoints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You think deliberately murdering civilians can be good? if they're liberals, yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You think deliberately murdering civilians can be good? what's a civilian?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
its just a guy who just happened to be on a bus going to his normal workplace at the palestinian murdering bureau
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
I wrote this but decided it would be too obvious to post, but here we are. The term terrorism is essentially meaningless. It means "my enemy" in most cases. The distinction really doesn't matter in any serious conversation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
oh come on we were having a serious nconcervation here
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I was almost tempted to respond to this hunk of nonsense, but then I realize who posted it. I dunno man if it was a bunch of bozo privates and ncos terrorism A colonel died? Military action by an uprising element I mean the SDF is considered terroists by turkey yet not terrorists in the US eyes. Rrally a word of opinion WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Sep 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Under this definition legitimate political activists could be slandered as terrorists simply based on how much the media covers their attacks. I don't think a good definition of terrorism is one that incorporates Nelson Mandela, given that terrorism at its core is perceived as senseless violence where mass death of non-combatants is the primary goal. It's not a label that should be thrown around casually. I think there's a distinction to be made between violence with the aim of altering policy and acts of terrorism. In this case it fits pretty clearly into the latter category. i'm not sure I understand this. terrorism is usually inherently political, even if it involves non-combatants maybe you can make an argument that in mexico it's a business move
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I wrote this but decided it would be too obvious to post, but here we are. The regime is allied with Hezbollah, which is considered a terrorist organization by the US, the UK, France, Israel, Japan, and a whole bunch of other groups. The rebels have Nusra/HTS, which is descended from Syria's Al-Qaeda branch (you better loving believe the US considers Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization), or for a lesser example Ahrar al-Sham is considered a terrorist organization by Russia, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. The TFSA contains Ahrar Al-Sham members, so that terrorist designation applies for both the Idlib and Euphrates Shield areas. ISIS doesn't need any explanation. As noted above, the YPG/YPJ/SDF are all considered to be terrorist branches of the PKK by Turkey. Oh hey look, that's all the major factions in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Saladin Rising posted:Oh hey look, that's all the major factions in Syria. i mean there's also the saa
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:You think deliberately murdering civilians can be good? indigenous people burn down a colonial fort. Are they terrorists?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
HorrificExistence posted:indigenous people burn down a colonial fort. Are they terrorists? Forts are military targets. I'm pretty sure I get where you're going with this though, so I'll just try to head that off by acknowledging that the dividing line between military and civilian isn't always clear. I'd still suggest that general prohibitions against deliberately targeting civilians do more to protect the powerless from the powerful around the world than they do to protect the powerful from the powerless. Obviously both the powerful and powerless break those rules, but ultimately it would be the powerless who'd have more to lose if those rules collapsed entirely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
If you've ever found yourself arguing whether blowing up this parade or that wedding party meets the technical definition or terrorism (as defined by yourself at that moment) you need to stop and reevaluate your priorities. Unless you're a lawyer going to court or something there's literally no reason to care about the definition of words. Proving something is or isn't terrorism doesn't make it right or wrong. Don't let the emotional connotations of a word dictate your understanding of the real world, beyond the symbols.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Unless you're a lawyer going to court or something there's literally no reason to care about the definition of words. Indeed, brush walk royal route insurance godly redundant trees. Don't argue about the definition, they clearly disprove you!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If you've ever found yourself arguing whether blowing up this parade or that wedding party meets the technical definition or terrorism (as defined by yourself at that moment) you need to stop and reevaluate your priorities. On the contrary, definitions matter. Our understanding of and attitude towards the world hinge on accurate categorization, classification and description of things, events, ideas, etc. In this vein, the label(s) we decide to place on events can have enormous repercussions on how we respond to them, both emotionally and logically. For example, labeling something a massacre is very, very different than labeling it a genocide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:On the contrary, definitions matter. Our understanding of and attitude towards the world hinge on accurate categorization, classification and description of things, events, ideas, etc. In this vein, the label(s) we decide to place on events can have enormous repercussions on how we respond to them, both emotionally and logically. For example, labeling something a massacre is very, very different than labeling it a genocide. yeah its unfortunate people are stupid. That's why I have to specifically plead with the thread to actually think instead of relying on contextually worthless distinctions without relevance to whether blowing up a parade was justified or not. Squalid fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Sep 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Officials seem to be pretty nervous in Israel even after they provided further information about the IAF raid on Latakia during/right after which a Russian plane was downedquote:Despite the reassuring messages by Israel following the downing of the Russian aircraft, the government in Moscow conveyed a more chilly tone on Friday, saying it is "too early to know" whether relations between the two states will be normalized. We might know more after Russia's Defense Ministry releases their report quote:Russia's Defense Ministry will publish on Sunday a report detailing the circumstances surrounding the downing of the Russian aircraft last week over Syria, the TASS news agency reported. Haaretz analyst Amos Harel emphasizes the absence of the US in this whole situation. quote:A third country was notably absent from the Russian-Israeli tensions caused by the downed plane – the United States. Until a few years ago, Washington was involved in almost every important Mideast development. A good example is UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Second Lebanon War. The United States and France were heavily involved in drafting it, but Russia, which also has a permanent Security Council seat, was almost completely uninvolved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:We might know more after Russia's Defense Ministry releases their report
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It's worth noting that with MH17 the Russian MoD presented the same radar data two years apart and came to two entirely contradictory conclusions about what the data showed, so a big pinch of salt with anything they serve up. Unfortunately Israel is not in the US or even the UK's position wrt Russia. Without US backing it may well be forced to accept Russia's version, made up or not. Edit: Israel Army Radio reporter tweets: https://twitter.com/inna__ant/status/1043777663603826688 "Russia publishes report on downing of plane and claims: Israel is responsible. Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman says that the heads of the IDF do not appreciate relations with Moscow, and that Israel is being ungrateful." Edit2: Ynet/Yediot seems to confirm this report with a longer story which I can't be bothered to translate right now. I imagine more information will be available in English soon. This is kind of alarming. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Sep 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
What could happen of Russian/Israeli relationships sour?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It's worth noting that with MH17 the Russian MoD presented the same radar data two years apart and came to two entirely contradictory conclusions about what the data showed, so a big pinch of salt with anything they serve up. Have you seen anything to back up Israel's claims they didn't shoot it down? I don't trust Russia but I'm not sure why we should be trusting Israel either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:What could happen of Russian/Israeli relationships sour? Russia stops buying Israeli weapons and might bother to enforce control of Syrian airspace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 10:57
|
|
|
axelord posted:Have you seen anything to back up Israel's claims they didn't shoot it down? I don't trust Russia but I'm not sure why we should be trusting Israel either. Everyone says the regime shot it down, Russia just blames Israel for creating the situation, and went so far as to say the Israeli planes used the Russian plane as a human shield. Israel denies that of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Everyone says the regime shot it down, Russia just blames Israel for creating the situation, and went so far as to say the Israeli planes used the Russian plane as a human shield. Israel denies that of course. Poor russia 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:What could happen of Russian/Israeli relationships sour? Syrians (or "Syrians") start becoming consistently successful at shooting down Israeli aircraft, instead of it being a one-time fluke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxZLKtkgiM
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
I AM DOWN A RABBIT HOLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmMZSZh54oA
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
RandomPauI posted:What could happen of Russian/Israeli relationships sour? A lot more israeli planes going down
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2018 18:53
|
|