Yes Our Soldiers Are Terrorist, So We Will Just Exempt Them From Prosecution

When you break this thread down it’s about this

“Are our troops terrorists?”

……

NO!

The difference between say a member of Al-Qa’ida and member of say the Marines is that Al-Qa’ida has no sovereign legitimacy; they do not form part of the national defence of a sovereign state. When a solider pulls the trigger fundamentally in a democracy he is doing so to defend the people of his state on orders from elected officials. When a terrorist pulls a trigger he is doing so because he is pursuing some political or ideological aims that he is seeking to bring attention to or force a change.

Now this thread is specifically looking at how the Australian definition of terrorism could encompass its armed forces, all that means is that they need to amend their definition slightly. Terrorism is defined by the state not by a dictionary and they can use this to suit their aims so it stands to reason that they would argue very strongly that they are exempt. What would you prefer have the entire military disbanded and all up on charges of terrorism.

reply to post by acrux

Isn't Australia a nation among those who tend to their own and actually DO prosecute the military members who go too far? I know the US does. When proof exists, they figuratively hang for it. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas has some examples in cages. Some for years...some for life. If Australia is as good about going after those it can find cause to go after (I've never assumed different) why would anyone want to see the countless jurisdictions and countless standards of evidence, justice and what that means all over, come to be used on the whim of locals?

It might make sense for nation that doesn't have a working system of accountability? ..or is the OP suggesting Australia is such a system for being insufficient in meeting the needs of dealing with it's own bad apples?

The very next time I see a member call another member a terrorist, I will contact a mod to explain to you guys about how name calling is against T and C, and calling someone a terrorist for doing an honorable act and volunteering their time to protect their country men is about as pathetic as it can get.

This is the real world, militaries are necessary, as the real world isn't one of your ignorance induced eutopias, it is a dangerous place, full of dangerous people, and countries, with militaries, that are litterally only held back from conquest, by the threat of force in retaliation to their agression.

Please refrain from calling me and my battle buddies, no matter what country they are from, the equivalent of crazy religious zealots, and mass murderers, there is quite a large difference, if you can't see it, I pity you.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

The difference between say a member of Al-Qa’ida and member of say the Marines is that Al-Qa’ida has no sovereign legitimacy; they do not form part of the national defence of a sovereign state

So just because a government says murder/terrorism is fine then it is perfecty justifible.

. When a solider pulls the trigger fundamentally in a democracy he is doing so to defend the people of his state on orders from elected officials. When a terrorist pulls a trigger he is doing so because he is pursuing some political or ideological aims that he is seeking to bring attention to or force a change.

Is invasion for resources in and justify it by alledgedly bring democracy a politcal or ideological aim.

Terrorism is defined by the state not by a dictionary and they can use this to suit their aims

Exactly government call the shots to suit themselves, and when it doesn't go their way they change the rules.

What would you prefer have the entire military disbanded and all up on charges of terrorism.

No, I want them for the defence of my country, not terror invasions of other countries for corporate greed.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

calling someone a terrorist for doing an honorable act and volunteering their time to protect their country men is about as pathetic as it can get.

Did you protect your country by invading another country for corporate greed?

Was your country invaded, forcing you to take up arms.

If someone invaded your country would you not fight back with whatever methods you could.

If you call the people fighting back against invasion terrorist, the the French Resistance from WW2 would have to be labelled as terrorists.

Please don't claim 9/11 as we know the lies about that situation.

This is the real world, militaries are necessary, as the real world isn't one of your ignorance induced eutopias, it is a dangerous place, full of dangerous people, and countries, with militaries, that are litterally only held back from conquest, by the threat of force in retaliation to their agression.

Exactly my point, military is for self-defence not invasions.

reply to post by acrux

Please don't claim 9/11 as we know the lies about that situation.

We do? ATS has a whole forum dedicated to nothing but that topic...precisely because "we" do NOT know with 100% certainty just what happened or who did what part of things related to it.

You seem to be assuming a whole lot of things here as fact...and I'd wonder where your personal experience comes in to 'know' vs. 'believe' by personal opinion. It's a canyon worth of difference between those two things, IMO.

reply to post by acrux


I am not the one throwing the biggest buzz word in modern times around like it is the name of a candy bar.

What your doing in this day and age, is the equivalent of pointing and yelling witch in salem mass back in the time of the pilgrims.

I will not tolerate it, it is a t and c violation, and I will call mom and dad to sort it out.

I do not make .gov policy, I did not vote the idiot in chief into office either time, I did not vote for bush, I can't help it if more people in my country are idiots who are perfectly happy with the way things are going.

This is the current, legally elected and legally empowered governement wants to do, it is within their legal rights as laid out in the constitution to do so.

I find it morally reprehensible, we were not doing these things when I joined the military, but once I was in, I had no choice but to follow orders give to me lawfully from my chain of command.

