On the Nature of Crime vs War - An Open Discussion on Terrorism and Censorship

Dude, Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately you’re just parroting back nothing more than left wing strawman rhetoric. The true history of the evolution of modern day terrorism goes much deeper than “We bombed them first so it’s our fault and they are justified in their criminal acts of war. After all we deserve it.”

Historically Islamic empires had controlled the areas of North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia for more than a thousand years. That is up until the fall of the last great Islamic empire, the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed after WWI. During the time of the decline of the Ottoman Empire over the last 2 centuries European nations added much of the heavily Islamic areas of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia to their empires, known as the “period of colonialism”. Finally after WWI they carved up most of the remaining parts of the old Ottoman Empire. But after WWII much of this region once again gained independence. However, almost all the new leaders who emerged in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt chose to follow a secular model of government. Many adopted European or American legal systems and other Western ways, forcing Islamic law and culture into the background.

Unfortunately Islamic groups began to form within these new States that generally wanted to reform that states to ones based on Islamic fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith. They believe that government based on Sharia, or Islamic law, is superior to any government based on secular laws, democracy in which multiple political views are represented, or any religion other than fundamentalist Islam. These groups view themselves as following in the footsteps of Muhammad who in 622 had to flee from Mecca with a small band of followers only to return a several years later with an army of followers to conquer Mecca. Terrorist groups often see themselves as small bands that will similarly lead Islam to victory even though most Muslims believe that terrorist tactics run against the basic teachings of Islam. The Koran set strict rules against suicide and killing women, children, and old people in battle.

The United States was only loosely associated with any of this in the fact that secular states similar to the one the US had were setup in these new nations. Then In 1948, the United Nations, with the strong financial, political and armament support of the United States, partitioned the land then called Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The surrounding Arab countries rejected this partition, which they viewed as another case of European colonialism, with Jews displacing Arabs. The surrounding Arab countries attacked Israel, but Israel defended its new borders and even gained territory. The military failures of the Arab states showed that they were too weak to overcome Israel, which was far more advanced economically and militarily. The first terrorist groups began to emerge in organizations like the PLO. Instead of using traditional Guerilla tactics against military targets they decided to begin a campaign of terrorism against civilian Israeli populations using tactics like kidnappings, shootings, bombings, and hijackings.

This constant struggle back and forth between Arabs and the new Israeli State has gone on for decades but keep in mind that during this time the US never had a “boot on the ground” nor dropped a single bomb. But that did not hinder the perception of these groups that US support of Israel and other “secular” Arab states like Iran was enough to make us the enemy. Fundamentalist Muslims viewed the shah of Iran as a despot who had been put in power by the United States and Great Britain. They saw him as a traitor to Islam and in 1979 a revolution in Iran overthrew him and a Muslim state was created with the state leader also being the supreme religious leader. During the turmoil that took place during the revolution, radical Muslim students seized the U.S. embassy and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Iran became the central source for arming and financing radical Islamist terrorist groups in a new war against the west which began with a bombing in Beruit that killed 241 U.S. Marines, sailors, and soldiers who were there as part of a multinational force deployed to supervise the evacuation of PLO forces after an Israeli siege on the city of Beruit that was enacted by Israel to stop the constant attacks on Israeli civilian populations from PLO forces operating from within Lebanon.

During these years, the Soviets also invaded Afghanistan in order to help Afghan communists who had seized power. Muslims from around the world called for a jihad in defense of Islam, to free the Muslim country from the invaders. Thousands from many countries volunteered to be mujahedeen, holy warriors. Saudi-funded religious schools in neighboring Pakistan produced many volunteers for the jihad. Much of this was funded by the CIA who contributed more than $3 billion, supplied more than 1,000 small, portable Stinger missiles (for shooting down helicopters and low-flying airplanes), and trained the mujahedeen.

One of the Saudi volunteers was 25-year-old Osama bin Laden. For the Afghan jihad, he raised money through his family connections, set up training camps, and commanded mujahedeen in battle against the Soviets. He also organized his fighters into a network that became known as Al Qaeda (“the base”). After the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Afghanistan in 1989, Bin Laden returned home to Saudi Arabia as a hero. Then in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. Fearing that Iraq would next invade Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden offered to bring in mujahedeen to help defend the nation. Instead, Saudi King Fahd decided to rely on American military forces leading a multinational coalition to defeat Iraq. He allowed the US to set up bases in the Muslim holy land. The stationing of non-Muslim troops on Saudi Arabia’s holy soil transformed Bin Laden into an outspoken enemy of the Saudi ruling family and its American defenders.

The rest is more current recent history that most of us have lived. Needless to say the tense relations that western countries have had with Arab nations is much more complex and intricate than “we just dropped a bomb and started a holy war”. The US has always had the best intentions in its actions to support its allies and promote freedom and prosperity for all humanity and I for one find this self-deprecating attitude that “we deserve what we get” completely untenable.

