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

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.