Quote from: Serious PaulSo terrorism can not be used by regular military forces? I know this may seem like an absurd question, but please bear with me.

Hmm... tough one. I'd say that INTENTIONAL attacks against defenseless civilians of a nation you are actively at war with are terroristic. Collateral damage in persuit of agressors shouldn't count, only direct, intentional targetting. Note that this only applies in a war zone. If a military conducts unprovoked attacks against civilian populations (re: Somalia for example) without a declared state or defacto state of war, I'd call it terroristic.

Now, in this day and age, for the most part, deliberate attacks by actual military forces against civilians are almost unheard of, at least in Western countries during the last 60+ years. World War II was a special circumstance (namely, there was no such thing as precision weaponry, and the Art of War back then called for demoralizing civilian populations to affect the end of conflict). If we still fought by World War II rules, we'd just flatten the Sunni Triangle and be done with it rather than be nibbled to death by Islamist and Democrat ducks. Instead, we are conducting the most fastidious war in American History - and as a result, we're losing it.

Quote from: Serious PaulAlso how do they achieve these "outcomes", or goals?

They rarely do, which is why its such a rediculous tactic. IRA "sorta" did, but they're about it. The only way that others WOULD succeed is to a) blunt the will of an "invader" (see Iraq) and drive them out, thereby freeing themselves tor b) actively overthrow the government they were fighting against (Can't think of an example right this sec, because they're fairly rare).

Bollocks.  Terrorism seems to fail so often, because we only brand the losers as terrorists.

Some of our country's founders were terrorists.  You're telling me you never heard of the Boston Tea Party?

Quote from: JimBobOzThing is, your Christian and libertarian terrorists are pretty incompetent, and your FBI is very good. So a lot of attacks get stopped before they happen. Whereas the Islamic terrorists, or guerillas comitting atrocities, are quite competent, and the US military isn't as good as the FBI. Plus there's the simple fact that it's easier for Americans to inflitrate and report on American terrorist groups, than it is for them to infiltrate and report on foreign ones. Same reason the US can take down the New York mob, but not the Mexican mob.

I'd say the VAST majority of terrorist attacks, anywhere but Islamic countries where they have home-court advantage, are foiled as well. But since they TRY so many more times, they get corresponding more successes. Not only that, but aside from McVeigh, our Christian and Libertarian (when was the last Libertarian terrorist attack? I missed it..) fanatics have NEVER scored a "big hit". Islamists do it fairly regularly.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou're confusing "level of hostility" with "rate of success." It's like pointing out that more civilians are killed by cops than vice versa, and then concluding that cops are more violent - they're not, they're just more competent than criminals in shooting.

Actually, I'm stating that there are orders of magnitude MORE successful Islamist terrorist attacks - not because we stop more Christian attacks due to FBI competence, but because there are orders of magnitude more ATTEMPTS by Islamic fundamentalists. It IS a relavent point, because if there are only 5 attempted abortion clinic bombings in a year, and we stop 4, but 100 attempted Islamist bombings per year, and we stop 80 - who is the bigger threat? Same percentage of success - but vastly unbalanced body count. You could say that there's an equal amount of hostility on a nut-for-nut basis, but that's irrelevant because Islamic fundamentalists are FAR more numerous and determined that their Christian counterparts - especially when you consider that, as far as I know, Christian nut-job attacks only happen in the US, while Islamic nut-job attacks are a global phenomenon.

Quote from: J ArcaneBollocks.  Terrorism seems to fail so often, because we only brand the losers as terrorists.

Some of our country's founders were terrorists.  You're telling me you never heard of the Boston Tea Party?

They didn't kill anyone at the Tea Party, so that's a bad example - unless you consider groups like the Earth Liberation Front or Sierra Club terrorists - they haven't killed anyone (that I know of), only burned down subdivisions under construction and spiked trees in timber country. Destruction of property is a crime in my book, not Terrorism (even though the FBI disagrees).

I should point out to serious paul that we've already had a bit of a discussion on the definition of terrorism, if he wants he can go to that thread and bring it over there.

As for Jimbob... I don't think the relative degrees of competence in terroristic activities are as important as location. Most of the terrorist attacks are planned in places where the FBI can't really get to them.  You did make a very good point about the 'ethnic barrier' that is hard, if not impossible to overcome.

Oh, and part of the reason the FBI is better at taking down New York mobs as opposed to Mexican mobs is that the FBI dosn't have jurisdiction in Mexico.

Quote from: WerekoalaThey didn't kill anyone at the Tea Party, so that's a bad example - unless you consider groups like the Earth Liberation Front or Sierra Club terrorists - they haven't killed anyone (that I know of), only burned down subdivisions under construction and spiked trees in timber country. Destruction of property is a crime in my book, not Terrorism (even though the FBI disagrees).

Damn right, those are terrorists too.  

