Civil Rights

[Cam42]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 23 2005, 09:27 PM']So what is the differance between Osama And Jimmy Stewart then? Jimmy Stewart Bombed civilians, and sent other men to do so. I see no moral differance between the 9/11 hijackers and the men who bombed Dresden , Ranault, etc,  and on one score they are morally superior, all of their targets where military  targets( however agian the weapon system itself was filled with unlawful targets). It is all very nice and simple to call them terrorist but really they are not, they are simply moslems fighting war in the way they have always fought it. They are not Christians and they are not Humanist they are infidels fighting a realitivly tame war as infidels go, I mean The Romans Salted the Earth of there enemy, the Aztecs ate them, the Muslims well remember North Africa was the Heart of the Early Christian Church. They are fighting according to the Traditions of their culture. Is that culture Evil--- Yes  is the secular humanist culture evil as well-- yes.  Don't diminish what is really going on here by simply calling it "terror" this is a fight for the future, it is a fight we don't really want either side to win, it is a fight  WE as Catholics need to win, not for our country but for our Faith.
[right][snapback]656153[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And where is your faith? If the Church is Jesus Christ, we have to believe that the Church will win in the end. I am not worried as to who will win, I am worried about all those who will be terrorized into losing their faith. The point is to terrorize, that is how it works....they don't want to convert, they don't want to do anything except scare us to unbelief.....

What we need to do is have faith. The Church will win in the end, the Church is Jesus Christ. We are part of the mystical body and in the end, it will be the Church who stands. Am I afraid? In a word, NO.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:27 PM']So what is the differance between Osama And Jimmy Stewart then? Jimmy Stewart Bombed civilians, and sent other men to do so. I see no moral differance between the 9/11 hijackers and the men who bombed Dresden , Ranault, etc,  and on one score they are morally superior, all of their targets where military  targets( however agian the weapon system itself was filled with unlawful targets). It is all very nice and simple to call them terrorist but really they are not, they are simply moslems fighting war in the way they have always fought it. They are not Christians and they are not Humanist they are infidels fighting a realitivly tame war as infidels go, I mean The Romans Salted the Earth of there enemy, the Aztecs ate them, the Muslims well remember North Africa was the Heart of the Early Christian Church. They are fighting according to the Traditions of their culture. Is that culture Evil--- Yes  is the secular humanist culture evil as well-- yes.  Don't diminish what is really going on here by simply calling it "terror" this is a fight for the future, it is a fight we don't really want either side to win, it is a fight  WE as Catholics need to win, not for our country but for our Faith.
[right][snapback]656153[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


There is a difference between bombing military targets during a declared war with the goal being military victory over an agressive enemy (Nazi Germany). (Even if there were morally problematic elements). The 911 bombings were not a legitimate military action, but merely killing a lot of people to make a dramatic political statement.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:49 PM']There is a difference between bombing military targets during a declared war with the goal being military victory over an agressive enemy (Nazi Germany).  (Even if there were morally problematic elements).  The 911 bombings were not a legitimate military action, but merely killing a lot of people to make a dramatic political statement.
[right][snapback]656161[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Why where they not militarily legitimate? Because they didn't fit what we westerners declare as legit now, Osama is a noble, according to most cultures through out history ( including oh say Catholic western Culture) Noblemen have every right to wage war. It is The West vs Osama and his Retainers, and that is certianly within his rights as recognized in Arab culture, and by the way he did officially declare war years before 9/11. As for WWII I am not talking about military targets I am talking about civilian nieghborhoods with the express intention of killing civilians the more the better, where do you think the rest of the world got the idea from? And we are an aggressive nation don't fool yourself, we have been militarly agressive since the 1820's and I don't see any reason to see why we would stop now. We are at war, but to simply dismiss it as murder or terror is foolish, Osama does not want to frighten us, he wants to destroy us that is what is at stake.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:39 PM']And where is your faith?  If the Church is Jesus Christ, we have to believe that the Church will win in the end.  I am not worried as to who will win, I am worried about all those who will be terrorized into losing their faith.  The point is to terrorize, that is how it works....they don't want to convert, they don't want to do anything except scare us to unbelief.....