I believe most others would agree, the fact you are blaming the soldiers like they have a choice, when there are clearly many laws resulting in serious jail time for them disobeying, yet you as a civy who are not law bound do nothing either.

You would be the one mostly responsible for these atrocities, yet you place blame on an innocent target that is easy to blame.

Think about it rationally, the public can do somthing about this if they wanted to, they do not or will not, blaming those that are powerless. Is asinine.

reply to post by acrux

So just because a government says murder/terrorism is fine then it is perfecty justifible.

That is a gross oversimplification of what I was saying and I am pretty sure you know it is the fundamental difference is that a Solider is acting on behalf of a Sovereign state, a terrorist is just some guy who has some political gripe.

But yes States can manipulate the definition of terrorism to suit their needs as it is the legislative branch of the state that establishes the legal definition of terrorism.

Again, soilders acting on the orders of ellected officals and terrorists are not the same thing....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Well if you accept the "official version", please justify the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan, when 15 of 19 alledged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.

Did the soldiers get their bearings wrong?
Couldn't someone in the military read maps to locate Saudi Arabia?

America was in bed with the Saudis so they could possibly invade them.

reply to post by inverslyproportional
You were the one who joined the military knowing its primary function is the murder of humans.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
That still does not justify it or make it morally right.

reply to post by acrux


The military does not make policy, they do not invade a country because they "choose" to do so.

The legally elected body government, empowered by the civillians the military bleeds and dies serving, goes where they are ordered.

It wasn't the militaries idea, nor did they choose to invade anything.

The civillian government made that decision, and ordered the military to do so.

Do you not even understand how your own government works?

reply to post by acrux

That still does not justify it or make it morally right.

And that is a matter of personal opinion,

What is a fact, is that terrorists and soldiers are not the same thing.

reply to post by inverslyproportional
It is people like you who claim it was just my job and that makes it morally right.

You were the one who joined a group whose sole reason to exist is to kill members of other countries that your govenment choose to.

Again you joined them knowing this.

reply to post by acrux


Because some people need killing, this is a fact.

Just like police may in the line of duty be forced to kill, does not mean they joined so they could.

So you know, your assuming way too much, I have never been responsible for the death of a single person, directly or indirectly.

I have no blood on my hands, assuming all soldiers are killers shows your only intention is to slander good people because your pissed about somthing.

Do me a favor cry me a river build me a bridge, then use it to get over yourself.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

So use all the legal tripe you want, it still is morally corrupt.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Because some people need killing

Killing someone is never the answer.

Your soul has still very far to travel to find peace.

In the words of Mr T - "I pity the fool"

reply to post by acrux

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

That is actually quite a dated quote that is not entirely relevant to terrorism in 2013

It applies to nationalist terrorists who are seeking political liberation for a nation or form perceived despot leader, in the eyes of the people they are freedom fighters and in the eyes of their enemies they are “terrorists”. It does not however apply to Al-Qa’ida who have no such goals they are not nationalist terrorists they are Islamic terrorist they have a ideology that is reinforced with religion not patriotism.

So use all the legal tripe you want

yes how dare I use "legal tripe" on a thread about the legal definition of terrorism....

it still is morally corrupt.

Again that is only a matter of your personal opinion.

Killing someone is never the answer.

You have a gun in your hand, a man walks into your home and says he is going to shoot your loved ones unless you shoot him in the head.

Yes sometimes killing is the only answer.

Your soul has still very far to travel to find peace.

And you mind still has very far to travel in understanding terrorism.

In the words of Mr T - "I pity the fool"

Is he your favourite philosopher?

reply to post by acrux


Where does your more holy than thou are, attitude come from?

Do you drive a car?

Your responsible for the war, do you have a cell phone? Your responsible for slave labor and suicides. Do you ever shop at walmart? Same thing....etc

Your basing your entire point it seems, that humans live in some fantasy world, where we are all always peaceful and polite, and the only thing that has ever killed a man besides war is natural causes.

The truth of the matter is, man kills man, it has always been this way, since the first 2 men saw eachother.

There is no such thing as peace, it is an illusion, a fairy tale, and imaginary construct created by weak minded fools.

Every single creature on this planet exists in a constant state of perpetual warfare against all others.

All the way from the single celled to the complex.

Your idiology is founded in idiocy, your view of the world only exists in your mind and dreams, it is not a reality, it never has been, it never will be.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by acrux

 

Their acts may be terroristic in nature, but I would argue that their intent is not. The vast majority of military members join up for pride and honor. They believe that they are doing right and good, and they don't understand that they are being used as imperialistic terrorists. I used to be one, and I woke up to reality. More and more are waking up every day.

Honor? and Pride? when you sign up for the Military as i did, you know you are signing up to kill, murder and help invade a given land, you are trained to shoot to kill, there is no pride or honor in that, all soldiers who were and are in active duty should be seen as criminals and murderers, because that is exactly what they are trained for.