Like Tree298Likes

Soldier beheaded in Woolwich, UK. Sickening.

Closed Thread
Page 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 ... LastLast
  1. #171

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
    Actually the government should NOT do this (it will just radicalise more), the moderate muslims should do it.
    Government is the only institution with the power and means to implement those suggestions though right? (banning,jailing, cutting funding etc)

  2. #172

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire ex-ax:
    Religion: Fucking up the world since forever.
    Not really...only for the past 40,000 years

  3. #173

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,471

    In my opinion peace in northern Ireland happened because young people there don't give a shit about religious arguments and national borders.

    Sent from my GT-S6102 using GeoClicks mobile app


  4. #174

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by arrowsmith:
    Government is the only institution with the power and means to implement those suggestions though right? (banning,jailing, cutting funding etc)
    Hopefully a civil society is more powerful than any Government.

  5. #175

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    4,164

    The very sensible response of an Iman on Sky News. Now you can't accuse him of being racist!

    Last edited by jaykay; 25-05-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    Skyhook, INXS and MovingIn07 like this.

  6. #176

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,455

    Given the riots earlier this year about the british flag I think there is a way to go before you can assume it's all ok.

    9/11 had a big effect: wealthy americans with irish ancestry stopped being so willing to donate to sinn fein after that - suddenly blowing stuff up for political reasons didn't seem quite so justifiable.


  7. #177

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kent, England
    Posts
    6,728

    Indeed Usehername, there's still not "peace" in Northern Ireland and the problems certainly have not been resolved.


  8. #178

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Grüne Hölle (CWB)
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Raccon:
    So even a bombing of the soldier's barracks would not qualify as terrorism as long as no civilians are targetted, but who may work there and be killed as "collateral damage"?
    Correct.

    You will note, as has Glenn Greenwald, that the same reasoning would also exempt, for example, US drone strikes against specific, known enemy combatants from the definition of "terrorism". However, Mr Greenwald certainly would not like that result, so he had to reject the terrorism definition I have described. I should point out that "intending" to do something (and not some other thing, such as killing civilians) is generally not conclusive in law. If the US drones were dropping small nuclear bombs, rather than using advanced technology to attempt to limit collateral damage, then the US' reckless disregard for civilian casualties would tend to override any moral defense based on intent it might have otherwise had. Governments at war do sometimes "cross the line", and it is fair to question whether drone strikes and other acts are defensible in every case. Obama seems to be pulling back on this a bit, perhaps for that reason.

    No definition is perfect, but I still think mine is the best...

  9. #179

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,478

    I agree completely that religion is fu**ing things up in a big way.

    Saying that, I find it pretty hard to deny that, currently, the biggest and most brutal terrorist organisation is probably the US army. Read the following discussion regarding the definition of terrorism:

    "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."
    Effectively then, if you or I don't identify with some of the reasons given for military combat, and especially if we feel sympathy for the victims, many of whom are civilians, then from our point of view, they may indeed be labelled acts of terrorism.
    Last edited by justjoe86; 26-05-2013 at 11:29 AM.
    cheepo likes this.

  10. #180

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,455

    If this had happened in a street in afghanistan noone would be calling it terrorism, it would just be another soldier killed by muslim extremists and the vast majority of the british public wouldn't have given it a second thought.


Closed Thread
Page 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 ... LastLast