Is it right to ever support Terrorism?

[wolveraptor]

I'd love for you to show me a definition of terrorism that excludes violence against military personel. Weren't the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon terrorists?

[Darth Wong]

I honestly don't have one (that I'm aware). I don't need to have found an ethical philosophy in order to make judgements on the ethics of something.

Yes you do, fucktard. Otherwise you can make totally self-contradictory arguments. After all, you don't need a coherent ethical principle. You can use whatever argument comes to mind in order to justify completely contradictory positions in two situations.

I personally judge ethics on what I personally see as the most negative (harm, suffering etc) or positive (happiness, good health etc) fallout for specific actions.

Then why don't you agree that the harm caused by military action is just as unethical as the harm caused by terrorist action?

Intent plays a part in judging the ethics of the person, rather than the action.

And I've already pointed out that the long-term intent of the terrorist and the soldier need not be any different from each other. You are focusing on intermediate intent, which is a bit like saying that a drunk driver wasn't really intending to drive drunk, he was just intending to turn the ignition key and step on the gas.

I am using a very liberal definition of the term self defence.

No shit.

[Plekhanov]

I'd love for you to show me a definition of terrorism that excludes violence against military personel. Weren't the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon terrorists?

Apparently they have just been reclassified as ‘guerrillas’

[Lord Woodlouse]

I'd love for you to show me a definition of terrorism that excludes violence against military personel. Weren't the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon terrorists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The United States Department of State defines terrorism as, "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.

It's hazy ground though. Naturally it's idiotic to assume a terrorist will simply not strike a military target if given an opportunity, of course they will. The difference is that it's not part of their overall strategy to do so. If it's part of their overall campaign strategy to target soliders and military infrastructure the term usuallly used is Guerrilla warfare.

There is obviously going to be some blending of these terms since you can't very well expect everyone to accept a cozy definition of themselves. But if you're talking about terrorism or terrorists it's usually accepted that you're talking about those who target civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Yes you do, fucktard. Otherwise you can make totally self-contradictory arguments. After all, you don't need a coherent ethical principle. You can use whatever argument comes to mind in order to justify completely contradictory positions in two situations.

Then point out any incoherency as it arrives. My openly declaring a philisophical idealogy does not force me to debate on the straight and narrow, neither does not declaring it force me to be dishonest. Prior to this argument I have placed no thought on what label suits me best, that does not stop me debating ethics, and it sure as hell does not stop you addressing my points.

If it bothers you that much consider me a Kantian, that's what I picked up after the cursory glance last time you asked and no, it's not a lie. I already showed you that you were quite incorrect with your original assessment.

Then why don't you agree that the harm caused by military action is just as unethical as the harm caused by terrorist action?

Because of intent. It's like comparing murder and manslaugter. Hell, it's not even the same as that. I've already told you that some collateral damage is entirely unpredicted and is completely accidental.

And I've already pointed out that the long-term intent of the terrorist and the soldier need not be any different from each other. You are focusing on intermediate intent, which is a bit like saying that a drunk driver wasn't really intending to drive drunk, he was just intending to turn the ignition key and step on the gas.

Long term their goals may indeed be similar, possibly even exactly the same. But you can't ignore the short term plans and objectives of these people, especially considering a military or terrorist campaign can potentially go on for decades, easily outliving everyone who begins that campaign. Tactical does not automatically mean short and fleeting.

Your analogy is useless. If a strategy and overall campaign is to be judged you DON'T just judge the final result, you judge the path you took to get there. Especially when every step of that path we're arguing here involves the deaths of civilians.

No shit.

But that does not invalidate the term. War is usually declared by a political authority, those who need to deal with it are typically the armed forces. If France declared war on Luxembourg the armed forces would suddenly be obligated to disable Luxembourg's ability to threaten France. It's massively unbalanaced, and self defence hardly seems like the right word, but it is still technically applicable for the military personel of France.

[Aaron]

Because of intent. It's like comparing murder and manslaugter. Hell, it's not even the same as that. I've already told you that some collateral damage is entirely unpredicted and is completely accidental.

So you think that shelling or bombing residential neighborhoods is causing civilian casualities by accident? Looks pretty purposefull to me. Look how many times the US or the IDF has bombed a village and killed a bunch of kids or innocents, that shit doesn't happen by accident, they knew there was a chance of noncombatants being in the area but went ahead anyways. The IDF recently threatened to bomb apartment buildings! You think that they are just chock full of terrorist or that are famalies inside?