I guarantee you, no strawman was used. The themes I brought up are of central importance to the ethics of this topic. And I do fundamentally believe that the topic of war is inseparable from ethical debate. The core of ethics is understanding the rules by which we decide the moral status of an action. I simply find war to be absolutely disgusting and a complete moral abomination. And my reasoning has been made clear, as far as I'm concerned. I await rebuttal. Don't tell me that your morals are superior. If they genuinely are, you can prove it. But as of right now I've seen assertions, not arguments. Very well, here is my argument clearly laid out.
I have never seen any good evidence to suggest an objective moral standard by which values of one culture can be compared to other cultures. Because I have not seen any such evidence, I reject the notion that you can automatically declare your ethics superior, especially given the depersonalization you brought up and the terrible and inexcusable acts of terrorism by your country, my country. Such acts of terrorism include the current drone strike program which is responsible for an extreme amount of civilian casualties. That is not justice, it isn't justified, and it has no excuse. Assuming that you wish to avoid hypocrisy, you've got to provide some reason as to why our drone strikes are perfectly okay.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

There's one example if you don't know what I'm talking about. If you want to see the real horror that the US has committed, check this one out.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/US-Caused-Civilian-Deaths-Versus-Toll-of-Terrorist-Attacks--20151115-0010.html

Now tell me exactly what you think an American would do if our innocent civilians were being slaughtered like that. Maybe among pacifists their response would be nonviolent. But as far as I can tell, our country is literally handing terrorists anti American propaganda as if it were a gift. And if we as a country were to be truly judged for our actions, like those listed above, maybe we would be seen as a terrorist organization. Are you not willing to admit that the US has committed actions just as bad as any terrorist attack?

As for your history, I'm sure it's accurate. I just don't see how it's relevant. Islam is not the problem or the subject of discussion. Do you honestly believe that the actions of the US are in no way connected to this problem right now, at this point in time? Do you honestly think that all of our actions are excusable and all of theirs come only from madness and a developmentally stunted ethical system which is objectively inferior to yours? And do you wholeheartedly believe that, if the situation were reversed, Americans wouldn't be outraged and begin committing violence?

Wow, that telesurtv article made my head hurt. It seems very biased and misrepresentative. Did it really say the US made the IS to create discord? Ouch... if everyone went around believing articles like that then I could understand why they might think they hate the US.

The vast majority of the civilian causalities in Iraq et al is not from US action directly AFAIK, but from Islamic terrorism within those nations during US operations (often targeted specifically at civilians to destabilize progress by the US forces). It also seems to ignore the reason the US foreign policy even existed in the Mid East, most often (if not always?) agreed upon by the host nation in an effort to counter Soviet expansion during the Cold War. Western conduct of military operations is driven by intelligence activity to be as lawful as possible given the circumstances, and is why the US spends so much on research and development in the area of military systems to ensure better capabilities to have better intelligence and more discriminate capabilities to deal with problems more efficiently. Despite the fear of war mongering, the idea of both diplomacy and military activities is to avoid having to fight or be able to have the smaller fight instead of the bigger fight.

But IS is not anti-US, it is anti-anything not IS. The anti-US narrative was AQ, which as stated earlier was disproven to the Mid East populations in a large extent by the US actions in Iraq (restore self rule and leave) which led to the Arab Spring democracy movement, which unfortunately was not supported internationally within Syria which then led to the creation of the IS. So yea sure a hands off approach absolves a country from having involvement, but it might not make it the best course of action for all involved; and a hands on approach does not make them responsible either. It's more complicated then that article makes it out.

Dude,
I agree that ethics should always take a role when it comes to war. However your repulsion to war has no bearing on the fact that it always has been and will continue to be a necessary part of our existence. We are creatures of emotion and because of that we are capable of both great good and great evil. It is this facet of our reality that directs the idea that there will always be times when we will need to fight either for ourselves, our way of life of for those that can’t fight for themselves.

Beyond that I’m actually disappointed in your rebuttal for the most part. You have either missed the point of my comments or are deliberately using misdirection and deflection to cloud the issue. I have NEVER once said I “can automatically declare my ethics superior over any other culture”. If fact I believe just as you do that I cannot do that, in fact that no one can do that. I also have NEVER stated that I feel Drone strikes are ok. In fact I do not. I don’t think the Air Force can find its ass with both hands most times but that’s just me.

While I see their value in certain situations I think the way we are using drone strikes in a wholesale fashion in the Middle East is a horrible way to wage war. It leaves us in an uncertain state casualty wise and allows the potential to just keep the war going on forever. Contrary to what you may believe I am not a war monger and I don’t like war any more than you do. I have seen it first hand and believe me it is something that I would never wish any anyone else ever!

In fact it is not people like me that are escalating and defending the Drone Strikes. It is the Obama Administration!! He pulled the troops out too early and didn’t allow them to finish the job they had started and now he is trying to cover his mistakes. A quote from your very own article.

Under the Obama administration, many of these targeted killings have been carried out using unmanned drones. Despite the high number of civilian casualties and criticism that the program lacks transparency, President Barack Obama has repeatedly defended the strikes.

I think reports of the casualties in drone strikes varies wildly from source to source but your second source is just way off base. Its to be expected from a controversial left wing source such as telesurtv.

In fact what I have said about my moral standing is not that I have the ability to judge other societies in a wholesale fashion like the Arab nations. I do not agree with some of their ways but that’s ok. They are just not my ways. I have no place to tell them they are wrong. What I do have the ability to morally judge, though, is those few radical groups inside Islam (or any other large group for that matter) that employ genocide, bigotry, hate, terror, racism and misogyny as a way of life and typically use violence and oppression against innocent bystanders and civilians to further their agenda. I hope you don’t mean to tell me that you would stand by as another man raped a woman in front of you and do nothing because, after all his ways are not your ways and you have no ability to judge your moral standing against his? I need no more proof than that of one’s ability to judge specific actions of others or justify my intervention in morally deplorable acts against others.

TheDude wrote: Now tell me exactly what you think an American would do if our innocent civilians were being slaughtered like that.

