Moral truism, moral relativism, and what is terrorism?

[OneArmedScissor]

Imagine for a few minutes... you... an alien... from another planet.
You fly to planet Earth to make basic observations on a few things.
Curious about this funny words being throw around nearly every where you visit, you muster the courage as an outside observer to ask yourself.... What is terrorism? And how does one deal with it?

Whatever the answer is to the second question, the answer must satisfy some moral truisms.
The alien can easily discover what these moral truisms are simply based on what the leaders of this self-proclaimed War on Terror tell us. These leaders tell us constantly that they are, in fact, pious Christians and they revere the gospels and have memorized the definition of the word hypocrite, which is given out quite often in the gospels.
Essentially a hypocrite is someone who applies standards to others, but then refuses to have these standards applied to themselves.

So, therefore, as an alien, you must understand and realize that to rise to the absolute minimum moral level, we have to agree that if some act is right for us, then it is right for others. And if some act is wrong for us, it is wrong for others. That is the most basic and simple of moral truisms.
Once you, as an alien, realize this... I suppose you could pack your things up and fly back to your home planet.

However, as an alien outside observer, you would be unlikely to find a single phrase or commentary about this War on Terrorism that actually upholds to or even begins to approach the minimal standard of moral truism. (lol ok you can probably find it, but rarely and on the very edge of commentary)

Nevertheless, this moral truism is, in fact, recognized by the mainstream. However it is understood to be an extremely dangerous heresy, and therefore it is necessary to erect impregnable barriers against it, even before anyone exhibits it.

In fact, there is even a technical vocabulary available in case anyone would to dare engage in the heresy that we should abide by moral truisms that we pretend to revere. The offenders are guilty of something called moral relativism. That means the suggestion that we apply to ourselves the standrads we apply to others, or maybe moral equivalence. This has also be called "America bashing" or "anti-American" by many on this board, etc.

The term is only used, though, in other totalitarian states. For example in Russia in the old days where anti-Sovietism was the highest crime.

Regardless, let's assume that you, as an alien, are undeterred by the inevitable, endless vilification
and let's say you continue in the keeping of the most elementary moral truisms. If you decide to do that, you might as well go home, because you're going to be sadly disappointed in what you find.

Ever the curious one, you decided to stay. Back to the question... What is terrorism?
This is an important question! And let's see what they, the leaders of the War on Terror, say what terrorism is:
The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.
That's simple and appropriate. However, it is said nearly everyday that the defining of terrorism is quite complex and vexing and extremely difficult. You, as an outside observer, might as, "Why is that true?"

Of course the same is true to those who have experienced vastly worse terrorist crimes, but that's only reported on your home planet; not on Earth.

So you might try to find a report, say, from a conference by Salvadorian Jesuits about their experiences under U.S. international terrorism that were particularly grisly:

The residual effect of the culture of terrorism which domesticates the aspirations of the majority, who realize that they must submit to the dictates of the ruling terrorist state and its local agents, or they will again be returned to the central American mode as recommended by the the doves that the peak of the state supported international terrorism of the 80's

Which was never reported here, of course, but perhaps on your alien planet.

(thanks N.C.)

[Gauvin]

I'm an alien!?

[OneArmedScissor]

Why does America refuse to hold itself to this simple moral truism?
Why does America demand that everyone, including its citizens, abide by this simple moral truism?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well as soon as the alien learns to speak English then I am quite certain that he or she will be able to define the word "terrorism." and then send the information back to his home planet.

[justicar5]

Well as soon as the alien learns to speak English then I am quite certain that he or she will be able to define the word "terrorism." and then send the information back to his home planet.

except that we don't stick to the definition ourselves, when we do something it isn't terrorism but if it is done to us it is, their is no consistancy.

[motiv-8]

Back to the question... What is terrorism?

If a supra-national body representing every country and every interest in the world can't come to an agreement as to the answer to this question, then TWC certainly isn't.

[OneArmedScissor]

If a supra-national body representing every country and every interest in the world can't come to an agreement as to the answer to this question, then TWC certainly isn't.

It's right there in the OP and it's the definition given by the "supra-national body"

The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.

[Gaidin]

It's right there in the OP and it's the definition given by the "supra-national body"

The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.

And it's a very vague definition, to the point of uselessness, as it can be said to include pretty much every violent act ever committed in mankind's history, yet not one person would agree with that.

