Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

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...

This is true, except for one thing.
When a rogue revolutionary group targets and attacks a military force it is not an act of terrorism. It is an act of war between two willing and able belligerents. If the partisan group believes that it can survive the resulting (and often overwhelming) military response, then that is their perogative.
Problems only occur with this scenario when either side starts delibrately targetting civilians or (more often) people whose position between the militants/military and the civilian populace is blurred, such as government officials or any democratic, pacifist offshoot of the revolutionary group. Other than this, however, then there is no reason why such a battle should not occur.

 

[Graney]

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 think there are common incidences around the world where the incumbent government and their judiciary is hugely unjust and corrupt. When these governments are challenged by independent groups, it's a matter for the international community and media to determine and present to the public who is the lesser of two evils. The corrupt government may argue that the actions of the 'terrorists' are not justified and in proportion to their own authoritarian actions 'which were totally justified in these times of political instability'.

You yourself have argued on past occasion that during difficult times in a nations history it may be necessary to compromise certain freedoms and to crack down on political dissent.

It may be in the interests of some states in the international community to overlook certain states violations of international law in other states they politically favor, and to side with a corrupt government in labeling their opponents 'terrorists'.

You make a valid point however. Where international law is working, actions against the state are not justified.

I just have a romantic fascination with the idea of our political leaders being under threat of murder at any time, for any reason or no reason. It probably wouldn't lead to the best outcomes politically, but the idea of a single citizen being able to remove a leader from power at any time, to completely upset the order, seems somehow fair and human. Nothing would thrill me more than if a PM, from either party, were killed.

Kill Rudd.

 

[Iron]

Obviously you cant force a group that deems it better to break from the all-powerful state - usually for their life - to engage that state's standing army fairly. Not even the American revolutionaries would do that. They will likely, progressively, do whatever needs to be done to further their aims. Sustained terrorism is usually very effective; it will always occur.

But I think that Graney is being pretty simplistic in his definition of 'civilian', just as he accuses others of being simplistic in their use of 'terrorist'. If youre part of a system openly repressing other civilians with brute force, then how innocent are you? What's the level of your guilt? What reasons could you have for not struggling against such evil? Terrorist activity may be, in some circs, helpful in jolting a populace out of its apathy and perhaps force them to hold their governmnet to account

 

[Graney]

This is true, except for one thing.
When a rogue revolutionary group targets and attacks a military force it is not an act of terrorism.

That may be your opinion, and it's a fair one, but that is not strictly true according to the definition of terrorism in most sources.

Terrorism is simply "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion."

Anything that spreads fear may be labeled as 'terrorist'. Greenpeace is a terrorist group, acting as they do in violation of law, spreading fear among their opponents etc.

Attacks upon military installations may be conceived as a 'terrorist' act. And so they would be, given how useful and emotive the label of terrorism is to the government. The twin towers are one thing, but is the attack upon the pentagon by the 9/11 hijackers any different to typical attacks upon national capitals, centers of defense and politics that always occur in wartime?

 

[moll.]

That may be your opinion, and it's a fair one, but that is not strictly true according to the definition of terrorism in most sources.

Terrorism is simply "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion."

Anything that spreads fear may be labeled as 'terrorist'. Greenpeace is a terrorist group, acting as they do in violation of law, spreading fear among their opponents etc.

Attacks upon military installations may be conceived as a 'terrorist' act. And so they would be, given how useful and emotive the label of terrorism is to the government. The twin towers are one thing, but is the attack upon the pentagon by the 9/11 hijackers any different to typical attacks upon national capitals, centers of defense and politics that always occur in wartime?

But by your own defintion then, almost every instance of war between two nation states throughout history has been an act of terrorism. Any psychopathic murderer or serial killer is a terrorist also. It is for this reason that I don't use that defintion. It leaves too many branches open.
Military installations are legitimate targets though. No rational nation state, even in times of war, delibrately targets civilians and civilian intallations and gets away with it in the modern world. That's why Dresden is seen as such a tragedy, why Hiroshima and Nagasaki received widespread condemnation and why the use of Agent Orange has been banned.

So glad I'm doing the Religion and Terror course at uni this semester. It answers discussions just like this one.

 

[Iron]

Lol, you cant pretend that Dresden was anything but terrorism. The whole Anglo-American bombing campaign of Germany was as dirty as all hell. They had operations where pilots were just scrambled all over their airspace with orders to attack anything that moved

 

[Graney]

But by your own defintion then

It's not my definition, it's the one recorded in dictionaries and official media

almost every instance of war between two nation states throughout history has been an act of terrorism. Any psychopathic murderer or serial killer is a terrorist also.

It could be labeled such, yes. You've heard the many protesters claiming "USA is the world's terrorist"?