Uhh, in case you haven’t noticed Innocent American Civilians ARE being slaughtered like that!!! I don’t see them rising up in vigilante groups and attacking Muslims in the streets or kidnapping innocent tourists and cutting off their heads of flying to Arab nations and overtaking planes and crashing them into State Buildings. Instead they are looking to other solutions to solve the issue. Some want military solutions and others want more peaceful or diplomatic solutions like you may be speaking of. But the one thing Americans are NOT doing is running rampant in the streets taking over cities and killing innocent civilians or blowing themselves up in the name of American retribution to Arab aggression.

Are you now going to try and restate “Well, we started it” right? Don’t bother, Please reread my previous post. And I’m not saying that we have not committed actions that have been questionable. The drone strikes I talk about above are an example. But what I am saying is that much of what we have done in those nations has been either in support of our allies or at the request of those nations themselves. It is not the Arab states that are the issue, it is the radical extremist few that use hate as a way of life and oppression and violence as a means to an end. It’s the hate and oppression and violence against other human beings that needs to stop, not the eradication of Islam or any Islamic states. I just want to make that perfectly clear once again.

Senan wrote: If they are in fact a sub-culture with organized leadership command structure, agreed upon tenets, cohesive and specific objectives and a unified goal of creating their caliphate (I have no evidence to believe otherwise), why would we consider them any less capable of checking and balancing their behavior the way Americans do?

Senan, all i can say is to please, if you havent already, please read the news reports and the testimonials from escapees and surviving victims

there is no reason to believe that they will check themselves, because they arent checking themselves

this is not so much towards you Senan, but in general i feel like people are ignoring the facts of what daesh is doing

it seems to me as if my using the words "rape" and "murder" as evidence of wrongdoing is somehow more distasteful to some people than the actual rape and murder; like me calling it wrong is more offensive to some than the fact that it is happening

im not talking about muslims or iraqis or afghans or arabs or even "terrorists"
i am talking about one specific group of people who call themselves the islamic state, and the specific religious leader (lunatic) who has set himself up as caliph and changed his name to abu bakr
which would be like someone taking the name paul of tarsus, or moses, and forming a religious death cult around himself and his interpretation of the Bible or the Torah



and there are quite a lot of sources offering quite a lot of examples of their brutality

Senan wrote: Perhaps raping and murdering people is acceptable in their culture now, but the culture will eventually mature the way American culture has? Could they not be held to the same standard that we are when it comes to allowing people to agree upon what is and isn't legal/ethical/moral within their culture and time? And if so, do we have the right to impose our rule of law on a sub-culture clearly capable of establishing their own just because we disagree with it?

by this line of reasoning, every murderer and every rapist everywhere should be allowed to rape and murder until they mature to the point they no longer want to rape and murder

if this principle logically applies to a culture who is reaching out and attacking other cultures which are near to it, why wouldnt it also apply to an individual who roams around his or her city attacking other individuals?

and by extension to all individuals who do such?

its basically suggesting the that the "rights" of the criminals to figure out how to be decent people on their own are more important than the rights of the victims to not be raped and tortured and murdered

Senan wrote: I ask because if they are bent on rape and murder (which I agree many seem to be), who among them decides whom you can rape or murder and whom you can't? I know that Sharia law comes into play, and if that's the ethical system they choose to use and they all agree, are they all wrong?

yes, they are all wrong; every single on of them
and everyone else who says its ok to rape and murder entire villages of helpless people is wrong, regardless of their nationality or their cultural upbringing

might i be equally wrong if i had lived their life?
very possible
does that mean it isnt really wrong?
no

Senan wrote: Those they murder would likely say they are wrong, but it is up to those people to defend their own culture, society and ethical system.

if i understand the point being made here, it is that it is the responsibility of victims to prevent themselves from being victimized?

if that is the point in the above statement, would you like to live with this line of reasoning applied to your own society?
to your own family and your own neighborhood?

Senan wrote: I guess I just get very confused by the Catch 22 of recognizing daesh as an organized and cohesive culture with defined leadership while at the same time claiming they are incapable of developing ethical or moral behavior that works for them.

they have; their ethical system is that everyone who doesnt submit to their caliphate is an infidel and deserves to be killed or enslaved

by all accounts, thats their ethical system

Senan wrote: Clearly they believe that they are righteous in this quest. It just seems that their morality and ethics do not mesh well with their neighbors. At some point we can step in to defend those neighbor nations who ask for our help, but what of those who do not want American involvement or consider us an enemy as well?

this really does take us into area beyond what is politically practical: imo genocide is a situation where the USA should definitely be willing to play "world police"

theres a long list of genocides around the world in which we could have made a great deal of difference, but we didnt because we didnt have a direct vested interest

i would make the case that we should interfere simply because its the right thing to do, but thats not a position which the decision makers are buying, up to this point

HOWEVER, daesh has openly declared that america and the west are its enemies and it is active in efforts to cause our citizens harm

does anyone reading feel that to be up for debate?

