EU vs. Terror

Walsingham · January 17, 2015

let me tell you the definition of terrorism

terrorism is the tactic that governments employ, when they need to "convince" their citizens to abbandon their rights and freedoms in the name of security.

So you think there are no terrorists?

BruceVC · January 17, 2015

let me tell you the definition of terrorism

terrorism is the tactic that governments employ, when they need to "convince" their citizens to abbandon their rights and freedoms in the name of security.

So you think there are no terrorists?

From my posts with him he falls more into the camp where most terrorists are the creation of Western governments and there threat is exaggerated to give governments more control of our lives

Walsingham · January 17, 2015

let me tell you the definition of terrorism

terrorism is the tactic that governments employ, when they need to "convince" their citizens to abbandon their rights and freedoms in the name of security.

So you think there are no terrorists?

From my posts with him he falls more into the camp where most terrorists are the creation of Western governments and there threat is exaggerated to give governments more control of our lives

*Happy laugh*

What a wonderful world he must live in, where man is so peaceful that he must be provoked by governments into doing evil.

Carry on, oh happy child.

Sarex · January 17, 2015

^Oh the sweet, sweet irony.

Gorgon · January 17, 2015

I was rather bemused to see the DDosing of a few French news outlets described as 'Cyber terrorism'.

teknoman2 · January 17, 2015

let me tell you the definition of terrorism

terrorism is the tactic that governments employ, when they need to "convince" their citizens to abbandon their rights and freedoms in the name of security.

So you think there are no terrorists?

From my posts with him he falls more into the camp where most terrorists are the creation of Western governments and there threat is exaggerated to give governments more control of our lives

well i try to keep a level head in all of this (i dont act paranoid like the guys wearing pots on their head to block the CIA signals), but i have noticed a trend. all governments tend to make new borderline (or even fully) unconstitutional anti terrorist laws at a surprising speed after an attack... and these laws affect everyone, not just the terrorists. also, the speed most of these laws are made with, could make one suspect them to be written long before the attack, but passing them would have created revolts without the terrorist attack to "persuade" people to accept them

an act of terrorism or something related, is also a great diversion. it is a great way to flood all media for days or even weeks with a single topic and sneak in whatever laws and deals you want without anyone hearing about them

it's just a theory derived from observation and amateur study of politcal/philosophical texts and accepting or dismishing it is up to you. however if you dismish it thinking that profesional politicians who are best friends with every CEO of a multinational corporation (and who probably never had an honest day's work in their lives), care more about their country and the people instead of their own interests and those of their friends, i can only call you naive

or, as Sovereign would say, your country (whatever that may be) exists because the CEOs allow it and will end because they WILL it

Elerond · January 17, 2015

let me tell you the definition of terrorism

terrorism is the tactic that governments employ, when they need to "convince" their citizens to abbandon their rights and freedoms in the name of security.

So you think there are no terrorists?

Some definitions for Terrorism:

"Wikipedia:

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror); to perpetrate for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and to deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors. Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals. In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.

Dictionary.com

Terrorism

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

British dictionary (dictionary.com)

Terrorism

noun

1.

systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

2.

the act of terrorizing

3.

the state of being terrorized

These are from terrorism-research.com

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims.

The FBI uses this definition: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

The United Nations produced the following definition of terrorism in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets."

The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totalling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and "violence based communication processes". Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of terrorism from 1974 is "...the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."

Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event. Those billion people watching were to be introduced to fear - which is terrorism's ultimate goal. The introduction of this fear can be from the threat of physical harm/a grizzly death, financial terrorism from the fear of losing money or negative effects on the economy, cyber terrorism harming the critical technological infrastructures of society and psychological terrorism designed to influence people's behaviour. Terrorism is designed to produce an overreaction and anecdotally, it succeeds at that almost all the time."

So there is terrorists, but depending on what definition one uses it varies lot who fall under that term. As in some definitions countries, governments and people that act lawfully can't be counted as terrorists, but in some definitions some people even in this forum could be counted to be terrorists, as they use intimidation (by telling us how we will suffer if we don't change our politics/behavior/etc.) to support their ideological or political goals.