[OneArmedScissor]

And it's a very vague definition, to the point of uselessness, as it can be said to include pretty much every violent act ever committed in mankind's history, yet not one person would agree with that.

It's actually not vague at all. It's the definition given in U.S. code, army manuals, and else where.
This is precisely what I am talking about. The definition is quite simple and very understandable, yet people (specifically leaders of the War on Terror) continue to try to muddy the waters, so to speak, and that actually defining it is, as I said, vexing, complex, difficult, troublesome, etc., when in fact it is not.

It's only difficult to define for those people who engage in it and act as apologists for it.

[OneArmedScissor]

Hypocrisy

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...as/4558777.stm
Profile: Cuban 'plane bomber'
Anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carriles has posed a double headache for the US: his alleged crimes relate to Cuba and its ally Venezuela, and he is a former CIA employee.

The 79-year-old is wanted by both Latin American states for masterminding the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner, in which 73 died.

He is also being investigated for the 1997 bombing on a hotel in the Cuban capital, Havana, which killed an Italian tourist.

Jailed in Venezuela in 1976 after being found guilty of bombing the Cuban plane, in 1985 Posada escaped.

Charges dropped

Twenty years later, in May 2005, he was detained by US immigration officials after allegedly entering the country illegally, via Mexico.

In 2007, a US judge's decision to dismiss charges of immigration fraud against him have angered Cuba and Venezuela who are both continuing to push for his extradition.

The authorities in Havana describe Posada as "the Bin Laden of the Hemisphere".

They have accused the US of double standards in its war on terror and of protecting the Cuban suspect due to his status - and the secrets he may know - as a former CIA employee.

Some Cuban exiles hostile to the communist government in Havana regard Posada as a hero, said Pepe Hernandez, president of the Cuban American National Foundation.

"He's been fighting one of the worst tyrannies this continent has experienced," Mr Hernandez told AP news agency.

Assassination plot

Before his detention in Miami, Posada, who was born in Cuba but has Venezuelan citizenship, insisted his "only objective" was to fight for Cuba's "freedom".

Reports suggest he was involved in operations against leftists across Latin America over the decades, from Guatemala to El Salvador.

According to declassified US government documents, he once worked for the CIA. The papers also reveal that an FBI informer "all but admitted" that Posada was one of those behind the plane bombing.

In an interview for the Miami Herald newspaper, Posada denied any involvement in the plane attack but declined to confirm or deny involvement in other violence.

In August 2004, Panama granted him a pardon over a plot to assassinate President Castro during a visit by the Cuban leader to Panama in 2000.

The US authorities have refused requests for Posada's extradition, saying he might be tortured, and failed to find takers when they suggested sending him to a country other than Cuba or Venezuela.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB288/index.htm

Both CIA and FBI intelligence records identify Posada as a mastermind of the bombing of Cubana airline flight 455, also using a pencil detonator, that took the lives of all 73 passengers and crew on October 6, 1976. Posada has publicly admitted ties to a series of hotel bombings in Cuba in 1997; in November 2000 he was arrested in Panama City for plotting to blow up an auditorium where Fidel Castro would be speaking.

Moreover, the entire western response to 9/11 by western standards is illegitimate.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well, I assume we would have to form a method of communication first.

[Poet]

America is terrorist;

If flying jet in Twin Towers and killing some thousands is terrorism, attacking Afghanistan without evidence (what you call evidence is a video tape found "after" invasion)and occupying is terrorism, attacking and occupying Iraq is terrorism,throwing daisy cutters, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium on civilians is also terrorism. Abu Ghuraib, Gitmo, and Bagram jail are terrorism. Killing at least 600000 Iraqis and thousands of Afghanis is terrorism. Hitting marriage ceremonies is also terrorism.

+rep for a person who dares to speak truth.

[Arch-hereticK]

America is terrorist;

If flying jet in Twin Towers and killing some thousands is terrorism, attacking Afghanistan without evidence (what you call evidence is a video tape found "after" invasion)and occupying is terrorism, attacking and occupying Iraq is terrorism,throwing daisy cutters, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium on civilians is also terrorism. Abu Ghuraib, Gitmo, and Bagram jail are terrorism. Killing at least 600000 Iraqis and thousands of Afghanis is terrorism. Hitting marriage ceremonies is also terrorism.

+rep for a person who dares to speak truth.

Yeah but, on the other hand McDonalds................. see, they take a little and they give a little.

