Patriotism vs terrorism

Remove all ads!

yup history repeats itself, just because people are way too ignorant to learn of other peoples mistakes

@Farthy,
wow thats the first time I see someone claiming that
the 2WW was in the 30s

 

Putting aside that terrorism seems to require an active component and patriotism does not, as has already been pointed out; here is where I and I think others disagree Faragon: the law provides some degree of objectivity so that the difference between terrorism/patriotism isn't merely one of perception.

If you want to say that the US has engaged in terrorism in the past don't pick the use of the atomic weapons which was legal at the time and took place as part of a declared war (note, feel free to say that it was wrong/immoral/stupid etc but if it wasn't illegal it wasn't terrorist and that's what we're talking about.) I'd say pick the fact that the US was convicted (right word?) for the "illegal use of force" in Nicaragua in 1986 or so iirc. To me, that is much closer to terrorism of the sort that we're talking about.

That was long and rambling, sorry.

Point is: there is an objective way of measuring whether something is a terrorist act or merely an act of war and it's called the law.

 

'The Law'. This exactly my point. You don't place yourself in the other's position. He is not bound by your laws. You are not bound by his. See what I'm getting at?

 

Well, in my opinion international law binds everyone. Even the U.S. Even al-qaida. Just because they may ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them.

 

but then, the use of atomic weapons in hiroshima and nagisaga was illegal because they were already quelled, the japanese were sueing for peace, and the US still dropped the bombs, which is a direct violation of the geneva convention.

 

Not sure about that Shoshino, like I said, the relevant portions of the Geneva conventions that I saw were those signed in 1949 and the bombs were dropped in 1944 or 1945 iirc. Laws don't apply retroactively.

edit -- like I said, an easier less controversial example is the US conviction by the world court in 1986, if it were me trying to lambast the US I'd probably run with it.

another edit -- international law is admittedly not a strong point of mine.

yet another edit -- afaik, Japan wasn't quelled prior to the first use of the bomb. I was under the impression they were still deliberating when the 2nd bomb was used.

Edit the fourth -- stumbled across some etroshious (yes that's on purpose) spelling

[ February 19, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Shoshino, the Vietnam War, I think, would fit under Cold War. There were too many conflicts, along with Korea, so I didn't list them all. Most of the Cold War was not bloody, but in these occasions, they were. Many others, like Afghanistan, did not directly involve the US.

Thanks for pointing that out Morgoth, about 2WW. I'll just not edit it for all to see my absentmindedness when I post.

[ February 16, 2003, 10:08: Message edited by: Farthy ]

 

International Law is not something these people feel bound by. They (talking about Islamic Terrorists here) live solely by the word of their faith.

What I'm trying to point out is, that both patriotism and terrorism are labels that are given with a subjective meaning. They're not objective, because one always views that person's actions from the way the viewer was raised, or from the perspective normal from the viewer's country. From your morals and ethics you've created your laws. From their they've created theirs. Each has a different point of view, while essentially looking at the same subject.

I may think of Bin Laden as a Terrorist, while someone in the MiddleEast may look at him and see a patriot, someone willing to stand up and fight for their faith. (Since we're not really able to speak of a single country here)

 

"I may think of Bin Laden as a Terrorist, while someone in the MiddleEast may look at him and see a patriot, someone willing to stand up and fight for their faith. (Since we're not really able to speak of a single country here) "
and that is exactly what this thread is about, the understanding of 2 different views, and how they can effect the world as a whole