ATTENTION ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS

[Judge Faust]

I will ask you one more time: define "terrorist."

In the context of what I am referring to, a terrorist is any organization or individual who goes blowing up buildings, embassies, battleships based on radical religious ideology. We are referring in particular to the group Al Quaida, Taliban etc in this convo.

For the more formal definition of terrorist, see below:

Princeton: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities) "

Or to use your favorite source for information, wikipedia:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Your definition is the worst of the 3. So, terrorism has to be based on a religious ideology? What if an anti-Empire atheist decides to go around bombing Imperial embassies, buildings, and embassies? Not a terrorist, then? And who determines what qualifies as a "radical" religious belief? You?

Also, your definition contradicts your own arguments. You have previously called all Afghani freedom fighters "terrorists." And yet, many of them simply target occupying soldiers - NOT embassies, buildings, or battleships. So are they or are they not "terrorists?"

What about a fanatical Christian redneck that joins the Imperial army as part of a personal crusade against Islam, and goes on to participate in the demolition of buildings? A terrorist per se, right?

The Princeton definition is a mess. Equating terrorism with terror is a bizarre proposition - see my post in the Fort Hood Shooting thread for more information on this fallacy.

The Wikipedia definition is more or less alright. Ironically, the Empire is a terrorist organization according to this definition. Think about it: the Empire strives to spread fear amongst the colonized people ("shock and awe"), it does so in order to further an ideological goal (global hegemony based on fundamentalist Christianity and unrestrained capitalism), and it shows an absolute disregard for civilian lives.

What this all boils down to is that, according to the best definition of "terrorism" provided, the real terrorists here are you and other Imperial minions. The brave freedom fighters are simply engaged in an honorable display of counter-terrorism.

[sgreger1]

[quote="Judge Faust"]

Your definition is the worst of the 3. So, terrorism has to be based on a religious ideology? What if an anti-Empire atheist decides to go around bombing Imperial embassies, buildings, and embassies? Not a terrorist, then? And who determines what qualifies as a "radical" religious belief? You?

I didn't say it does, but in this case, yes the terrorism is fueled by religious ideology judge, you can't deny that.

What qualifies as radical religious beliefs? Strapping a bomb to yourself and commiting jihad against innocents to get virgins and goats in the afterlife.

Also, your definition contradicts your own arguments. You have previously called all Afghani freedom fighters "terrorists." And yet, many of them simply target occupying soldiers - NOT embassies, buildings, or battleships. So are they or are they not "terrorists?"

A large amount of terror targets involve hurting civilians. They are willign to blow up a whole marketplace to injure maybe 3 or 4 soldiers. They also go in and kill barbers who give westernized haircuts and behead their own people if they don't follow islamic law close enough.

What about a fanatical Christian redneck that joins the Imperial army as part of a personal crusade against Islam, and goes on to participate in the demolition of buildings? A terrorist per se, right?

If someone joins the army and goes and kills people because of a religious crusade, it is terrorism imo. It's no better than what these people are doing in the middle east. We should no stoop down to their (your) level.

The Wikipedia definition is more or less alright. Ironically, the Empire is a terrorist organization according to this definition. Think about it: the Empire strives to spread fear amongst the colonized people ("shock and awe"), it does so in order to further an ideological goal (global hegemony based on fundamentalist Christianity and unrestrained capitalism), and it shows an absolute disregard for civilian lives.

Terrorism, in it's formal definition, is a blanket term engineered that way so that it may be applied to anyone. According to the formal definition of terrorism every country is a terrorist country. The difference is that a country declaring war on someone is not considered terrorism, so technicly no what we are doign is not terrorism.

It's not like we send guys over there to integrate into their society and then shoot up the place or bomb their people.

What this all boils down to is that, according to the best definition of "terrorism" provided, the real terrorists here are you and other Imperial minions. The brave freedom fighters are simply engaged in an honorable display of counter-terrorism.

No, the muslim fundamentalist jihadis counter-insurgents are terrorists under this definition. They are not exempt. There is nothign honorable about targeting civilians, embassies, ships etc. They kill their own people, even before we were occupying the area, they have always been terrorist.



I don't get you judge, what is you infatuation with these muslim insurgents, you got family over there or something?