Darkpriest · January 17, 2015

Well, you can argue about various things, but the fact is, that after the recent anti-terrorist action in Belgium, Belgian government decided to release military on the streets in Brussels and Antwerp to "protect" possible targets of highly probable terrorist response to the anti-terrorist raids.

BruceVC · January 17, 2015

Well, you can argue about various things, but the fact is, that after the recent anti-terrorist action in Belgium, Belgian government decided to release military on the streets in Brussels and Antwerp to "protect" possible targets of highly probable terrorist response to the anti-terrorist raids.

And? Why do you think this is weird, its the absolutely necessary and expected thing that any government should do after preventing a terrorist attack and still being a target

213374U · January 17, 2015

I'm all for abandonding the rights of citizens that trained to be terrorists by ISIS. IMO they aren't even "citizens" of our countries then anymore... nothing wrong with detaining enemy combatants, right?

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this?

And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly?

Remember to check under your bed for terrorists before sleep. Better safe than sorry!

What a wonderful world he must live in, where man is so peaceful that he must be provoked by governments into doing evil.

What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil.

Orogun01 · January 17, 2015

I'm all for abandonding the rights of citizens that trained to be terrorists by ISIS. IMO they aren't even "citizens" of our countries then anymore... nothing wrong with detaining enemy combatants, right?

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this?

And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly?

Remember to check under your bed for terrorists before sleep. Better safe than sorry!

What a wonderful world he must live in, where man is so peaceful that he must be provoked by governments into doing evil.

What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil.

Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases.

Valsuelm · January 17, 2015

I'm all for abandonding the rights of citizens that trained to be terrorists by ISIS. IMO they aren't even "citizens" of our countries then anymore... nothing wrong with detaining enemy combatants, right?

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this?

And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly?

Remember to check under your bed for terrorists before sleep. Better safe than sorry!

What a wonderful world he must live in, where man is so peaceful that he must be provoked by governments into doing evil.

What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil.

Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases.

They do. Thought it's arguable those rights are recognized under one of the other Geneva treaties. That they don't is a misconception believed by many that was perpetrated by the very people who wanted to deny 'enemy combatants' of their rights in the first place.

Before 'terrorists' were blamed for most of the evil events in the world, 'anarchists' were. If there's a group of people or ideology out there who truly don't have a nation, it is anarchists. And at the time of the Geneva convention anarchists were the more common boogymen of the day. No nation I'm aware of ever tried to deny an anarchist(s) charged with some evil deed(s) their basic human or legal rights by classifying them as some imagined sect of people that are somehow magically outside the realm of the basics that everyone else is privy to.

Anyways, who is to say so and so doesn't have a nation they are fighting for? Why should that even matter? No matter who it is, and no matter what they are charged with they should be given a jury trial within a reasonable timeframe, and then acquitted or sentenced accordingly. To do otherwise is evil.

Regardless, at the end of the day it's not uncommon for many nations (including the U.S.) violate the Geneva convention on many levels other than what happens in Guantanamo Bay. Like many other things of it's nature (like the ICC) it's rules are generally only applied to nations and people on the non-western side conflict X. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

teknoman2 · January 17, 2015

Well, you can argue about various things, but the fact is, that after the recent anti-terrorist action in Belgium, Belgian government decided to release military on the streets in Brussels and Antwerp to "protect" possible targets of highly probable terrorist response to the anti-terrorist raids.

And? Why do you think this is weird, its the absolutely necessary and expected thing that any government should do after preventing a terrorist attack and still being a target

most of these people have a few screws loose and go around killing just because a priet promised them a spot on the next "Heaven express". however what really riled them up is the U.S/N war on terror. in their hubris, both governments and media did not justify the war as an assaul on a specific enemy of the west like Al Quaeda or Sadam Husein, but they used the excuse of the "humanitarian mission to save the local population that was opressed under the regime of their own religious leaders" (remember the endless articles about women being opressed for following the dress code of their faith?)... in short, for the locals it was a war waged against their own religion in order to make them change their faith by force. that turned the calm and peace loving everyday people in willing candidates for groups like ISIS. considering also that their faith demands compliance to medieval standards of living, its easy to understand that the level of education for most is rather low and they are easily swayed

213374U · January 17, 2015

Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases.