Senan wrote: What comes to those loyal to daesh who desire to live in this new caliphate under their chosen ethical system? Would they not all end up fighting among themselves, raping and murdering each other?

you mean after theyve wiped out all of their neighbors, and all of their rivals, (which includes us) and the only ones left to devour are themselves?

maybe, but thats a lot of dead people to get through before we see it, and we happen to be some of those people

Kyrin,
I don't believe that to be the case. Not only has war in general been on decline in recent history, but some nations -- not small, insignificant nations, but economically important ones -- operate entirely without their own military. There's a reason why the current fight is against relatively small extremist groups. And both Al Qaeda and ISIS are relatively small, compared to the nations we've fought alongside and against in the past. I reject the notion that war is inherent based on the current trends toward pacifism that we see many nations taking part in. In terms of countries actually going to war with each other, it's not exactly happening at an alarming rate. For the most part, countries have learned to respect each others' borders. The very fact that this thread exists shows that the military engagements we're involved in right now may not even fit into the definition of war, or at least certainly not well enough for there to be clear agreement on the subject. If we continue to operate in this way, world peace is a VERY viable option and more than that, given the economic dependence between countries in the global marketplace and world economy, I'd say that world peace is not only viable but highly likely within my lifetime (world peace I'd define as a period without military conflict between nations).

Yes, American citizens are getting slaughtered. But that's by other Americans. Not foreign invaders. There may have been a few cases of foreigners committing mass shootings in America, but last year -- when there were more mass shootings on record than there are days in a year -- I'm pretty sure all of it (but am absolutely sure that the VAST majority of it) was done by US citizens (within the US). There isn't exactly a central figure, organization, or group for the American people to rally against. Besides their own government. But given the history of authoritarian culture here in America, I doubt we'll see any revolution happen any time soon. According to what I can find, less than 10,000 American soldiers died in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. As of December 23, 2015, 12,942 American citizens died in the US due to gun violence. That's one year compared to the entire duration of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Am I really supposed to worry about a terrorist threat when a week of gun violence in the US kills more people than a terrorist attack?

Please don't attempt to strawman me by using examples such as someone raping someone else. I believe my position on self defense and justified aid to assist others in their own self-defense was made clear. My argument was never that "we started it", my argument is that our actions in the middle east have contributed to anti-American propaganda and anti-Westernism, which contribute to terrorism. By committing terrible actions, we create enemies. It doesn't matter who started it. Who started it has never been of any importance to me -- two wrongs don't make a right. I'm only saying that we contributed, and that it's easy to see that contribution. Our country bears moral responsibility for that, and we as citizens of this country who literally hand our money to politicians who commit these actions are also morally responsible for the actions of our country. Those drone strikes wouldn't have happened if the American people refused to allow them to happen.


Adder,
I picked the article mainly to demonstrate that the conclusion of the US's responsibility is one that's easy to reach. Its bias is what I'm trying to demonstrate. But the author of that article likely wasn't personally affected by the actions of the US like some others who might have been driven to join organizations such as Al Qaeda as a result of their experience combined with propaganda from those kinds of organizations. I don't mean specifically anti-American propaganda, though that surely is plentiful, but general anti-Western, anti-non-radical-Islam propaganda seems like an inevitable result of some of our actions in the middle east.
I believe this is a far better paper from Princeton:
https://www.princeton.edu/~ppns/papers/robichaudAAwithappend.pdf

My point is perhaps more eloquently made on the second page, and since it's 52 pages long I'll just quote the bit I wanted to point out below.

Within the existing empirical limitations, we will assert some basic observations:
a) In the past six years, the period covered by the Pew data set, there has been a
rise in reported anti-American sentiment around the world, especially in Europe
and the Middle East.
b) In the past seven years, the period covered by the RAND-MIPT data set, there
has been a rise in terrorist violence in the greater Middle East.
c) The relationship between these two factors is complex and difficult to measure,
but some correlation is likely.
d) Facilitating conditions are key in translating anti-Americanism into antiAmerican
violence.
e) A large part of both the rise in violence and the rise in reported antiAmericanism
is explained by factors related to Iraq: the decision to invade, the
war, and the ongoing occupation.
f) Antagonism toward America constitutes a major impediment to suppressing the
Iraq insurgency.
g) Three other factors also contribute to these trends: the demonstration effect of
9/11, the intifada, and the “Global War on Terror.”

In the France thread I wrote a half-decent reply, but this thread kinda seems to be covering the same topic.

In my opinion, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George H.W Bush and the rest of them deserve to be the prime targets, not ISIS. Remember that the United States intervention in Afghanistan in the 70's led to ISIS and Al-Quaeda. These men have committed more crimes than ISIS. These men have spilt more blood than ISIS. It is wrong that we are led by men like these. Puppets of corporate America. Thank you.

Silas Mercury wrote: In my opinion, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George H.W Bush and the rest of them deserve to be the prime targets, not ISIS. Remember that the United States intervention in Afghanistan in the 70's led to ISIS and Al-Quaeda. These men have committed more crimes than ISIS. These men have spilt more blood than ISIS. It is wrong that we are led by men like these. Puppets of corporate America. Thank you.

No I don't remember that. You can't just make sweeping statements without backing them up with any real facts and expect anyone to actually buy it. Try again with some real facts next time. And please no liberalist VOX videos. Instead I would like to hear some honest, well thought out commentary, not the avocation of violence against our nations leaders thinly veiled in leftist rants.