Terrorism doesn't require actual death, only fear of destruction of livelihood.

Quote from: J ArcaneDamn right, those are terrorists too.  

Terrorism doesn't require actual death, only fear of destruction of livelihood.

Well.... does anyone involved in industries that ELF or Sierra might target actually "fear" them, or do they just consider them a damn nuissence? I don't think they do - not saying they don't want them brought down.

Attacks against materials don't fit my personal definition of terrorism (attacks against civilians), so I'm kinda on the fence about eco-terrorists.

Quote from: Dominus NoxYAAAAAAWWWWWWN. Damn, some people never seem to wake up and smell the coffee.

I'm amused at how you once again managed to insert your dogma over what I wrote.  You are, truly, an ignoramous.

!i!

Quote from: James McMurray* By "usually" I mean that I've never seen it brought up for any other reason than to point out Christianity's shortcomings.

Yeah, but that's like shooting fish in a barrel.  I mean, it's like on Star Trek when some hyper-advanced culture comes along and starts criticising humanity for its ugly, bloody history, but then Jean Luc Picard points out how we've grown out of that stage, how we're -- by and large -- a better people now, and we deserve a chance to prove ourselves.  There's still plenty of ugly, bloody-mindedness in contemporary Christian thought, but nothing like what prevailed between the 11th and 17th centuries.  Sure, the easy, low-blow is to point out how historical Christianity was just as bad as contemporary extremist Islam.  But the less obvious lesson is that, if modern, progressive thought could somehow prevail among violent, bigoted, genocidal Christian Europe, then there's hope for Islamic nations, too.

Wait.  Is that coffee I smell?

!i!

Quote from: WerekoalaWell.... does anyone involved in industries that ELF or Sierra might target actually "fear" them, or do they just consider them a damn nuissence? I don't think they do - not saying they don't want them brought down.

Attacks against materials don't fit my personal definition of terrorism (attacks against civilians), so I'm kinda on the fence about eco-terrorists.

When it comes to matters of business, money is a lot more valuable than lives.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYeah, but that's like shooting fish in a barrel.  I mean, it's like on Star Trek when some hyper-advanced culture comes along and starts criticising humanity for its ugly, bloody history, but then Jean Luc Picard points out how we've grown out of that stage, how we're -- by and large -- a better people now, and we deserve a chance to prove ourselves.  There's still plenty of ugly, bloody-mindedness in contemporary Christian thought, but nothing like what prevailed between the 11th and 17th centuries.  Sure, the easy, low-blow is to point out how historical Christianity was just as bad as contemporary extremist Islam.  But the less obvious lesson is that, if modern, progressive thought could somehow prevail among violent, bigoted, genocidal Christian Europe, then there's hope for Islamic nations, too.

Wait.  Is that coffee I smell?

!i!

No, it's your own shit from having your head up your ass. (Man, I hate it when the holidays are over but I'm so glad to be able to return fire again...)

Yes, muslim countries MAY evoolve into something resembling a civillized culture someday, in which a jew can openly open a synagouge and not be killed and have his place burned down within an hour, they MAY someday evolve like barbaric christian nations and societies evolved into at least semi civillized cultures, but the problem is that for NOW they represent forces that want to destroy freedom and impose islamofascism on everyone.

Quote from: Dominus NoxNo, it's your own shit from having your head up your ass. (Man, I hate it when the holidays are over but I'm so glad to be able to return fire again...)

Yes, muslim countries MAY evoolve into something resembling a civillized culture someday, in which a jew can openly open a synagouge and not be killed and have his place burned down within an hour, they MAY someday evolve like barbaric christian nations and societies evolved into at least semi civillized cultures, but the problem is that for NOW they represent forces that want to destroy freedom and impose islamofascism on everyone.

JimBob listed a wide range of Islamic countries that pass your rather bizarre tests.  I note you didn't respond to that post.

So, let's try again, with just one example for simplicity, Turkey.  Turkey passes all your tests.

Quote from: BalbinusJimBob listed a wide range of Islamic countries that pass your rather bizarre tests.  I note you didn't respond to that post.

So, let's try again, Turkey.  Turkey passes all your tests.  Try some fucking reality you bigot.

Well written Balbinus!
I've stopped having a go at that waste of time, Donkey Pox, since a lot of other folk have more experience and do a better job of kicking him in his tiny cojones than I do.

Quote from: Dominus NoxNo, it's your own shit from having your head up your ass. (Man, I hate it when the holidays are over but I'm so glad to be able to return fire again...)

Yes, muslim countries MAY evoolve into something resembling a civillized culture someday, in which a jew can openly open a synagouge and not be killed and have his place burned down within an hour, they MAY someday evolve like barbaric christian nations and societies evolved into at least semi civillized cultures, but the problem is that for NOW they represent forces that want to destroy freedom and impose islamofascism on everyone.

You just don't have a clue about Islam and its history at all do you?