Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[moll.]

have not looked yet just had dinner.

I HOPE YOU HAD AN ENTREE OF RAZOR BLADES, WITH SECONDS OF PAIN AND A DESSERT OF POISON!!!

I'm getting kinda bored of this thread nowadays. It just goes in circles.
I LIKE MY LIFE WITH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF VERTICES, NOT INFINITE CORNERS.

 

[Iron]

Moll is bored! Sound the alarm! Rouse the guards! Make haste to the village and round up the jewish entertainers! Arouse the pornographers! Anger the zoo animals!
For Jingo's sake Hurry man! The whole fate of the God question depends on YOOOOOOOOOU!

 

[moll.]

id like to point out that the only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is point of view. they probably think their enemies are all being influenced by the devil aswell

No there isn't. They're all terrorists. The only difference is in the third-party observer who is either a sympathiser or a hater. And all terrorist sympathisers must be purged.

 

[moll.]

Moll is bored! Sound the alarm! Rouse the guards! Make haste to the village and round up the jewish entertainers! Arouse the pornographers! Anger the zoo animals!
For Jingo's sake Hurry man! The whole fate of the God question depends on YOOOOOOOOOU!

Wasn't Jingo the head of that elf community in the Banjo-Kazooie franchise?

 

[Iron]

I believe it was an old, old wooden ship

 

[rant]

Wasn't Jingo the head of that elf community in the Banjo-Kazooie franchise?

they were the little elves you had to catch, like, ten of in every level to get a puzzle piece!!!!!!!!

and also an old ship

also a novel by Terry Pratchett

also a euphemism for 'by Jesus' in the 17th century

 

[Tangent]

No there isn't. They're all terrorists. The only difference is in the third-party observer who is either a sympathiser or a hater. And all terrorist sympathisers must be purged.

thats a very close minded view of the world

 

[rant]

it's true though~

 

[moll.]

thats a very close minded view of the world

A person who deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist. No two ways about it.
Also, there's no such thing as a freedom fighter targetting civilians, because that's not any form of freedom. Ergo, the people who very vocally call terrorists "freedom fighters" are only sympathisers or, worse, terrorists themselves.
Simple, easy.

 

[Iron]

It's hardly that simple Moll. There is no workable definition of a terrorist in international law.
Why are we talking about this?

 

[moll.]

It's hardly that simple Moll. There is no workable definition of a terrorist in international law.
Why are we talking about this?

True, but the standard definition is a militant group who delibrately targets civilians in order to advance or draw attention to a political goal.
And you seriously can't see the relationship between religion and terrorism?

 

[Iron]

There's no more relationship w religion than there is nationalism. The root cause is evil; a ruthless desire for power/influence and an ability to recruit and exploit often very young men. That's not Christianity, speaking for my own faith.
Most religions condemn violence in most circumstances, because we all know in our bones that it's wrong to take up arms against our brother - let alone an innocent and unsuspecting one

 

[Silver Persian]

Christianity: One woman's lie about having an affair that got seriously out of hand.

ahahaha.

<3

Cannot...rep...why?

 

[Graney]

A person who deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist. No two ways about it.
Also, there's no such thing as a freedom fighter targetting civilians, because that's not any form of freedom. Ergo, the people who very vocally call terrorists "freedom fighters" are only sympathisers or, worse, terrorists themselves.
Simple, easy.

I think it's a really absurd situation where it's okay for the state to kill and dominate people, but whenever individuals organise and fight for their freedom, even if they're fighting against a tyrranous state, it's considered the worst of crimes.

People happily accept that the state should have all this power and are terrified of individuals who fight against oppression. Madness.

I think the intention of a lot of the anti-terror propaganda is to enforce states power and remove individuals liberty to oppose the state by any means necessary.

Terrorism to me, is a label the state places whenever any non-state based group performs any violent action.

Assasinating political leaders is terrorism. Militias fighting the american military in Iraq are terrorists. Certainly if a U.S. military installation was attacked by a non-state based group, it would be labelled terrorism. All sorts of forms of protest are labelled terrorism. Greenpeace and similar groups have been labelled by some as terrorist, and under the present loose definition it's not an unreasonable label.

Terrorism seems to me to be a bullshit term invented by the state to control and suppress any action against the state. Make people hate and fear those who seek to liberate them. It's a hugely emotive and manipulating label, that acts to obscure the real, moral and dignified ideals some "terrorist" groups may hold.

 

[Iron]

A civilized society is one where the rule of law prevails, not the rule of power. If an aggrieved group cannot achieve/is denied their desired outcome through valid, peaceful, judicial mechanisms, we generally do not recognise their right to then break their contract with the state and achieve their ends violently.
But if the group is victim of recognised human rights abuses and international law is on their side and against the state's, then I doubt that many would consider their subsequent resistance to the state's unwarranted power as the 'worst of crimes'. For instance, there's this movie right, with the Bond dude, and they're Jews, see, in Nazi Poland I think. Instead of comply with the system that would have them dead - a system that had clearly broken or waived any contract with its citizens - we deem them justified to, like, hide in the forrest and conduct partisan activities against such an evil force.