"Terrorist" is not an internationally recognized legal definition for a person, for good or ill. You're a national or foreign citizen and either a combatant or a non-combatant. Someone breaching or intent on breaching the Convention (or any law, really) does not justify ignoring the law right back as punishment or in order to prevent alleged "terrorism", and the act does not forfeit the rights of the person commiting the violations. That's due process and it's kind of a big deal, for us smug Westerners at least.

Edited January 17, 2015 by 213374U

Orogun01 · January 17, 2015

I'm all for abandonding the rights of citizens that trained to be terrorists by ISIS. IMO they aren't even "citizens" of our countries then anymore... nothing wrong with detaining enemy combatants, right?

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this?

And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly?

Remember to check under your bed for terrorists before sleep. Better safe than sorry!

What a wonderful world he must live in, where man is so peaceful that he must be provoked by governments into doing evil.

What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil.

Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases.

They do. Thought it's arguable those rights are recognized under one of the other Geneva treaties. That they don't is a misconception believed by many that was perpetrated by the very people who wanted to deny 'enemy combatants' of their rights in the first place.

Before 'terrorists' were blamed for most of the evil events in the world, 'anarchists' were. If there's a group of people or ideology out there who truly don't have a nation, it is anarchists. And at the time of the Geneva convention anarchists were the more common boogymen of the day. No nation I'm aware of ever tried to deny an anarchist(s) charged with some evil deed(s) their basic human or legal rights by classifying them as some imagined sect of people that are somehow magically outside the realm of the basics that everyone else is privy to.

Anyways, who is to say so and so doesn't have a nation they are fighting for? Why should that even matter? No matter who it is, and no matter what they are charged with they should be given a jury trial within a reasonable timeframe, and then acquitted or sentenced accordingly. To do otherwise is evil.

Regardless, at the end of the day it's not uncommon for many nations (including the U.S.) violate the Geneva convention on many levels other than what happens in Guantanamo Bay. Like many other things of it's nature (like the ICC) it's rules are generally only applied to nations and people on the non-western side conflict X. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

I thought that the Guantanamo cases were human rights violations not the Geneva convention. AFIK the Geneva is only for countries that have signed the treaty, you're only covered if your nation is part of it.

teknoman2 · January 17, 2015

indeed, and the US is not part of it.

still, under intarnational law these were war crimes and the perpetrators are subject to trial and punishment. however, since the US has not signed the convention, the perpetrators are judged by US martial courts and the sentences are ridiculously light. many of Guantanamo's guards that were tried and convicted to 20 or 30 years or prison, were pardoned and sent back at their posts in a few months like the trial never happened. and since they were tried in the US under US law, nobody could object

Edited January 17, 2015 by teknoman2

Zoraptor · January 17, 2015

The US signed it (1955, according to wiki)

The US decided that the Gitmo detainees were 'unlawful combatants' and thus certain provisions of the GC relating to active combatants did not apply (though rather ironically, those pertaining to detained civilians therefore should). It's legal sophistry really- while it might apply to AlQ detainees on a case by case basis the Taleban were broadly recognised rulers of Afghanistan and Afghanistan was a party to the GCs (from 1956, per wiki) and for obvious reasons you cannot simply declare another country's government and anyone fighting for it illegitimate to avoid having to treat people under the GCs. It also has provisions protecting those resisting foreign occupation who are not wearing uniforms etc which would also cover many Taleban.

Really though, the justification is basically the Asterisk Cheney one- they're bad people, so whatever we do to them is OK. Including, presumably, the very many innocent people, but then it is Cheney, a guy who literally has no heart.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Zoraptor

Valsuelm · January 17, 2015

I'm all for abandonding the rights of citizens that trained to be terrorists by ISIS. IMO they aren't even "citizens" of our countries then anymore... nothing wrong with detaining enemy combatants, right?

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this?

And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly?

Remember to check under your bed for terrorists before sleep. Better safe than sorry!

What a wonderful world he must live in, where man is so peaceful that he must be provoked by governments into doing evil.

What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil.

Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases.