What we need to do is have faith.  The Church will win in the end, the Church is Jesus Christ.  We are part of the mystical body and in the end, it will be the Church who stands.  Am I afraid?  In a word, NO.
[right][snapback]656158[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well lets see what is promised to us --- That the gates of Hell will not prevail agianst the Church--- I believe that, that doesn't mean the forces of Hell can't beat the hell out of Her. It is certianly possible that the Church will be 50 people hiding in a cave when Christ comes again, I would prefer that not be the case, I would prefer that we win this war, and all the others between now and the End.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 24 2005, 04:41 AM']Well lets see what is promised to us --- That the gates of Hell will not prevail agianst the Church--- I believe that, that doesn't mean  the forces of Hell can't beat the hell out of Her. It is certianly possible that the Church will be 50 people hiding in a cave when Christ comes again, I would prefer that not be the case, I would prefer that we win this war, and all the others  between now and the End.
[right][snapback]656585[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


And I believe that we are to follow the example of Christ and if need be have the snot beat out of us, just like He did at the hands of the Romans and Jews. And I believe the Church began as a small group numbering about 120 hiding in a room, did it not?

[url="http://drbo.org/book/51.htm"]The Acts of the Apostles[/url] is a fantastic book....perhaps your analogy is a synopsis of the book?

I am not concerned about the end result and I will not be terrorized. I think that if we all take this position, then we effectively disarm the terrorists and then the fighting will end, sooner rather than later.

My Catholic faith tells me that I have nothing to fear, so I am not afraid.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 05:31 PM']I don't see anything mentioning mass murder as a motive.  I see killing as a calculated motive to instill fear.  Todd, I think that you are wrong on this one.  Perhaps three dictionaries have this one right.  And so do Carrie and hot stuff.
Who is closer to the definiton of terrorism?  Carrie.  Terrorism is not about killing people.  The end of terrorism is about instilling fear.  Killing is a means to the end.  Not the end itself, as you wrongly assert.  It is about instilling fear.  Murder is simply a by-product and makes it all the easier to denounce and fight terrorism, but murder is not the end, simply the means to the end.
[right][snapback]656107[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Dictionary definitions do not determine the nature of reality.

By the way, the use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is a part of the problem, because Jamie and Carrie actually think that that these men are "terrorists" and that all they really only want to do is to instill fear in innocent people; but in reality these men are jihadists, i.e., they are mujahadin (soldiers) in a war, and the sooner that people in the West recognize that this is a war between Islamic zealots and the freedom loving peoples of the civilized world, the better.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 23 2005, 02:42 PM']I would if their primary targets were not the largest symbols in our country.  Unfortunately, they were.
[right][snapback]656015[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Look, I can't make you recognize that the jihadist intention is to kill as many people as they can, but your failure to recognize reality doesn't change the fact that that is their primary goal. If you want to believe that the hijackers took the flights they did in order to minimize causalities, I can't make you accept the reality of the situation, i.e., that they were trying to kill as many people as possible and in as spectacular and unprecedented manner as possible. Fortunately, the civil authorities take the this war seriously and have acted in order to defend the common good.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 24 2005, 08:43 AM']Dictionary definitions do not determine the nature of reality.
[right][snapback]656646[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But language does and a dictionary defines what the language actually means.

Terrorism does not equal murder. Murder does not equal terrorism. That is your position. That is erroneous.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 24 2005, 05:57 AM']But language does and a dictionary defines what the language actually means.

Terrorism does not equal murder.  Murder does not equal terrorism.  That is your position.  That is erroneous.
[right][snapback]656653[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I thought you would want to reduce reality to dictionary definitions.



What I said in my previous posts evidentily applies to you as well as to Jamie and Carrie:

[quote]By the way, the use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is a part of the problem, because Jamie and Carrie actually think that that these men are "terrorists" and that all they really only want to do is to instill fear in innocent people; but in reality these men are jihadists, i.e., they are mujahadin (soldiers) in a war, and the sooner that people in the West recognize that this is a war between Islamic zealots and the freedom loving peoples of the civilized world, the better.[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 24 2005, 09:04 AM']I thought you would want to reduce reality to dictionary definitions.



What I said in my previous posts evidentily applies to you as well as to Jamie and Carrie:
[right][snapback]656658[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Give it up......the definitions are accurate.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 24 2005, 06:16 AM']Give it up......the definitions are accurate.
[right][snapback]656668[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Cam,

You know as well I do that giving a dictionary definition is not an argument.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 24 2005, 09:19 AM']Cam,

You know as well I do that giving a dictionary definition is not an argument.