[Roo]

Hey Faust, what is your take on how your beloved Soviets have ravaged Chechnya? And how does Chechen terrorism fit into your ideal of freedom fighters when the bombs are going off in Moscow instead of Baghdad? Just curious

[Judge Faust]

Hey Faust, what is your take on how your beloved Soviets have ravaged Chechnya? And how does Chechen terrorism fit into your ideal of freedom fighters when the bombs are going off in Moscow instead of Baghdad? Just curious

That is an excellent and very difficult question, Roo.

Obviously, I have conflicting duties of loyalty here. On the one hand, I want to see a powerful, united, and peaceful Russia. On the other hand, I believe in strict self-determination for all people everywhere as the ONLY just policy...

Ultimately, justice trumps power. If the Chechens hate us this much, then making them Russians against their will is a terrible form of oppression. And if they hate us enough to kill our civilians, then we can never have peace as long as they are in our federation.

The bottom line: Russia should let Chechnya go.

[sgreger1]

Hey Faust, what is your take on how your beloved Soviets have ravaged Chechnya? And how does Chechen terrorism fit into your ideal of freedom fighters when the bombs are going off in Moscow instead of Baghdad? Just curious

That is an excellent and very difficult question, Roo.

Obviously, I have conflicting duties of loyalty here. On the one hand, I want to see a powerful, united, and peaceful Russia. On the other hand, I believe in strict self-determination for all people everywhere as the ONLY just policy...

Ultimately, justice trumps power. If the Chechens hate us this much, then making them Russians against their will is a terrible form of oppression. And if they hate us enough to kill our civilians, then we can never have peace as long as they are in our federation.

The bottom line: Russia should let Chechnya go.

+1 for you Judge.


I still find it ironic that as a (seemingly) Russian communist, you see America as "the evil empire" yet you pay no homage to your own countries history.

[Roo]

Excellent answer, Judge Faust. The company for which I work has offices in Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Tashkent, Irkutsk, and Ulan Ude -- I am friends with more Russians than your typical American. I wish more of them shared your thoughtful view on the subject. Thanks for answering so candidly (what the hell else would I expect...)

[Judge Faust]

I didn't say it does, but in this case, yes the terrorism is fueled by religious ideology judge, you can't deny that.

I won't deny this. The freedom fighters are protecting their way of life from what Little Bush affectionately called a "crusade." These people simply want to be left alone, to live and worship (or not) as they see fit, and to not have Imperial minions slaughtering them at the drop of the hat. As a human being, I see nothing wrong with this.

What qualifies as radical religious beliefs? Strapping a bomb to yourself and commiting jihad against innocents to get virgins and goats in the afterlife.

So you're saying that only Islam qualifies as a "radical" religious belief? Nice.

Oh, and for your enlightenment, the 40 virgins in heaven for martyrs line of thinking is an extremely minority viewpoint among Muslims. Just so you know.

A large amount of terror targets involve hurting civilians. They are willign to blow up a whole marketplace to injure maybe 3 or 4 soldiers. They also go in and kill barbers who give westernized haircuts and behead their own people if they don't follow islamic law close enough.

Once again, you spew a lot of Fox News -esque propaganda at me. I will ask once more: is an Afghani civilian that never targets civilians, but chooses to direct his ire at enemy soldiers, a terrorist or not?

Terrorism, in it's formal definition, is a blanket term engineered that way so that it may be applied to anyone. According to the formal definition of terrorism every country is a terrorist country. The difference is that a country declaring war on someone is not considered terrorism, so technicly no what we are doign is not terrorism.

That's nice. Your argument is undermined by the fact that the Empire has not declared war against anyone since the 1940s. There has never been an Imperial declaration of war against either Iraq or Afghanistan (or Vietnam, or North Korea, or Yugoslavia, or Panama, or Somalia, or... etc.).

I don't get you judge, what is you infatuation with these muslim insurgents, you got family over there or something?

No, friend. Unlike you, I simply want to live and raise my children in a world governed by justice and compassion for other human beings. I want to see an end to warfare. I want to see an end to wanton slaughter. I want to see an end to imperialism.

I am sorry that you are unable to appreciate my point of view.

[sgreger1]

[I won't deny this. The freedom fighters are protecting their way of life from what Little Bush affectionately called a "crusade." These people simply want to be left alone, to live and worship (or not) as they see fit, and to not have Imperial minions slaughtering them at the drop of the hat. As a human being, I see nothing wrong with this.

