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

reply to post by TheMagus

that is true though not always when the motivation is to loot another nations resources it is not terrorism, just theft, unless keeping the victims terrorized is part of the strategy

If that is committed by solders working under the guidance of a government is not technically an act of terrorism it is probably more accurately akin to a war crime. Interestingly India effectively defines terrorism as any war crime committed in a time of peace (random trivia I know I don’t know if that is current). Also the experience of being “terrorised” does not mean one is being subjected to an act of terrorism, you could point a gun at me and I would be “terrorised” but you would not be committing an act of terrorism.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Exactly what we are essentially debating here is a matter of jurisprudence something that understandable confuses people. The definition of terrorism is a very complex topic.

reply to post by kwakakev

 

So how do you define Syria? The west is opposed to the legal and governing regime of Assad by supporting the freedom fighters / terrorists / soldiers or what ever other term you wish to use that is trying to destabilize the country

I don’t think I need to tell you that your question is entirely off-topic but it is a very good question.

Syria offers up a very interesting case study on the perspectives of terrorists, first lets think about the FSA.

To the west and some people inside Syria the FSA are working with the Syrian National Council as freedom fighters, they are the warriors of the rebellion. However the old saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” rings very true in this case. While in the eyes of many they are a freedom fighting force, in the eyes of Assad and his supporters they are nationalist terrorists fighting against the state. You could kind of think of the FSA as Assad’s IRA, but it’s all dependent really on perspective, in the eyes of the International community they are not terrorists because there is a consensus that their cause is a righteous one.

Now, this is where it gets interesting, while yes the FSA is either a band of freedom fighters or a deadly group of Nationalist terrorists there is another group in Syria that is often confused with being the same kind of terrorists as the FSA. Within Syria there are a number of groups, most notably Al-Nusra who are Islamic terrorists with a Qubitism ideology, they are anti-western and seek to install a new Taliban in Syria. As such they have been designated as a foreign terrorist organisation by the State department.

It’s a interesting study like I say, I do plan on writing a thread on this sometime this week if you want I will send you a U2U when it is finished.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


If only things where that simple it would help put a lot of the middle east campaign into perspective. Unfortunately things are more inline with the middle ages crusades, but what is really weird is that the Islamic extremest are just getting stronger throughout the region...

Some might find this thread usfull.

Defining Terrorism

This argument is like saying, my explosions are different than yours. Terror has no color. This is the most hypocritical government on the planet. If we drop bombs on innocent people, its fine. But let someone else "retaliate" and they are branded terroists. We create more terrorists than any radical group.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I would like to see the thread when it is done, please do send me a message.

No no no no, humans are not violent war like people, we sure are gullible to believe we are, making actions such as invading a free country acceptable. First Nations were fine without war before the Aztecs took over, what we call today Mexico, and even Columbus said they were free, kind and peaceful people then right after they slaughtered every single person.

I know it is different, because the only people i see out in the streets carrying weapons of mass destruction are policy enforcers (police officers). I don't see people with war paintings and weapons in each hand walking down the street terrorizing the local public. The only terrorists i know of are the ones that makes ridiculous legislation and policies to protect their own rear ends. Even the people that make laws, in their eyes, we are all criminals, there are 10-20 000, federal laws that make every single one of us criminals. Owning a lobster is a criminal offence, having a TV, or a computer, even owning a car is federally illegal, how are those laws good?

No no no no, you Americans would not be invaded, because if someone was so stupid to do so, they would have succeeded a long time ago.

The only people that are "warlike" are the people that we call "federal government" which is in reality a private corporation, religious fanatics back in the day were the same, actually any leader who controls an agricultural society is a warlike individual, unless you wake up every morning thinking about invading a country so you can have what you already own, then i will agree with you, until then, we are a peaceful people, who support criminals just because some dude in a chair said so, so sad. (unwillingly of course, minority do it willingly)

Still doesn't change the fact that Military personnel are criminals, and since i am a sovereign human being, no laws or paper would ever change that fact.

reply to post by kwakakev


The problem is all history is revisionist history written by the winners, painting them in a better light than the losers, until modern times where the internet has allowed all sides immediate and instant access to release their side openly.

Modern wars are no worse or better than past wars, all are pointless, all are for the idiocy of the elites, all cause the little guys to suffer and die, while the elites profit and live on, all are for rescources or some other gains etc, neither side is ever blameless.

Hitler was sinking our ships, so our attack on europe was justified, accept he was sinking our ships because we were supplying his enemies with aid, which is an established act of war for long established rules of war, so we made our ships a open target, yet we wouldn't have had to send aid if hitler hadn't attacked france and england.

In the pacific, we were attacked at pearl harbor so we were justified in attacking japan, yet they only atacked us because we forced them into a corner with our embargos on oil and raw materials, though we only enforced an embargo because they were trying to establish an empire by force in the pacific.....etc

There is never a good side and a bad side, all sides are always bad from an outside view, from the inside your side is always the right one, so the game is played on the populous.

The world is not black and white, it is black and black, and the only people innocent are those being used to kill eachother, or being killed by each other.

reply to post by kwakakev

really weird is that the Islamic extremest are just getting stronger throughout the region...

Has anyone traced the linage of Saladin lol

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I would like to hear any insights you have into the Syria situation.

As for being off topic, I do consider this as one clear and contemporary case to help establish the boundary between soldier and terrorist and very much agree that it is a matter of perspective.