Dude,

I would concede that war may be on the decline. In fact I have never said it’s on the increase but I think the reason some nations, (Japan for example) do not have strong militaries is because they are protected by other countries that do have strong militaries. Even with that being the case, the fact that North Korea seems to be testing the waters with Japan is a sign that the show of deterrence will last only so long before force will have to be enacted. What I am saying is that we are a LONG way from any state of world peace if we can ever really achieve that. Just as you, I would love to see our planet in that state. However realistically speaking I just don’t think we will ever fully get there. Many conflicts are not between nations but between factions of a single nation in civil wars or even racial like black/white conflicts or classes of people like the current Blacks vs cops conflicts going on or even civil like the “War on Drugs” that has killed countless numbers. Here is just one list of current armed conflicts going on in the world. It’s actually quite staggering to look at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

I don’t want to see the increase in armed conflict any more than you and I would love to see world peace. But conflict is always going to be a part of who we are. Conventional wars are but a fraction of they types of conflict we experience as a species. We as individuals and societies and tribes and races are ALWAYS going to have disagreements and because we are creatures of great passion and emotion, sometimes those disagreements will erupt into violence. I’m just a realist that believes we as imperfect, emotional beings should always strive for peace but will never fully achieve it. But it’s not the goal that’s as important as the journey. Basically meaning we should never give up the pursuit of peace. We will just have to achieve that through conflict at times.

As well, you are right that Americans are being slaughtered by other Americans but that has no bearing on the fact that they are also being slaughtered by Terrorists. The World Trade Center attack alone killed 3000 and injured 6000 more. More people died there than in the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese in WWII. ISIS is running rampant across the globe right now killing without regard to anything outside their narrow view of the world. Look at this list of ISIS led attacks in 2016 alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL#2016

Many, many Americans have been killed in any number of these attacks!! The numbers are staggering and I for one am ready to visit fire on fire and end it. These people know no other way than violence and it will take violent means to stop them. And it is sad to say but this is something that will never be totally eradicated in us as a species. There will always be conflict and there will always be a path to save more lives through violent means to end that conflict than through peaceful ones.

And yes, specific actions on our part may have created some enemies. But lets be fair, actions on their part also creates enemies. As well reactions on both sides can create enemies. How you handle yourself in the face of conflict speaks a great deal as well. Did those that felt attacked or mistreated ever even try to use peaceful means to resolve an issue or did they immediately jump to violence? In that violence did they only attack military targets or did they go after innocent civilians in terror campaigns designed to inflict more fear and hatred and violence on a global scale?

Actions on our part were never designed to create enemies or invite violence. Its not like we went over there and said "Well fuck you, were gonna do what we want". Our actions over the years were measured ones in support of allies or those that we felt were in the best interest off all nations involved. And yes that can be a subjective thing and hind site is 2020 but that does not mean we went over there as warmongers looking for a fight like many try to depict us as.

Do you feel that we should not have supported the United Nations in the creation of the state of Israel?
Do you feel that we should not have supported the Afghan fighters in the war against Russia?
Do you feel that we should not have supported our ally Saudia Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

These are the events that have so pissed of a few radical extremist's so much they have left normal lives and formed into militant terrorist bands and now roam the world indiscriminately killing anyone who does not believe as they do.

Kyrin,
I don't think current armed conflicts are necessarily representative of the future, just as the wars of our past are not representative of the current day and age. Consider the world 200 years ago. Actual wars, countries being invaded, mass death and hysteria, were common occurrences. Now, they are not. The existing conflicts in comparison to the issues of the past are small. I have every reason to suspect, based on that trend, that we will continue to shrink conflicts and there will eventually be only a few, if any, armed conflicts in the world.
Let's not forget that despite the news media, when it comes to flat numbers we are currently living in the most peaceful period in human history. Your opinion seems to be that progress is an impossibility; you assert that war has always been, and so it must always be. I think that's just a clear example of an appeal to tradition fallacy.

As for the list of ISIS lead attacks, I don't see a single one listed as taking place on American soil. In 2015, the total death toll of ISIS lead attacks is 1020. That's only a tiny fraction of the amount of Americans killed by other Americans due to gun violence, and it doesn't only list Americans. In reality, Americans are likely the smallest group being killed by ISIS members currently, if the attacks listed on this page are any indication of their actions. It's simply a fact that Americans killing each other is a bigger issue than terrorists killing Americans. The numbers prove that Americans are a bigger threat to each other than ISIS is a threat to America.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/americans-killed-gun-violence-vs-terrorism-n437246

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 153,144 people were killed by homicide in which firearms were used between 2001 and 2013, the last year that data are available (that number excludes deaths by "legal intervention").
The Global Terrorism Database — which uses a criteria to determine terrorist attacks but also includes acts of violence that are more ambiguous in goal — estimates that 3,046 people in the U.S. died in terrorist or possible terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2014."

153,144 vs 3,046. Let that sink in. Which is more of a threat? Which needs to be solved first? I'd say gun violence is by far a greater issue than terrorist attacks. About 50 times greater, in fact.

I wholeheartedly support self-defense. Fact is, ISIS hasn't attacked America. We have every reason to provide aid to those ISIS does attack in order to aid them in their self-defense. But that isn't war. Self-defense against insurgency groups is not war. I do not support any war. I do not support the US's action in Iraq, nor do I support a war on drugs, nor do I support anyone killing police, nor do I support anyone killing civilians.
None of their actions serve to justify any of our actions. If they attack civilians, it does not excuse us attacking civilians. I wholeheartedly support defending ourselves and making sure that terrorist attacks do not occur on our soil. Individual mass shooters are terrorists, too. Their alliance to a terrorist organization, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant.

I do not support the current actions of Israel, nor do I think its creation was necessary. Indeed, I think its creation has only lead to more conflict.
I don't know much about the Soviet-Afghan war. I think it had to do with Soviets invading Afghanistan, in which case I would categorize helping the Afghan government as aid in self-defense. In which case, it is perfectly morally justifiable. The same goes for any invasion.
And yet these actions are not really equatable to things like the US drone strikes. That's not sending in people to aid in a country's self-defense. That's senseless and brutal slaughtering of innocent human beings.