[Lord Woodlouse]

Because of intent. It's like comparing murder and manslaugter. Hell, it's not even the same as that. I've already told you that some collateral damage is entirely unpredicted and is completely accidental.

So you think that shelling or bombing residential neighborhoods is causing civilian casualities by accident? Looks pretty purposefull to me. Look how many times the US or the IDF has bombed a village and killed a bunch of kids or innocents, that shit doesn't happen by accident, they knew there was a chance of noncombatants being in the area but went ahead anyways. The IDF recently threatened to bomb apartment buildings! You think that they are just chock full of terrorist or that are famalies inside?

I never said military personel were incapable of intending to destroy civilian infrastructure.

[Surlethe]

Because of intent. It's like comparing murder and manslaugter. Hell, it's not even the same as that. I've already told you that some collateral damage is entirely unpredicted and is completely accidental.

How does intent cause harm?

[Aaron]

I never said military personel were incapable of intending to destroy civilian infrastructure.

Than what are you saying? Because it seemed pretty obvious that you were saying any collateral damage was accidental.

[Lord Woodlouse]

How does intent cause harm?

It does not. But it can lead to it and encourage it. Intent is not the principle factor at work here, the principle factor is how much harm and damage is caused. When all is equal apart from that one can define one side from the other with intent. If a man intends (as in given the opportunity he would act on that desire) to commit murder that's unethical, even if he never actually gets to do such a thing.

Than what are you saying? Because it seemed pretty obvious that you were saying any collateral damage was accidental.

If you purposefully target an appartment block that's not collateral damage, that's shooting your objective.

[Surlethe]

How does intent cause harm?

It does not. But it can lead to it and encourage it. Intent is not the principle factor at work here, the principle factor is how much harm and damage is caused. When all is equal apart from that one can define one side from the other with intent. If a man intends (as in given the opportunity he would act on that desire) to commit murder that's unethical, even if he never actually gets to do such a thing.

So then, ceteris paribus, is it not fair to say that if a man kills another by accident, the harm is the same as if he'd killed him intentionally?

[Lord Woodlouse]

How does intent cause harm?

It does not. But it can lead to it and encourage it. Intent is not the principle factor at work here, the principle factor is how much harm and damage is caused. When all is equal apart from that one can define one side from the other with intent. If a man intends (as in given the opportunity he would act on that desire) to commit murder that's unethical, even if he never actually gets to do such a thing.

So then, ceteris paribus, is it not fair to say that if a man kills another by accident, the harm is the same as if he'd killed him intentionally?

The harm, yes. But the ethics of the man doing it are not the same.

[Surlethe]

The harm, yes. But the ethics of the man doing it are not the same.

Why, then, is intent to commit harm unethical?

[Aaron]

If you purposefully target an appartment block that's not collateral damage, that's shooting your objective.

I don't see any difference between targeting an apartment block to kill 10 terrorists and killing a hundred people and killing a guy on a motorcycle with a hellfire and killing 10 bystanders. Ethically I consider them both repugnant and the same. The military would also call those killed in the apartment as collateral damage the same as they classify janitors killed in military buildings at night collateral damage.

[Kuroneko]

Intent to harm is a measure of the character of the person who committed the crime. From the point of view of deontological ethics, this refelects on the ethics of the action, but that is not the case according to consequentialism (e.g., utilitarianism). But even under the latter system, moral character is of prime importance in situations like this, as one of the goals of the penal system is to protect the public. Intent or lack of it is an indication of how likely such a situation is to occur again, and hence to what degree the public is in danger from the criminal should he or she be released.

[Lord Woodlouse]

The harm, yes. But the ethics of the man doing it are not the same.

Why, then, is intent to commit harm unethical?

Because it can very easily, and more often than not does, lead to that harm actually being committed.

I don't see any difference between targeting an apartment block to kill 10 terrorists and killing a hundred people and killing a guy on a motorcycle with a hellfire and killing 10 bystanders. Ethically I consider them both repugnant and the same. The military would also call those killed in the apartment as collateral damage the same as they classify janitors killed in military buildings at night collateral damage.

An apartment is civilian infrastructure. If you attack it with enough force to destroy it it seems to me you're shooting the apartment with the express purpose of destroyng it. You're not shooting at someone else and accidently hitting the thing, you're targeting the thing and destroying it on purpose. The military might class it as collateral damage but I think that's something of an abuse of the term.

It's unethical to perform this action because those terrorists are unlikely to pose a threat to yourself which would cost 100 or more civilians casualties. Even if they did the capacity is generally there to move in using infrantry and secure the building. They have an ethical obligation to do this, as far as I see it.