Look, I get the insurgents that are pissed because their house got shot up by the snobby Americans. I would be that guy as well if that happened to me. But my question to you judge, is if you think they just want to be left alone, than why have they been out blowing shit up since the 70's? They were a problem before 2003 you know, it's not like they are "only" fighting us because of post-9-11 affairs, they have been at this for years. What was their excuse then?

What qualifies as radical religious beliefs? Strapping a bomb to yourself and commiting jihad against innocents to get virgins and goats in the afterlife.

So you're saying that only Islam qualifies as a "radical" religious belief? Nice.

Your twisting my words again, I specificly mentioned how christians or any religion also count. In the context of the group I am refering to here, we are talking about radical muslims.

You don't see hundreds of thousands of christians or buddhists strapping bombs to themselves and out beheading people on the countryside. And if it were christians, it would be just as wrong. ANY violence that is based on differing religious beliefs is unnaceptable. To each their own. I don't care if they are muslim or not, but when they interprit their religion as "We must convert or kill the infidels", it becomes my problem.

Oh, and for your enlightenment, the 40 virgins in heaven for martyrs line of thinking is an extremely minority viewpoint among Muslims. Just so you know.

They are obviousely doing it for something, I don't care what it is. They think God wants them to kill innocents or anyone who is not muslim. I don't think that is a healthy way to live a life, but perhaps you do. For all your talk about freedom fighting and your hate for fascism, these people should piss you off more than anyone. They are like hitler, if you are not of their breed than you do not deserve to live?

How can you protest germany for having this mindset and yet praise the middle east for it?

Once again, you spew a lot of Fox News -esque propaganda at me. I will ask once more: is an Afghani civilian that never targets civilians, but chooses to direct his ire at enemy soldiers, a terrorist or not?

Wtf is this blame fox news thing. I don't need to watch the 10' oclock news to know how these people act, to know that they've killed friends that are close to me, I don't need anyone to tell me how these people are because I already know. You are the one who gets your info from the news, qhich is why your perspective is so off.

To answer your question: If one is engaging in a war against an enemy force, they are no longer a civilian. No, it is not terrorism. It is a guy shooting at another guy. As soon as you pick up a rifle and start shooting at soldiers, your a combatant. Does that answer you question?

That's nice. Your argument is undermined by the fact that the Empire has not declared war against anyone since the 1940s. There has never been an Imperial declaration of war against either Iraq or Afghanistan (or Vietnam, or North Korea, or Yugoslavia, or Panama, or Somalia, or... etc.).

Sigh... "Imperical declaration of war"... i'm not even going to go here with you. The point is, incase you didn't notice, we're involved in 2 wars right now, doesn't matter about paperwork and red tape, congress authorized it, funded it, and we've been there for 8 years, accept that it's a war.

No, friend. Unlike you, I simply want to live and raise my children in a world governed by justice and compassion for other human beings. I want to see an end to warfare. I want to see an end to wanton slaughter. I want to see an end to imperialism.

I am sorry that you are unable to appreciate my point of view.

Yah you and the rest of the world judge. You don't think I want to see an end to war? We've had so many wars in this last century and up into the present that i'm almost afraid to have a son because I know the odds are that by the time he is my age he too will have to serve for whatever nonesense war the politicians have enlisted troops for.

You think I want fascism? Do you think all American's want fascism? I want an end to warfare just like you friend, I have long been saying on here that I don't agree with the wars and it's time to come home. I don't think any good hearted people would want to continue suffering in the world. But judge, my beef with you is that you defend the 9-11 hijackers, the terrorists who blow up marketplaces, the religious extremists who behead their own people for not followign sharia law, who beat and kill their women.

If you are truly fighting for freedom and an end to fascism, as the Russian people have long been trying to do, than you cannot defend these people in the middle east. Not all muslims are the way the insurgents are, but there's enough of them in the fringe that it has become an international problem. They want you to either convert or be killed. Are those the people you truly want to be fighting for Judge?

[tom502]

I agree with alot of real Fascism:
http://www.americanfascistmovement.com

[sgreger1]

I agree with alot of real Fascism:
http://www.americanfascistmovement.com

I checked out that site but it was surprisingly uninformative, apparently under construction. Exactly what type of Fascism do you define as "real fascism". You don't believe in personal liberties, rights, owning the fruits of one's labor, living absent of an oppresive government? That doesn't sound like you at all.