[right][snapback]656671[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, but it can help to define a position. And your position is incorrect.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:17 AM']Yes, but it can help to define a position.  And your position is incorrect.
[right][snapback]656724[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The use of dictionary definitions proves only one thing, that the person knows how to use a dictionary.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 24 2005, 10:29 AM']The use of dictionary definitions proves only one thing, that the person knows how to use a dictionary.
[right][snapback]656743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And read and understand the language, which it defines.....you forgot that part.

You are being silly. Terrorism is not about murder, it is about instilling fear.

By definition, Carrie is correct. By definition, you are not.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 24 2005, 07:48 AM']And read and understand the language, which it defines.....you forgot that part.

You are being silly.  Terrorism is not about murder, it is about instilling fear.

By definition, Carrie is correct.  By definition, you are not.
[right][snapback]656762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As I've already said, dictionary definitions are not an argument.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 24 2005, 10:55 AM']As I've already said, dictionary definitions are not an argument.
[right][snapback]656768[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And as I have said, the definitions lend support to Carrie and hot stuff's position. They don't support yours, I understand why you wouldn't want them included.

Terrorism is not about murder. Terrorism is about instilling fear. You disagree?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 24 2005, 08:29 AM']And as I have said, the definitions lend support to Carrie and hot stuff's position.  They don't support yours,  I understand why you wouldn't want them included.

Terrorism is not about murder.  Terrorism is about instilling fear.  You disagree?
[right][snapback]656796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I hardly think that dictionary.com lends support to anyone; and moreover, to argue that a dictionary can resolve our disagreement is really foolish.

As I said before, we are in a war (a jihad), and even hot stuff admitted that in an earlier post.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 24 2005, 11:34 AM']I hardly think that dictionary.com lends support to anyone; and moreover, to argue that a dictionary can resolve our disagreement is really foolish.

As I said before, we are in a war (a jihad), and even hot stuff admitted that in an earlier post.
[right][snapback]656802[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't think that I said that. I think that I said that the use of a dictionary supports a position. One that is not yours. You are projecting again.

I agree that we are in a jihad, but this is not about the jihad, I am discussing the fact that there is a difference between mass murder and terrorism, as is Carrie, as is hot stuff.

[quote name='hot stuff']The argument can be made that the increase in security at the airport has done nothing to deter terrorists and has been for to placate travellers. The reality is that if ever there was another terrorist that got onboard a plane with a box cutter, the pilot would drop 10,000 ft and have him on the roof of the plane before he could get close to cockpit. The rules have changed.

I agree with Carrie that this(searching of backpacks) , like going to the ballpark, is to placate and not to protect. Perhaps it will divert terrorists from attacking our subways. But it absolutely is giving them victory by adding to our fear. Is it an inconvenience or is it a restriction of rights?[/quote]


[quote name='Carrie']This is exactly the point of terrorism.

Terrorism is not about the killing, although massive deaths are a big bonus to them.

Terrorism is about instilling fear and terror in people.[/quote]

To which this response was given:
[quote name='Appy']I beg to differ, terrorism is most certainly about killing people.[/quote]

Nope, it is not. By definition, terrorism is about instilling fear. As Carrie said. You are sliding the topic to jihad......try staying on topic....

The definiton of terrorism is [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism"]here.[/url] It is in direct conflict with your position and it is in complete harmony with Carrie and hot stuff. I understand that it compromises your position, but to slide the topic to jihad is not germaine to the discussion of terrorism.

If you want to talk about jihad and the ramifications, start a new thread. Incidentally, I will agree with you on that thread.

[Apotheoun]

The dictionary is simply a book, or in this case, a website, and so it doesn't support anyone's position. Arguments from authority on this topic are not proof, especially when the "argument" is based on the authority of the dictionary.

[Aloysius]

I've only taking one measly college-in-highschool class on argumentation, and even I can see that your argument by definition is not being used properly, nor is this a formal debate which nullifies the idea that there even should be an argument from definition (these are only used in formal debates to TWIST the resolution so it is more in your favor, but here we are having an honest discussion that is not about who wins and loses and as such dictionaries are irrelevent)

terrorism, in common usage, is a term referring to the murder or mass murder of civilians intended to drive fear into a people. by having a "war on terror" we mean to say we are at war with the people who intend to murder our civilians.