You bring up intention. I don't think intention has anything to do with anything. The only thing that matters when it comes to action is the consequence of that action, both the intended and unintended consequences. If we unintentionally committed actions which lead to the rise of ISIS, we bear responsibility. I think it's really as simple as that. Intention has nothing at all to do with how an action should be morally judged, if it should be morally judged at all.

Was it necessary for the Soviets to invade Afghanistan? Was it necessary for America to invade Iraq? I think the answer to both questions is no. Both of those were acts of war. Not self-defense. War is a crime against humanity, a crime against nature. Self-defense is simply correcting a wrong that has been done.

Rex wrote: In the France thread I wrote a half-decent reply, but this thread kinda seems to be covering the same topic.

Warning: Spoiler!

Rex wrote: This thread tends to revolve around two big topics: what is terrorism and why does terrorism exist.
I actually wrote a thesis on just war in Abrahamic and Hindu worldviews, and did a lot of research for that, so I'll mostly parrot myself a few years ago. If anyone wants a copy, pm me.

Terrorism is use of violence as a coercive measure to achieve sociopolitical or religious ends. State-sponsored terrorism is a war crime, but otherwise terrorism is by non-state persons who actually aren't given combatant status and thus have no claim to protected combatant rights from conventions like Geneva IV (concept of distinction). State-sponsored terrorism is jus ad bellum i.e. Iraq 2002. There is such a thing as just war, and even though the doves here might think the concept is oxymoronic, it has saved many innocent lives when applied.
Terrorism constitutes a grave breach of just war. All party nations are responsible for bringing terrorists to justice, and in cases of lacking cooperation, multinational interventions have been undertaken to dismantle institutionalised terrorism (think Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocide). Thus, while the US tends to take the role as the world's police, they are simply acting in an intervention capacity as long as they have probable cause of just one terrorist's residence in any area. If the host countries took care of themselves, an international presence wouldn't be required.

Terrorism is simply asymetric warfare from 3rd generation tactics taken to a new level of non-statehood. In war, infiltration and attack against enemy combatants are protected; terrorism simply removes the combatant status of both the perpetrator and/or target. Partisan warfare, guerilla campaign, and terrorism all represent the same concept. World War II saw the birth of terrorism, as states on both sides armed non-uniformed combatants to attack from within (most commonly in France and the Ukraine). The entire Vietnam war was largely a US-based antiterrorism campaign which taught a valuable lesson in control.
Modern Islamic terrorism stems from the US-sponsored Mujahideen in the 1980s Afghanistan. Once the Soviets were withdrawn after a Russian version of Vietnam, the Mujahideen got bored and proliferated the captured Russian and CIA-supplied arms throughout the Middle East. The Taliban were a direct result of the Afghan power vacuum after the Soviet withdrawl, and Osama Bin Laden was a Mujahid financer. Ultimately, terrorist groups are very shakily organised, since when large enough, they tend to attract attention and are quickly pruned back.
The heavy fecundity (and short life expectancy) of Middle Eastern, African, and Asiastic Islamic nations tend to encourage a medieval mindset of "Oh screw it, I'm gonna die at 28, so I might as well take a shot at getting hella [heaven/virgins] and driving out the [heretics/infidels] from [insert area]." This is why warhawks tend to take the agent orange approach and cut the jihadis at the bud, while doves encourage education and other methods to decrease births and increase life expectancy (ultimately going for western assimilation). Homegrown terrorism is just the result of Western ennui.

I've been disappointed by the pacifists in this thread. You can't just throw nirvana fallacies at conflict without at least offering an idea to solve the problem. For all my personal peace, I sure haven't stopped any ISIS attacks.
Please correct me if I made any mistakes.

I don't have much time on the weekend but I thought I'd quickly add my opinion to your post, to offer a different view.

Asymmetric warfare can be conducted legally IMO. To me asymmetric is when a smaller force uses techniques or tactics (or equipment) to conduct warfighting against a larger force. In practical terms larger generally means more capable, but in a different way which is where the asymmetric attack tries to leverage its advantage. So asymmetric warfare then, again to me, cannot be about targeting civilians firstly because the civilians are vulnerable and therefore 'smaller' in this context, and secondly because as I defined it war (legal war) cannot target civilians IMO. So then asymmetrical warfare still remains within my definition of the word 'war', in regards to legal war, as dictated by target type. The recent event in Munich for example, seems to be a crime (murder etc) because the murderer was fascinated with mass murders not religion or politics seemingly, but because its scope not being strategic in scale means it doesn't fall within that type of crime called terrorism. So for me, terrorism is just a crime with strategic scope, a category of crime not war, and as said not part of legal war and not even asymmetric in the terms I use asymmetric warfare. This then fits with with my use of terms such as insurgency and rebellion etc, at that strategic 'state' level which would be asymmetric warfare because they would be legal war using asymmetric violence.

That is just how I see it. I tend not to follow others definitions unless I agree with them or I'm paid to do so

I completely agree, I briefly mention 3rd gen tactics (asymmetric warfare) in the 3rd paragraph. That is completely legal. But both the aggressor and target must be protected combatants in a war for it to be legal. Otherwise it's terrorism.
I think I agree with you, the problem is that the underappreciated clarity of state entities in combat has become fuzzy. In pseudowars like the Bosnian War in the 90s, very few of the combatants were protected by the conventions, so the verity of a "noncombatant"'s status was always questionable.
Terrorism is again just the use of violence as a tool towards sociopolitical or religious means (often a mix). Government entities and civilians can both be the perpetrators and victims of it.