That's not necessarily an inaccurate protest. The US is guilty of frequently violating international law to violent ends.

It is for this reason that I don't use that defintion.

Unfortunately, terrorism isn't defined as anything more complex than what I laid out. Words mean things, no more, no less, your will alone doesn't change the fact terrorism can mean just about anything.

 

[moll.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but buildings don't move. And it's highly impractical to target hoomans with a slow moving, heavy-ordanance propeller-engine plane.
And that was my point. By any technical defintion, it was terrorism. And as a result, it has received widespread condemnation from the international community and all of the belligerents have updated their strategic bombing methods to accomodate for, and to minimise, collateral damage.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

Iron, I have long determined that you are God's disciple on Earth. Can you inform Him, oh omniscient and omnipotent One, that I mean no disrespect when I go to the TAB on Good Friday? After all punting is my religion, and thus the TAB is my church.

kthxbai.

 

[moll.]

It's not my definition, it's the one recorded in dictionaries and official media


It could be labeled such, yes. You've heard the many protesters claiming "USA is the world's terrorist"?

That's not necessarily an inaccurate protest. The US is guilty of frequently violating international law to violent ends.


Unfortunately, terrorism isn't defined as anything more complex than what I laid out. Words mean things, no more, no less, your will alone doesn't change the fact terrorism can mean just about anything.

Meh.
I ain't going to be talking about terrorism as it is officially defined then.
I'm going to be talking about a violent act deliberately targetting civilians for the aim of advancing or bringing attention to a political movement.
Talking about the official defintion is far too broad for any sort of reasonable discussion.

 

[Graney]

I'm going to be talking about a violent act deliberately targetting civilians for the aim of advancing or bringing attention to a political movement.

Exactly, things just aren't so simple. Condemn murder. Condemn violence. In all circumstances.

Condemning terrorism is pointless, when it can be so many different things to different people.

 

[XPac2]

Christianity vs. Paganism

Which is better? Discuss!

 

[XPac2]

Someone must be there, but i cant believe in a divine being that still allows terrible things to happen to his children.

 

[Iron]

Tbh, it's impossible to define anything. It's all too complex. We should just withdraw into our selves, because that's the only thing we can define with any confidence. Advancing our own cause by any means necessary is the most logical thing to do

----------------------------------------------------->pomo flute

 

[Kwayera]

Re: Christianity vs. Paganism

They're both as nonsensical as each other.

You'll have to describe what aspect of "paganism" you're talking about here.

 

[XPac2]

Re: Christianity vs. Paganism

The whole religion of Paganism.The worship of gods such as venus and the belief in nature as a deity.

 

[gcchick]

Re: Christianity vs. Paganism

Worshipping and giving thanks to the earth for all that it provides is a thing of beauty. People now just don't appreciate all the things that nature gives us.

If I were to become a religious entity, I'd be pagan. No questions.

 

[Kwayera]

Re: Christianity vs. Paganism

The whole religion of Paganism.The worship of gods such as venus and the belief in nature as a deity.

Um. No.

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic")[1] is the blanket term given to describe religions and spiritual practices of pre-Christian Europe, and by extension a term for polytheistic traditions or folk religion worldwide seen from a Western or Christian viewpoint. The term has various different meanings, though, from a Western perspective, it has modern connotations of a faith that has polytheistic,[2] spiritualist, animistic or shamanic practices, such as a folk religion, historical polytheistic or neopagan religion.

The term has been defined broadly, to encompass all of the religions outside the Abrahamic monotheistic group of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[2] The group so defined includes most of the Eastern religions, Native American religions and mythologies, as well as non-Abrahamic ethnic religions in general. More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions. Characteristic of pagan traditions is the absence of proselytism and the presence of a living mythology which explains religious practice.

...

Since the later 20th century, "Pagan" or "Paganism" has become widely used as a self-designation by adherents of Neopaganism.[5] As such, various modern scholars have begun to apply the term to three separate groups of faiths: Historical Polytheism (such as Celtic polytheism and Norse paganism), Folk/ethnic/Indigenous religions (such as Chinese folk religion and African traditional religion), and Neo-paganism (such as Wicca and Germanic Neopaganism).

So no, Paganism != "worship of gods such as Venus and nature as a deity". Some aspects of paganistic thought match with that, but certainly not all of it.

 

[SashatheMan]

Re: Christianity vs. Paganism

What a silly thread.

 

[x.christina]

Re: Christianity vs. Paganism

The whole religion of Paganism.The worship of gods such as venus and the belief in nature as a deity.

Why don't you get your facts together to make the thread first?

Holy shit what a retarded thrad. I would insert token kill yourself xpac quote here but id get banned again.

Lulz.