Community Messageboard: You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. Joel Send a noteboard - 03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM

I'm replying to both of you, so I didn't know exactly where to put this

In the end, the "definition" of whether a jihadist is an insurgent/terrorist/guerilla warrior/super-late term abortion doctor doesn't really matter.

If a guy attacks a US convoy one day, and then the next day attacks an orphanage, his status doesn't really matter, does it? He's a bad guy that needs to be killed.

So to me, the whole definition debate is moot anyway.

Being a soldier for the other side doesn't automatically make someone a "bad guy. " Often it just makes him a guy, making the best of a bad situation. There are a lot of US servicemen who signed up on 911 to fight in Afghanistan but found themselves in Iraq wondering why; many don't want to be there but no one asked them. In the words of MacArthur, "I'm an American soldier: I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight. " That doesn't make him good, bad or indifferent, it makes him a soldier, and reducing everyone who opposes you on the battlefield to a "bad guy" means they're just as entitled to call you a "bad guy. " That doesn't mean you throw down your rifle and sing Kumbaya together; he'll blow your head off, in part because he's had everyone telling him what a bad guy you are, for years. It means you're both soldiers in a war, and soldiers kill each other in wars, often despite being good guys, not because of being bad ones.

The terrorist is a completely different animal. Literally. He's not thinking about getting home to his family, frequently he's not even concerned with staying alive, let alone achieving some murky mission objective. He's concerned with murdering out of hate; that's why he goes after people who are no threat to him, why the soldier recoils at shooting an unarmed infant and the terrorist drools over an easy target. It's why a POW known to have killed dozens can be released after a war but a terrorist who murders two or three needs to rot in jail. One of them is fighting, killing, because he's in a war (and, in other countries, often a conscript ) and his life expectancy is the same as yours if he just decides "killing is WRONG!" When it's all over he can probably, in time, become a functioning member of a civilized country. The terrorist is murdering because he LIKES it, and that's never over for him. The only safe place to put him, KEEP him, is a box, above ground or below it.

We're back to the same old thing: Equating bin Laden with Sgt. York is absurd, and insulting to the latter (among others. )

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

Reply to message

All Terrorists are Muslims… except the 94% that aren’t. Ghavrel - 01/02/2010 10:42:12 PM 1705 Views

I find that unsurprising. LadyLorraine - 01/02/2010 11:31:43 PM 399 Views

Lot of BS in there Isaac - 01/02/2010 11:33:08 PM 507 Views

I'm afraid I have to agree with this. Legolas - 01/02/2010 11:46:02 PM 462 Views

Well, no. Robbery accounts for a very small percentage of those attacks. Look at the chart. Ghavrel - 01/02/2010 11:50:39 PM 416 Views

I found the so-called Islamophobic reply... allow me to quote it in its entirety. Legolas - 01/02/2010 11:52:37 PM 438 Views

It's a valid complaint. *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:49:08 AM 178 Views

Whose complaint is valid? Legolas - 02/02/2010 01:55:58 AM 403 Views

Yours.

*NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 02:15:01 AM 175 Views

I did note the rampant bias.

Ghavrel - 01/02/2010 11:48:55 PM 515 Views

What about attacks on Iraqi police volunteers? beckstcw - 01/02/2010 11:53:58 PM 426 Views

it only included attacks on American soil *NM* random thoughts - 02/02/2010 02:03:16 PM 186 Views

Most of the Iraq violence isn't against the foreign occupier... Legolas - 01/02/2010 11:54:44 PM 433 Views

Ahem... /\ /\ /\ beckstcw - 01/02/2010 11:56:34 PM 465 Views

Dude, 46 seconds. I was typing it while you posted.

*NM* Legolas - 02/02/2010 12:05:44 AM 164 Views

True, but I was referring to attacks on US soldiers. Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 01:47:55 AM 408 Views

That's still a bad benchmark Isaac - 02/02/2010 10:00:23 AM 500 Views

You would be very wrong random thoughts - 02/02/2010 02:11:08 PM 460 Views

Um, since when is all Mid-East terrorism against foreign occupiers? Joel - 02/02/2010 12:33:13 AM 588 Views

I would agree with this. Cannoli - 02/02/2010 02:33:47 AM 503 Views

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Joel - 02/02/2010 04:10:13 AM 533 Views

This is the only problem I have with "definitions" beckstcw - 02/02/2010 04:51:00 AM 411 Views

You're conflating two types of fighters who shouldn't be, I believe. Joel - 03/02/2010 06:16:21 AM 402 Views

I think you missed the point. beckstcw - 05/02/2010 05:15:40 AM 407 Views

One of us did.