[roy34543]

America is terrorist;

If flying jet in Twin Towers and killing some thousands is terrorism, attacking Afghanistan without evidence (what you call evidence is a video tape found "after" invasion)and occupying is terrorism, attacking and occupying Iraq is terrorism,throwing daisy cutters, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium on civilians is also terrorism. Abu Ghuraib, Gitmo, and Bagram jail are terrorism. Killing at least 600000 Iraqis and thousands of Afghanis is terrorism. Hitting marriage ceremonies is also terrorism.

+rep for a person who dares to speak truth.

It really isnt. Occupying Iraq was to get rid of WMD's (Yeah right) Daisy Cutters and cluster bombs are to kill military enemies. Im not even sure if depleted uranium is used as a weapon just yet, but whatever, all the jails are to get information, and killing civilians is either apathy or a mistake.
None of this is "terrorism" because the US knows it wont have any effect. theyre not trying to terrify anyone from retracting a political position, the civilians arent relevant and while they can provide assistance to the taliban, they use a carrot method to prevent that, not the stick.
attacks like 9/11 however, were blatantly and obviously designed to try and make america initially retract support from Israel and then gradually agree to the terrorists every desite.

[Poet]

And yes I missed drone attacks on Pakistani citizens.

[Arch-hereticK]

And yes I missed drone attacks on Pakistani citizens.

And the use of white phosphorus on rural villages. (it's worse than napalm)

[roy34543]

And the use of white phosphorus on rural villages. (it's worse than napalm)

Yeah if it hits you. But napalm covers gigantic distances, White phosphorous creates a tiny cloud (giant pillar though)
Besides, I think your ignoring the fact that almost every other weapon can "Instantly and cheaply" destroy rural villages.

[Poet]

Yeah if it hits you. But napalm covers gigantic distances, White phosphorous creates a tiny cloud (giant pillar though)
Besides, I think your ignoring the fact that almost every other weapon can "Instantly and cheaply" destroy rural villages.

It really isnt. Occupying Iraq was to get rid of WMD's (Yeah right) Daisy Cutters and cluster bombs are to kill military enemies. Im not even sure if depleted uranium is used as a weapon just yet, but whatever, all the jails are to get information, and killing civilians is either apathy or a mistake.
None of this is "terrorism" because the US knows it wont have any effect. theyre not trying to terrify anyone from retracting a political position, the civilians arent relevant and while they can provide assistance to the taliban, they use a carrot method to prevent that, not the stick.
attacks like 9/11 however, were blatantly and obviously designed to try and make america initially retract support from Israel and then gradually agree to the terrorists every desite.

I do not want to break the tos, I do not want to insult you here. Would you please give me your e-mail address?

[Arch-hereticK]

Yeah if it hits you. But napalm covers gigantic distances, White phosphorous creates a tiny cloud (giant pillar though)
Besides, I think your ignoring the fact that almost every other weapon can "Instantly and cheaply" destroy rural villages.

One milligram can burn straight through a fully grown man's chest, and white phosphorous covers a greater area it it is open ground, napalm covers greater area if it's densely packed. (rural villages tend to be quite open areas in the middle-east)

I think the commander using the white phosphorous ignored the fact that there are cheaper and more humane ways of wipping out civilian villages. The benifits of white phosophorous is that it doesn't damage buildings, only exposed flesh and organic/semi-organic matter.

[roy34543]

One milligram can burn straight through a fully grown man's chest, and white phosphorous covers a greater area it it is open ground, napalm covers greater area if it's densely packed. (rural villages tend to be quite open areas in the middle-east)

I think the commander using the white phosphorous ignored the fact that there are cheaper and more humane ways of wipping out civilian villages. The benifits of white phosophorous is that it doesn't damage buildings, only exposed flesh and organic/semi-organic matter.

It burns practically everything to cinders. I cant imagine where you got the idea "it doesnt damage buildings"
and rural villages arent "open ground" because of the houses. The white phosphorous would not be able to cover much of a distance because of the houses.
Besides that, chemical weapons and outright smoke would damage the buildings even less, and have a much, much higher fatality rate (WP doesnt always kill, sometimes just causes great pain)
On top of that , any decent military commander wouldnt want a rural village anyway, its a hassle that makes it harder to manuever and easier for men to be trapped, building a outpost on top of it is simpler and better.

I do not want to break the tos, I do not want to insult you here. Would you please give me your e-mail address?

Next time you ask me that ill give you the administrators email for the lulz.