They do. Thought it's arguable those rights are recognized under one of the other Geneva treaties. That they don't is a misconception believed by many that was perpetrated by the very people who wanted to deny 'enemy combatants' of their rights in the first place.

Before 'terrorists' were blamed for most of the evil events in the world, 'anarchists' were. If there's a group of people or ideology out there who truly don't have a nation, it is anarchists. And at the time of the Geneva convention anarchists were the more common boogymen of the day. No nation I'm aware of ever tried to deny an anarchist(s) charged with some evil deed(s) their basic human or legal rights by classifying them as some imagined sect of people that are somehow magically outside the realm of the basics that everyone else is privy to.

Anyways, who is to say so and so doesn't have a nation they are fighting for? Why should that even matter? No matter who it is, and no matter what they are charged with they should be given a jury trial within a reasonable timeframe, and then acquitted or sentenced accordingly. To do otherwise is evil.

Regardless, at the end of the day it's not uncommon for many nations (including the U.S.) violate the Geneva convention on many levels other than what happens in Guantanamo Bay. Like many other things of it's nature (like the ICC) it's rules are generally only applied to nations and people on the non-western side conflict X. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

I thought that the Guantanamo cases were human rights violations not the Geneva convention. AFIK the Geneva is only for countries that have signed the treaty, you're only covered if your nation is part of it.

The popular argument to try and legally justify the Guantanamo situation legally here in the states is the aforementioned 'enemy combatant' status, and how people designated as 'enemy combatants' are magically exempted from basic legal and human rights. It's a technicality one can point to in the 3rd Geneva convention already linked, but as Zoraptor mentions if you're not covered under the 3rd treaty you are under the 4th.

Generally speaking the idea of human rights finds it's foundation in the ideals of natural law which contains one of central concepts that the U.S. was founded on. That being that everyone has basic fundamental rights bestowed upon them by their creator (be it God, Jobu, the accident of the atom, or the All Powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster). You get them from just being you, no matter who you are, where you live, what color your skin is, what you think, what you've done, no matter what. If you're human you got em.

Various treaties and organizations claim to respect those basic human rights (though some interestingly ignore some aspects of them). The U.S. has the respecting of those rights central in it's Constitution, as well as various laws written since. So not only is the U.S. breaking the Geneva convention with what it's done in Guantanamo, the people behind it's also breaking numerous laws here, and breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution (if they took it, which everyone in the military and most (if not all) in national political roles do.

There are few if any things more diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of what the U.S. is supposed to be than what has been done in Guantanamo Bay.

Valsuelm · January 17, 2015

indeed, and the US is not part of it.

I think you are confusing the Geneva Convention with the ICC. The U.S. ratified and signed the former, it is not a part of the latter.

And as much as I'm for basic human and legal rights for all, I do not think the U.S. should be a part of the ICC. It generally just oversees political agendas and witchhunts, and I'm 1000% against governmental bodies that are considered by some to be above nations.

Walsingham · January 17, 2015

I appreciate the detail going into your Gitmo arguments, but you're missing something fundamental which even you allude to: who enforces these 'fundamental laws'?

The spirit of the original Geneva conventions as I understand them was that combatants adhere to the conventions because they want the same rights accorded to their own troops.

I'm pretty sure that the jihadi ideologues and media don't even _pretend_ to adhere to the conventions. How could they when they specifically and deliberately target civilians?

teknoman2 · January 18, 2015

The US signed it (1955, according to wiki)

The US decided that the Gitmo detainees were 'unlawful combatants' and thus certain provisions of the GC relating to active combatants did not apply (though rather ironically, those pertaining to detained civilians therefore should). It's legal sophistry really- while it might apply to AlQ detainees on a case by case basis the Taleban were broadly recognised rulers of Afghanistan and Afghanistan was a party to the GCs (from 1956, per wiki) and for obvious reasons you cannot simply declare another country's government and anyone fighting for it illegitimate to avoid having to treat people under the GCs. It also has provisions protecting those resisting foreign occupation who are not wearing uniforms etc which would also cover many Taleban.