So the advantage our Australian troops have is with support from the international community. The Taliban might want and try to bring legal charges against our members undertaking operations in the region, but as with legal attempts against Americas torture policy, they have not got the capability. If however we should somehow lose this war, our serving members are stuffed.

The actual truth of the entire matter as well as I have ever been able to lock it down all stems from prehistory, where once all men were of one race tongue and religion we were sundered and made to be at odds with eachother so as to stop us from our ascention to the endless heights of the gods themselves.

The only text I know of that discribes this comes from the bible, the story of the tower of babble.

Where they found us and we were of one purpose, and they recognised " nothing we put our minds to do could be denied us"

So they " came amongst us and caused us to speak different languages and have different coultures" so we would always be at odds with eachother, and thus spend our energies fighting ourselves instead of fulfilling our potential.

As I see it, the only time this will ever change is when we are once again one people, the only way I see of making this happen is the singularity, where through technology we once again become one people of one mind and working towards a common end.

This is all phillosophical, and full of conjecture of a possible future that is not even sure.

This is why so many believe there can be a "perfect world" and we all strive to achieve this sense of fulfillment, because our heritage remebers it, all the way down to our dna, and we know it is possible because it once was and should be.

Why we can't make it happen I couldn't say, when we will make it happen I couldn't say either, but I don't see it coming to pass anytime soon, because in 20 odd years when we reach the singularity, the elite will use this advanced tech to further enslave us, because we will not take control, we will not stop them, because we can't come together.

So there will always be wars, and thus always be a need of killing, and soldiers will always answer the call to protect their families and fight for them, as they are made to protect their family, humanity, but since we remain fragmented, they only see their family on their side, not their actual entire family, all of humanity.

Hope this sheds some light on my perspective, just to clear up any future misunderstandings of my particular stance on this subject.

I think you should petition to have your military disbanded.

Your country will be justttttttt fine.

Nobody will mess with you, or try to invade you.

Believe me....

reply to post by kwakakev

I would like to hear any insights you have into the Syria situation.

I have quite alot of threads on the topic you might find this most recent one intersting as it touches on the question you asked.

Syria and Obama’s Failing Foreign Policy

Originally posted by acrux
Armies are suppose to be for defence of their own country.

Exactly. It's not a police force to do humanitarian missions throughout the world.

Except in self defense no military action should be unilateral, except in cases like where we apprehended someone like Bin Laden who had already attacked us.

If there is a consensus and there is multiple nations willing to commit troops to intervene in non-combatants getting killed then...

But in Syria, the people the US is considering to help are ARMED. They have been making a successful attempt at overthrowing Assad for two years now, and we don't even know if they have made allegiances with the pink teddy bear or not. We don't have any business making unilateral involvements of soldiers, arms, or financial assistance.

And the Syrians unlike in North Korea have the ability to leave and begin a life of surfing and drinking beer on an Austrialian beach and fornicating. Which might be a violation of Islam but they won't be executed by a North Korean border guard for leaving.

reply to post by Miracula

And if his subordinates hide in various countries to operate from what then?

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.

You could probably say the same about most the enemy, couldn't you. Bet the muslims who become extremists think they're doing the right thing too.

reply to post by Miracula

I have asked you questions and you refuse to answer are they too difficult?

Originally posted by acrux
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

I'm glad you woke up, but everyone knows the military is for killing alledged enemies of your government.

I agree, but when a soldier's head is filled with "patriotic duty" and the like, it isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. As corporations and governments merge their power and control, the real reason for war and conflict is becoming more and more obvious, and military members are starting to wake up to the fact that they are being used to line bankers pockets.

Originally posted by acrux
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.

Lol..yes they were Saudi...but they were hiding in Afghanistan and we askd for Afghanistan to hand them over...they did not so we went and took them simple as that. Maybe if you were not sitting in your own country preaching what the military is for you could have stopped us...oh wait that would make you a terrorist
And if you think we were in Iraq for oil thats BS..we were there to finish off a douchbag dictator that we should have took care of the first time we were there..might not of been right but then again we are hated by other country's anyway so who cares....Im ex military and was brought up with the idea that if your country ask you to go fight you fight.
My father did it and my Grandfather did it...and that is why even with some of its issues the US is a great and free country.
Now go back to your isolationist ideals and put your head back in the sand.

Originally posted by Romeo1

Originally posted by acrux
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.

Lol..yes they were Saudi...but they were hiding in Afghanistan and we askd for Afghanistan to hand them over...they did not so we went and took them simple as that. Maybe if you were not sitting in your own country preaching what the military is for you could have stopped us...oh wait that would make you a terrorist
And if you think we were in Iraq for oil thats BS..we were there to finish off a douchbag dictator that we should have took care of the first time we were there..might not of been right but then again we are hated by other country's anyway so who cares....Im ex military and was brought up with the idea that if your country ask you to go fight you fight.
My father did it and my Grandfather did it...and that is why even with some of its issues the US is a great and free country.
Now go back to your isolationist ideals and put your head back in the sand.

See ladies and gents what the military produces, criminals such as this individual here. You think and talk like a criminal, you should be in jail.

reply to post by XaniMatriX

Oh yes I am a monster with total disregard for human life....wait,www.military1.com...

But other than the rest of the MAJORITY of the military I can see how clear your vision must be when you get out of middle school I suggest you go into philosophy.