Overthrowing a democratic government of a country by another country and imposing a dictator was wrong then and is wrong now.
Of course it does not justify terrorism, but we are no longer talking about terrorism. At least me and Thomas weren't in our last couple posts. The discussion has changed into something completely different.
Would you say (with this information that I have provided) it is "criminal" (against international law) for Country A's secret service to bring the king of Country X back...
Now to your knowledge, do you know if those "criminals" that were responsible for such actions were ever brought to justice (either in the case in Iran or El Salvador)?
...
Do you agree that it is extremely unfortunate that the most powerful countries in the world do not have to answer to international laws?
I don't know, maybe the caveat is that when the unlawful combatants are state actors and action is taken against a target of legitimate military vale when no state of hostilities exist, it is not terrorism.
Omar had a great point. Perhaps in the future things that are not internationally accepted as terrorism, will in fact be defined as terrorism.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
A couple of things...
Again the incident in Iran occurred 50 years. The president who ordered it is dead. The head of the CIA at the time is dead. Who exactly do you want to try for the crimes?
Finally, although I strongly condemn the CIA for their actions 50 years ago, I am not aware of any international laws that existed at the time that made their actions criminal.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
So if I am country X, and I have recon aircraft that occasionally stray into what country Y sees as their borders (most other nations do not btw), and one day my recce plane gets shot down by Y's military, you are saying that if I scream long enough that it's terrorism, and I get enough of my buddies to agree that it's terrorism and they scream loud enough too, and if I am persistent enough it will eventually come to be regarded as terrorism?
While one may say that such a scenario is ridiculous, it is no less ridiculous then changing the accepted definition to suit any other particular agenda for political reasons. Both are equally ridiculous.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Btw, still hoping for a response on the reference to the international laws which would label the people as criminals who you referred to earlier (as criminals).
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Btw it's country X, not Y complaining, but that's okay.
So now let's say that armed forces of Y shoot down a war plane belonging to armed forces of X, because they believe it has hostile intent, that is flying over a small town in X heading towards Y, crashing into the town, killing several X civillians. X again jumps up and down screaming about this terrorist action committed on it by Y. X's buddies similarly start crying about this act by Y and denounce it as terrorism. Despite the fact that Y clearly attacked a hostile aircraft, X and friends do their best to convince everyone that it is terrorism.
According to what you seem to be implying, if X and company cry long enough, the world will adapt the definition of terrorism to fit X's agenda, as ridiculous as I admit this seems.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
They are no longer "excellent examples of illegal, criminal behavior by a secrect government organization"? Please explain what has changed between when that statement was made and right now, because we all know that the history and the facts have not changed?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
It's very difficult to find references to international laws that are 50 years old. However, the UN did have rules about national sovreignty that the CIA violated.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Just to clarify, I think they were criminal acts but I'm not sure if there actually was an international code that they violated. Perhaps I should hedge my bets and say that they were certainly immoral acts although they may not have been in direct violation of any law that existed at the time.
No, again I am afraid you are mistaken. If X and company cry long enough, the world will not adapt the definition of terrorism to fit X's agenda.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Good, i think we too may have reached an understanding. The world should not label an act that is not terrorism as such just to appease X, regardless how X may see the situation.
In the example I gave, the military of Y attacked a hostile target of X that intended to attack Y. In destroying the target from X, collateral civillian damage was caused. The positioning of the target from X was such that Y should have known there was a good chance for civillian damage, so perhaps it was poor judgement, but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the target from X's position and Y's action. But I am glad we both seem to agree this obviously isn't terrorism, and that in fact to label it as such would be ridiculous.
And at that we can end this discussion.
Btw my aim in seeking a reference from international law was to point out that it is meaningless to throw labels about such as "criminal" when you can't even decide which law it is that someone broke, despite the fact you are referring to "international law". I do not know if there were international laws covering such circumstances back then, it wouldn't surprise me if there were. But I don't know, and in the absence of such knowledge I agree with Thomas that it is more responsible to use the term immoral.
Thank you and good day.
Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
I am not sure what real life situation you are referring to, if any, but if it really happened how you described it, then yes, terrorism would not be the appropriate term.
In the example I gave, the military of Y attacked a hostile target of X that intended to attack Y. In destroying the target from X, collateral civilian damage was caused. The positioning of the target from X was such that Y should have known there was a good chance for civilian damage, so perhaps it was poor judgement, but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the target from X's position and Y's action.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
X = Palestinian's
Y = Israelis
"target from X" = Hamas leader
but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the target from X's position and Y's action. But I am glad we both seem to agree this obviously isn't terrorism, and that in fact to label it as such would be ridiculous.
Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
Y would be much better defending itself by repecting the basic human rights of X.
Originally posted by Dave Vick:
Oh, right, because X is such a stand up guy right?
X = Palestinian's
Y = Israelis
"target from X" = Hamas leader
the Israeli military attacked a Hamas leader that intended to attack Israel. In destroying the Hamas leader, collateral civilian damage was caused. The positioning of the Hamas leader was such that Israel should have known there was a good chance for civilian damage, so perhaps it was poor judgement, but they were defending themselves when it comes down to it, as tragic as it was that innocent lives were lost due to the Hamas leader's position and Israel's action.
It is untrue that by killing "target from X" that attacks against Y will stop
because the brutal actions of Y alone are to blame for those attacks.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
But we don't need to continue and get this conversation going again. You have given me what I was looking for and I am grateful.
Dave
Originally posted by Dave Vick:
Anthony
You're right, the Palestinians are entitled to the basic human rights. I should have clarified my post a little bit more but saying that I was refering to the 'weapon from X', not X as a whole. Becasue, I'm sure that for the most part they want peace as much as anyone else. It is not all of them that are commiting the bombings and other things.
Originally posted by Dave Vick:
I'm sure that for the most part they want peace as much as anyone else.
Dan Chisholm<br />SCJP 1.4<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.danchisholm.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Try my mock exam.</a>
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
What I'm afraid of is that things are too radicalized over there now and people don't necessarily want peace, they want victory.
[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
I think the point is that there are more effective means of fighting oppression than strapping bombs to your chest and killing innocent people. Maybe when this happens, you can have just peace.Originally posted by Anthony Goshaunee:
If people are under oppression, you can not expect them to not fight that oppression...
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
To all arabs:
...
If you would put as much energy in thinking about the moralic, politic, social and economic situation inside the arabic world as you put in discussing about "imperialism of the west", we would have a better world.
Do israelic richs use Mercedes A Class as caddy cars. I don't think so.
Anti-americanism, anti-israelim and pro-palestina-rhetorics are a tool for the arabic world to create some artificial unity where there is no unity.
Axel
Dave
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Don't count your weasels before they've popped. And now for a mulberry bush related tiny ad:
Free, earth friendly heat - from the CodeRanch trailboss
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/free-heat
|