Really though, the justification is basically the Asterisk Cheney one- they're bad people, so whatever we do to them is OK. Including, presumably, the very many innocent people, but then it is Cheney, a guy who literally has no heart.

from what i see in that wiki, they adhere only to protocol 1. protocols 2 and 3 that are about POWs among other things are not on the list.

and even if they breach the convention, no american has ever being tried by the international court. they are only being tried by US courts. not recognising the authority of the court that was made specifically for the sake of punishing those who breach the convention, is the same thing as not recognising the convention itself

Zoraptor · January 18, 2015

Protocol III is fully ratified and signed, they've signed protocol I & II but not ratified them. They have however signed and ratified the main GCs, the protocols are separate, later additives to or clarification of the main ones. Part of protocol I is relevant to pows as it clarifies the position of 'rebels' as pows; but for the purposes of this it is irrelevant since the Taleban were the legitimate government rather than rebels and thus covered by GC III (or IV, if the decision were made that III didn't apply) and it wouldn't stop the US arbitrarily deciding what was and was not a unlawful combatant.

The GCs were written quite explicitly to try to avoid this sort of situation, where an actor uses a constructed argument to exclude people from them.

I appreciate the detail going into your Gitmo arguments, but you're missing something fundamental which even you allude to: who enforces these 'fundamental laws'?

We do. Because ultimately that's who 'enforces' any law. I don't murder, assault or steal because it is immoral to do so, not because it is illegal. Indeed, if I were to try my hand at any of those I suspect I'd have exactly the same thought process as any criminal- I won't get caught anyway. We have words like 'sociopath' for people who only follow the rules when its to their advantage or when they think they will be caught, and by and large people and by extension countries should not be aiming for sociopathy and set a spectacularly low bar when "at least we're better than Al Qaeda" is used as a yardstick.

As for "but they do it"; well so what? So now countries aren't just sociopaths, they're five year old school child sociopaths. I think we can at least try and aim for a bit better than that, unrealistically romantic rose tinted spectacle wearer that I am.

Walsingham · January 19, 2015

Protocol III is fully ratified and signed, they've signed protocol I & II but not ratified them. They have however signed and ratified the main GCs, the protocols are separate, later additives to or clarification of the main ones. Part of protocol I is relevant to pows as it clarifies the position of 'rebels' as pows; but for the purposes of this it is irrelevant since the Taleban were the legitimate government rather than rebels and thus covered by GC III (or IV, if the decision were made that III didn't apply) and it wouldn't stop the US arbitrarily deciding what was and was not a unlawful combatant.

The GCs were written quite explicitly to try to avoid this sort of situation, where an actor uses a constructed argument to exclude people from them.

I appreciate the detail going into your Gitmo arguments, but you're missing something fundamental which even you allude to: who enforces these 'fundamental laws'?

We do. Because ultimately that's who 'enforces' any law. I don't murder, assault or steal because it is immoral to do so, not because it is illegal. Indeed, if I were to try my hand at any of those I suspect I'd have exactly the same thought process as any criminal- I won't get caught anyway. We have words like 'sociopath' for people who only follow the rules when its to their advantage or when they think they will be caught, and by and large people and by extension countries should not be aiming for sociopathy and set a spectacularly low bar when "at least we're better than Al Qaeda" is used as a yardstick.

As for "but they do it"; well so what? So now countries aren't just sociopaths, they're five year old school child sociopaths. I think we can at least try and aim for a bit better than that, unrealistically romantic rose tinted spectacle wearer that I am.

But the point is it just isn't sustainable to expect people to play according to rules which punish them for being good.

Valsuelm · January 19, 2015

Who is being punished for being good and how?

Tsuga C · January 19, 2015

To quote Gromnir, "HA! Good fun!"

Edited January 19, 2015 by Tsuga C

EU vs. Terror

Recommended Posts

Walsingham

BruceVC

Walsingham

Sarex

Gorgon

teknoman2

Elerond

Darkpriest

BruceVC

213374U

Orogun01

Valsuelm

teknoman2

213374U

Orogun01

teknoman2

Zoraptor

Valsuelm

Valsuelm

Walsingham

teknoman2

Zoraptor

Walsingham

Valsuelm

Tsuga C

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Forums

Activity