In my opinion, if the Jedi love humanity we should lean to the left as much as we can.

Dude,
We don’t see as much outright armed conflict in the world because the nature of war is changing today just as much as it had changed in this nations infancy when lines of men firing at each other was replaced with armies using cover and fire and maneuver tactics or Viet Nam where Guerilla warfare tactics were very successfully used. The face of war is just changing.

I appreciate your position and I commend your values. But have you really thought about your stance? What exactly is “World Peace”? How do you define it? Is it by the size of the armies involved? Is it just a state of conflict between nations?

What happens when we finally achieve this state of “World Peace” you think is coming? Do we just slap our hands together as if to clean them and say “Well that’s done”. What is there to keep that state of peace in place? How do you make people or nations or societies maintain that peace? We may be in a decline right now as you say, but I think that mankind exists in a cyclic nature and our state of “Peace” is no exception. I think we are a low point in that cycle but it will cycle up again like the ebb and flow of a tide but it will not continue downward indefinitely.

Do you know how many dictator nations are in existence today? If you scroll down through this list of regimes you will find military and civilian dictatorship after dictatorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes

What happens when some of these nations like North Korea or Iran gains nuclear capability. Do you think that North Korea does not want South Korea back or that Iran does not want to wipe the state of Israel off the face off the earth? Iran is one of the biggest sponsors of domestic terrorism in history and Obama just gave them nuclear freedom and a billion some odd dollars to develop it with. Do you think for one second that once they get that they will not hesitate to give it to terrorists to use against their enemies? If you do believe that you are incredibly naive I think.

Let’s get away from political conflict for a moment. What if there is an environmental disaster? A meteor strikes the earth or global warming causes massive droughts, leading to massive population migrations and the potential for violent conflict over the fight for resources. What happens when we venture into space and there are disputes over other worlds or entire populations come under oppression from corporations bent on making a profit? I know some of these may seem farfetched but these possibilities do exist. The point is that human emotion cannot be so easily set aside. Greed and hate and power, even the will to survive are all powerful driving forces in our psyche and men and women will fight. It is just in our nature. Because of that we must always maintain a vigilance and we as a nation must always maintain a strong military presence. As I state in my signature. Live for peace but prepare for war. It is the most practical way to live I think.

To me if even one man takes up arms against another we are not in a state of “World Peace”. If one child goes hungry or one mother can’t get clean water for her children or a nation of people are denied basic freedoms like speech because they are under the thumb of a dictator we are not in a state of “World Peace”. The term is a buzzword and it is an illusion. There is no such thing and there can be no such thing because it is a state of perfection that we will never achieve in this reality. Without conflict there can be no definition of peace to define it by. It’s a catch 22. We can strive for a “Better Peace” but never a perfect peace. Our reality is defined by conflict and suffering just as much as it is by Peace and Joy. We can never get rid of any of them completely.

To bring things back down to a more practical state, I’m glad you could honestly answer my questions about Israel and Afghanistan. Many would have avoided that and I appreciate your forthrightness. I don’t agree with your positions but I would defend your right to have them to the death. That’s what is so great about America. We are not a perfect nation and yes we do make mistakes but we enjoy the freedom to discuss issues like this openly and honestly and I for one am thankful for that. In the end I don’t feel that our actions were in any way responsible for the rise of ISIS any more than those of the United Nations or Saudi Arabia itself. These groups made decisions that they felt were in the best interests of their nations and their allies. It was at this point that Organizations like ISIS had a choice. The choice to either choose terror or diplomacy to fight what they felt were unjust actions.

Unfortunately they chose terror. That was not our fault, it was their choice. And as I stated above if even one man chooses terror or violence over diplomacy and compromise to resolve any conflict we are not in a state of World Peace. As long as that is the case I feel no remorse in deploying any means available up to and including deadly force to resolve that situation. That means individually or by military intervention. In the end, enacting that sort of action will save more lives than doing nothing or trying to negotiate with them. Brutal force can only be defeated by a greater force.

Kyrin,
The tactics of war have changed, yes, but I think even war has changed to become more pacifistic over time. Approximately 620,000 soldiers died in the American Civil War. Less than 1/10 of that many Americans have died since 9/11 at war. That is enough evidence, I think, along with the other things I've pointed out, to say that we are experiencing a trend towards world peace.
I recognize that crime will happen. As long as we live in a capitalistic society, I think there will be unfair social classes and barriers which makes crime an inevitability. But what I consider world peace is peace between nations, where the nations of the world either respect each others borders, or where all borders have been destroyed and we live under one central world government. Just because ISIS considers itself an "Islamic State" doesn't mean that they are a country or that they have a formal military in the traditional sense. They control lands and they have fighters, but a bunch of people with guns in comparison to the world militaries today -- it would be a joke to put them in the same category as the US, China, or Russia, who have the power to erase all life on the planet in the blink of an eye if they were so inclined.
As for dictators...
The presence of a dictator or monarch or emperor is not necessarily a bad thing. If, say, Bernie Sanders were declared to be dictator of the USA, I think we would be okay. I think things would improve in this country overall, and there would be no reason to be unhappy about living under that kind of dictatorship.
With that being said, I support democracy. Not this representative republic that we have, but true democracy. That doesn't mean I think that if we truly accept democracy that gives us the right to invade any country which hasn't and push our political agenda. That's what Vietnam was about. That disgusts me, fundamentally, and I see such actions and wars as nothing but a senseless waste of human life. The North Vietnamese Communist party was providing relief to Vietnam and helping their society grow after having suffered at the hands of the French. We just wanted to push our political agenda.
North Korea doesn't seem to care about the opinion of the international community and the UN. Iran does seem to care about it. I doubt Iran will hand a nuclear weapon to terrorists. If they did, they would be either economically destroyed due to the governments of the world refusing to do business with them, or they would be literally destroyed, likely by the US. I'm sure Iranian leaders understand that there are consequences to their actions. North Korea's leader might not.