[tom502]

The site may be old now, it's been a while since I looked at it. But no, Fascism as a socio-polical ideologiocal system, as espoused in the modern day founder Mussolini:
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html

There is also a popular slogan I can't recall, I'd have to search, that said something like, "In private life, liberty, in public life, service", or something like that.

It's based on individual freedom, with a collective corporatist nationalism, not like the US Big Business imperialist corporatism, but the actual nation as a corporate with all areas working for national upliftment.

I am not a political expert.

[sgreger1]

The site may be old now, it's been a while since I looked at it. But no, Fascism as a socio-polical ideologiocal system, as espoused in the modern day founder Mussolini:
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html

There is also a popular slogan I can't recall, I'd have to search, that said something like, "In private life, liberty, in public life, service", or something like that.

It's based on individual freedom, with a collective corporatist nationalism, not like the US Big Business imperialist corporatism, but the actual nation as a corporate with all areas working for national upliftment.

I am not a political expert.

But Tom, cummon man. Think about that. Its like communism, it sounds great, have the gov running everything, or in this scenario, have the gov/corps run everything, they will do the greater good. But since when have beurocrats and government ever worked together for the greater good if it didn't benefit them?


Think about it like this, to have all the corps all working together, it would require the gov to tie them together somehow via regulation or some other mechanism, which means thousands of beurocrats and people writing the rules, enforcing them etc. Do you really think you can keep thousands of people in a postion of power to all always think of the greater good? It seems that in the past, when we sign over excessive amounts of power to people like that they run amok with it.


It sounds great, but I think if you allow power like that to people at the top, they will fudge it up. Look at our government, the people say "hey we need some regulation so that corps don't get out of control." So what happens? The corps buy themselves politicians, or in some cases get appointed to the regulatory cabinet. Look at our current and past administrations cabinet, treasury secretaries etc, they are all goldman sachs/fed reserve hacks.


The corps make the money, so they are able to buy out the government, and in the end, the regulation only helps the corps to destroy competition and gain larger amounts of market share. I mean hell, we even have DEMOCRATS giving billions in free money to financial institutions who had shady business practices. If that's not corporate/political prostitution I don't know what is. Usually the dems are very anti big business, but look at what they did with the bailouts, same thing as bush.

We can't allow too much power at the top, because they seem to alwasy find a way to pervert it for their own agenda.

[tom502]

It might be utopian, but it doesn't matter, our liberal socialist imperial capitalist system isn't going anywhere.

[sgreger1]

It might be utopian, but it doesn't matter, our liberal socialist imperial capitalist system isn't going anywhere.

We need to focus on realistic solutions. And your right out liberal socialist imperial capitalist (funny that you could have all in one) system isn't working.


But frankly, the fix is easy imo. If we just remember our roots and go back to the way things were, we could solve a lot of this. The biggest thing is we need to create more manufacturing jobs here and quit outsourcing.

But equally as huge, is to remember that the USA in the past was always an isolationist country. We didn't really give a **** what other countries were doing as long as it was not trampling our liberties. We all came here as refugees from other sucky countries and just wanted to live on our little island in peace. It's only in recent days that we do things like go to war with vietnam, iraq etc using offense under the guise of a defensive measure.


We could fix the economy and our reputation if we just kept to ourselves.

How often do you hear sweden or norway in the news? Not often, because they keep to their jolly selves and don't get involved with otehr people's business.

Forge tthis globalist crap Obama is pushing. Forget the UN and their ideology of having all the world governed by a central body. America is a soverign nation and needs to stay that way. Give us your hungry, your tired, your poor, but leave your globalist BS out of it. Don't mess with us and we won't mess with you. If we spent half of what we spend for offense on defense, our country would be untouchable.

Who cares if Sadam is being a dictator bastard. **** iran, Nkorea. If we spend money on good missile defense systems, no one can shoot anything over here = no need to worry anymore.

The increasing globalist mentality, under the guise of "we all need to work together" is BS. The US needs to be loyal to the US only. We need to not be bullies, and just hold our own over here.

[tom502]

I agree with that. I don't agree with internationalism, and globalism, or capitalism played in that stage. That's why I tend to agree more with the nationalistic ideals of Fascism, Stalinism, NS, and Juche.