Joel - 05/02/2010 08:26:07 AM 580 Views

I'm not talking ETHICALLY or MORALLY beckstcw - 14/02/2010 06:41:32 PM 407 Views

I was, or at least speaking legally. Joel - 15/02/2010 06:54:50 AM 475 Views

Churchill's justification of bombings cited civilians as the targets, IIRC Cannoli - 03/02/2010 12:46:16 AM 602 Views

I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. Joel - 03/02/2010 04:23:44 AM 550 Views

Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. Cannoli - 05/02/2010 02:22:10 AM 751 Views

Re: I did say, "deliberately, " and for a reason. Joel - 15/02/2010 09:46:48 AM 558 Views

Lame. beckstcw - 01/02/2010 11:55:50 PM 396 Views

Demographics are the key, methinks. Joel - 02/02/2010 12:20:46 AM 519 Views

WTF? Are these people serious? Tom - 02/02/2010 02:19:05 AM 451 Views

Ah, good. I've driven you out of lurking. Now recommend me operas. *NM* Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 02:41:30 AM 170 Views

Huh? *NM* Tom - 02/02/2010 02:03:24 PM 177 Views

I made a survey on musicals and operas on the board! Ghavrel - 02/02/2010 05:15:45 PM 383 Views

I agree with tom Roland00 - 02/02/2010 02:54:53 AM 422 Views

So what? Cannoli - 02/02/2010 02:23:42 AM 468 Views

Waco were terrorist? Do they just make this crap up? *NM* random thoughts - 02/02/2010 02:00:40 PM 357 Views

So I presume the article meant to highlight that Muslim American citizens aren't all that violent? Larry - 03/02/2010 04:17:06 AM 503 Views

I'd assume so. It's not very well written, though. *NM* Ghavrel - 03/02/2010 06:35:37 AM 285 Views

How many other attacks killed almost 3,000 people of over 90 different nations? Griffen - 03/02/2010 06:26:23 AM 483 Views

leftist dhimmi allies... rofl BlackAdder - 04/02/2010 04:56:48 AM 407 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="77606">
<quote id="77240">I'm replying to both of you, so I didn't know exactly where to put this :P

In the end, the "definition" of whether a jihadist is an insurgent/terrorist/guerilla warrior/super-late term abortion doctor doesn't really matter.

If a guy attacks a US convoy one day, and then the next day attacks an orphanage, his status doesn't really matter, does it? He's a bad guy that needs to be killed.

So to me, the whole definition debate is moot anyway.</quote>
Being a soldier for the other side doesn't automatically make someone a "bad guy. " Often it just makes him a guy, making the best of a bad situation.  There are a lot of US servicemen who signed up on 911 to fight in Afghanistan but found themselves in Iraq wondering why; many don't want to be there but no one asked them.  In the words of MacArthur, "I'm an American soldier: I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight. " That doesn't make him good, bad or indifferent, it makes him a soldier, and reducing everyone who opposes you on the battlefield to a "bad guy" means they're just as entitled to call you a "bad guy. " That doesn't mean you throw down your rifle and sing Kumbaya together; he'll blow your head off, in part because he's had everyone telling him what a bad guy you are, for years.  It means you're both soldiers in a war, and soldiers kill each other in wars, often despite being good guys, not because of being bad ones.

The terrorist is a completely different animal.  Literally.  He's not thinking about getting home to his family, frequently he's not even concerned with staying alive, let alone achieving some murky mission objective.  He's concerned with murdering out of hate; that's why he goes after people who are no threat to him, why the soldier recoils at shooting an unarmed infant and the terrorist drools over an easy target.  It's why a POW known to have killed dozens can be released after a war but a terrorist who murders two or three needs to rot in jail.  One of them is fighting, killing, because he's in a war (and, in other countries, often a conscript ) and his life expectancy is the same as yours if he just decides "killing is WRONG!"  When it's all over he can probably, in time, become a functioning member of a civilized country.  The terrorist is murdering because he LIKES it, and that's never over for him.  The only safe place to put him, KEEP him, is a box, above ground or below it.

We're back to the same old thing: Equating bin Laden with Sgt. York is absurd, and insulting to the latter (among others. )
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password