I respect your opinion and would never support any limitation on free speech. But it doesn't seem like we're going to convince each other of much on this topic, so I'll end my post with a quote from the fiction which demonstrates my point of view.

"Ezra: Master Yoda, you're powerful. You must know a way to destroy Vader and his inquisitors.
Yoda: Padawan, thousands of Jedi once there were. Then came war. In our arrogance, joined the conflict swiftly we did. Fear, anger, hate. Consumed by the dark side, the Jedi were.
Ezra: Was it wrong for the Jedi to fight? Is it wrong for me to protect my friends?
Yoda: Wrong, hm. Long time fought, I did. Consumed by fear, I was. Forsee it I did not.
Ezra: You were afraid?
Yoda: Yes, afraid. Surprised, are you? A challenge lifelong it is not to bend fear into anger.
...
Ezra: Yeah but master Yoda, how are we supposed to win if we don't fight back?
Yoda: Win, hm. How Jedi choose to win, the question is."
- Star Wars Rebels: Shroud of Darkness

TheDude wrote: Kyrin,
The tactics of war have changed, yes, but I think even war has changed to become more pacifistic over time. Approximately 620,000 soldiers died in the American Civil War. Less than 1/10 of that many Americans have died since 9/11 at war. That is enough evidence, I think, along with the other things I've pointed out, to say that we are experiencing a trend towards world peace.

I personally think that the reduction in numbers killed only represents the fact that how war is waged has changed (missiles and air warfare as opposed to solely ground troops), not that it has become more pacifistic. I think by its own nature war cannot be pacifistic.

Edan wrote:

TheDude wrote: Kyrin,
The tactics of war have changed, yes, but I think even war has changed to become more pacifistic over time. Approximately 620,000 soldiers died in the American Civil War. Less than 1/10 of that many Americans have died since 9/11 at war. That is enough evidence, I think, along with the other things I've pointed out, to say that we are experiencing a trend towards world peace.

I personally think that the reduction in numbers killed only represents the fact that how war is waged has changed (missiles and air warfare as opposed to solely ground troops), not that it has become more pacifistic. I think by its own nature war cannot be pacifistic.

Ah, perhaps pacifistic was the wrong word. Rather, that there is a trend in war (for whatever particular reason) towards less overall casualties than there ever has been before, and I think that trend if analyzed by numbers alone represents an overall good change.

Dude,
I think you are right that we each have strong views and we will be hard pressed to convince the other to change his mind. However you have given me a great deal to think about and your comments have evolved my thoughts on the matter. Maybe not far enough to change my stance but far enough to want to further explore the intricacies of what World Peace actually Means. Im finding it an interesting subject.

I also find it quite fascinating that you would be willing to give up your independence by allowing the dictatorship of Sanders. That is one of the most dumbfounding things for me that has come out of this discussion. I on the other hand embrace the idea that i have to struggle and work and earn everything I have. I NEVER want anyone else, no individual or govt, to dictate to me what I am allowed to own or provide for my means in any fashion. Its so counter intuitive to me that anyone would want that. I would never be willing to put my future in the hands of another. Instead I would love to see us all work together to make a better future for all vs giving all that power over to a central authority and trust that they are going to "do the right thing".

But that is another discussion entirely isn't it LOL.

TheDude wrote: Ah, perhaps pacifistic was the wrong word. Rather, that there is a trend in war (for whatever particular reason) towards less overall casualties than there ever has been before, and I think that trend if analyzed by numbers alone represents an overall good change.

We cant define wars simply by casualty counts. What if sometime in the near future wars were totally fought with robots and there were no human casualties? Would you consider that to be a state of "world peace" even though there was armed conflict but no human death? I would hope not. You see World Peace is not about Death. Its about freedom and prosperity for all Humans, not just the lucky ones.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: We cant define wars simply by casualty counts. What if sometime in the near future wars were totally fought with robots and there were no human casualties? Would you consider that to be a state of "world peace" even though there was armed conflict but no human death? I would hope not. You see World Peace is not about Death. Its about freedom and prosperity for all Humans, not just the lucky ones.

I think in this case it wouldn't be a state of peace either, because nations would still not be respecting each others borders and there would still be a massive amount of civilian money being sunk into the act of war. But I think that would be preferable to sending in human beings to slaughter each other.
Interestingly enough, we do have humanoid robots right now that are capable of aiming and firing a gun! So maybe that isn't too far off in the future.

Unfortunately the government already controls everything in this country, dictatorship or not. They decide who can open a business and what that business can do. They demand tithes from all citizens. They tell us what we can and cannot own and what actions we can and cannot commit, even when those actions are harmless or victimless crimes. America does not have true freedom yet. But I don't think the presence of a dictator necessarily means a lack of freedom. I think it's entirely possible for a person to have control over a country, and to use that control to guarantee the freedom of that country's citizens. Unfortunately no such dictator has popped up yet, so I can't point towards a specific example. But I do think it's a possibility.

You've given me a lot to think about as well, thank you.