Or a better example is the Left Behind novels- AAaAah! What a joy they were in my developing years! We never would accept that Ellie was a 'terrorist' - we're behind her from the get go! JUSTICE doesnt have to be subjective

 

[moll.]

I think it's a really absurd situation where it's okay for the state to kill and dominate people, but whenever individuals organise and fight for their freedom, even if they're fighting against a tyrranous state, it's considered the worst of crimes.

People happily accept that the state should have all this power and are terrified of individuals who fight against oppression. Madness.

I think the intention of a lot of the anti-terror propaganda is to enforce states power and remove individuals liberty to oppose the state by any means necessary.

Terrorism to me, is a label the state places whenever any non-state based group performs any violent action.

Assasinating political leaders is terrorism. Militias fighting the american military in Iraq are terrorists. Certainly if a U.S. military installation was attacked by a non-state based group, it would be labelled terrorism. All sorts of forms of protest are labelled terrorism. Greenpeace and similar groups have been labelled by some as terrorist, and under the present loose definition it's not an unreasonable label.

Terrorism seems to me to be a bullshit term invented by the state to control and suppress any action against the state. Make people hate and fear those who seek to liberate them. It's a hugely emotive and manipulating label, that acts to obscure the real, moral and dignified ideals some "terrorist" groups may hold.

If an anti-state group is willing to use violence against civilians to topple a regime, then their ideology is automatically invalidated, by the simple fact that any group who is willing to attack civilians will be little better than the current government, no matter how corrupt the incumbent is. "Violence begets violence".

 

[Graney]

It depends who's controlling the news, who's writing the histories and what their agenda's are. Ideas of what is justice and what is terrorism aren't always simple, see: israel vs. palestine.

Fortunately we live in a world of ever increasing independent news sources.

A campaign of war whether by independent groups, or the state, may be overall justified, but there will always be mistakes made and questionable instances that the opposing side and press will be able to utilize to demonize the other as terrorists.

We'd be better off doing away with such simple, generalized terms. Attack groups and ideologies on specific, exact grounds, rather than a broad, meaningless label of 'terrorist'.

Of course, you've raised the point before that the government needs simple ideologies to motivate and inspire the people, and this is fair. I just wish politics could work on a more complex level, we could rise above dumb labels like 'terrorist'. Especially on a website like BOS.

Alas the people are simple.

 

[moll.]

Government simply panders to the lowest common denominator, rather than accomodating to the average denizen and leaving the rest for a Darwinian process of intellectual catch-up.

 

[Iron]

It depends who's controlling the news, who's writing the histories and what their agenda's are. Ideas of what is justice and what is terrorism aren't always simple, see: israel vs. palestine.

Fortunately we live in a world of ever increasing independent news sources.

A campaign of war whether by independent groups, or the state, may be overall justified, but there will always be mistakes made and questionable instances that the opposing side and press will be able to utilize to demonize the other as terrorists.

We'd be better off doing away with such simple, generalized terms. Attack groups and ideologies on specific, exact grounds, rather than a broad, meaningless label of 'terrorist'.

Of course, you've raised the point before that the government needs simple ideologies to motivate and inspire the people, and this is fair. I just wish politics could work on a more complex level, we could rise above dumb labels like 'terrorist'. Especially on a website like BOS.

Alas the people are simple.

I'm saying that if the judicial system is directed towards protecting the individual against executive power, and is acting broadly within norms of international humanitarian law, then there can be no valid dispute over justice. I dont see the media as having any relevant role in this process of determining valid and invalid action against state policy. It's a purely judicial function in a nation of law

 

[Graney]

If an anti-state group is willing to use violence against civilians to topple a regime, then their ideology is automatically invalidated, by the simple fact that any group who is willing to attack civilians will be little better than the current government, no matter how corrupt the incumbent is. "Violence begets violence".

Absolutely, violence against civilians is always to be condemned. This is exactly what I'm referring to, the exact grounds of why an action is unjust need to be attacked.

Terrorism does not necessarily mean violence against civilians. As I stated, an attack on government, political or military forces by independent forces would be labeled terrorism. Individuals fighting against a tyrannous state may be morally justified. It depends on their means and their ends.

It can never be as simple as the evil 'terrorist' vs moral state dichotomy tries to reduce it to.

Groups should be judged on their specific actions. The sanctity of life is all important. The label of terrorism is simply being used to obfuscate and demonize individual groups. It's a very convenient label for governments to make people hate their liberators. There's nothing authoritarian regimes hate more than the idea of independent groups having the power to challenge their authority. If they can make the people suspicious of, and even hate anyone who would act independent of government and protest, with an emotive label like 'terrorist', they've already achieved a huge victory and made it very difficult for anyone to seriously begin to challenge their actions.

Regardless, when governments wage war, they're hardly always saints in the preservation of civilian lives...