[Surlethe]

The point here, however, is that, keeping all else equal and invoking a consequential ethical system, intent in conjunction with an action does not make it more immoral than the action itself. The penal system's action is not only to punish but also to deter, and punishing an intentional crime more than an unintentional crime aids in deterrance. Judgment based on utility, though, has no such deterrent obligation.

As an aside, it may be clearer to compare a contrast of collateral damage and terrorism with child neglect and child abuse, respectively, rather than manslaughter and murder: a government killing innocent civilians collaterally is neglecting to care for them in its plans, if not actively targeting them.

[Surlethe]

Because it can very easily, and more often than not does, lead to that harm actually being committed.

So? How does that make it unethical? Remember, we're assuming ceteris paribus: that is, in comparing two men, everything besides intent is the same.

[Aaron]

An apartment is civilian infrastructure. If you attack it with enough force to destroy it it seems to me you're shooting the apartment with the express purpose of destroyng it. You're not shooting at someone else and accidently hitting the thing, you're targeting the thing and destroying it on purpose. The military might class it as collateral damage but I think that's something of an abuse of the term.

Frankly if you attack something that causes nearby civvie casualties than you are using to much force and you should explore other options. Whether the casualties are caused by accident or on purpose the military is bound ethically and legally to limit civvie casualties. If this means that they take more losses as a result than that is too bad, that is their job. And I say this as a former soldier.

It's unethical to perform this action because those terrorists are unlikely to pose a threat to yourself which would cost 100 or more civilians casualties. Even if they did the capacity is generally there to move in using infrantry and secure the building. They have an ethical obligation to do this, as far as I see it.

Well at least you understand that.

[Kuroneko]

Whyever not? Lowering the crime rate through deterrence or rehabilitation clearly has positive utility. That would involve targetting those that have demonstrated a will to commit the crimes, i.e., those who have had the intent to do so. Whether from the point of view of determent or rehabilitation, treating those with intent differently makes sense. Unless states are/should be amoral, the analogy carries over.

[Darth Wong]

Yes you do, fucktard. Otherwise you can make totally self-contradictory arguments. After all, you don't need a coherent ethical principle. You can use whatever argument comes to mind in order to justify completely contradictory positions in two situations.

Then point out any incoherency as it arrives. My openly declaring a philisophical idealogy does not force me to debate on the straight and narrow, neither does not declaring it force me to be dishonest. Prior to this argument I have placed no thought on what label suits me best, that does not stop me debating ethics, and it sure as hell does not stop you addressing my points.

I already did. You say that you primarily judge actions based on harm, but you immediately create an exemption to this for "military actions". You do not have the ability to declare an overarching ethical principle regarding this issue; you pick and choose from different ideas depending on what suits you at any given moment.

If it bothers you that much consider me a Kantian, that's what I picked up after the cursory glance last time you asked and no, it's not a lie. I already showed you that you were quite incorrect with your original assessment.

I don't give a flying fuck what you declare yourself as; my point is that you cannot declare an ethical basis for your value judgments on this matter. You cite definitions of terror and intent from the dictionary that can just as easily be applied to "legitimate military actions" as they are to "terrorist attacks", and you expect debate to cease when you do so. You declare that your ethics are based on harm, but then you decide that it's OK to cause more harm if the "intent" is an acceptably superior intermediate step to the same long-term goal.

Then why don't you agree that the harm caused by military action is just as unethical as the harm caused by terrorist action?

Because of intent. It's like comparing murder and manslaugter. Hell, it's not even the same as that. I've already told you that some collateral damage is entirely unpredicted and is completely accidental.

And I've already pointed out that you're full of shit. In the vast majority of cases, collateral damage is inevitable. No one who fires artillery on a village can seriously believe that collateral damage is not a likely outcome. And what about the supposedly legitimate military conduct of hitting "infrastructure targets", damage to which inevitably spreads disease and hampers medical activities in the affected areas?

And I've already pointed out that the long-term intent of the terrorist and the soldier need not be any different from each other. You are focusing on intermediate intent, which is a bit like saying that a drunk driver wasn't really intending to drive drunk, he was just intending to turn the ignition key and step on the gas.

Long term their goals may indeed be similar, possibly even exactly the same. But you can't ignore the short term plans and objectives of these people, especially considering a military or terrorist campaign can potentially go on for decades, easily outliving everyone who begins that campaign. Tactical does not automatically mean short and fleeting.

Why not? If both groups have the same kinds of long-term goals, and both groups kill civilians as part of the means to achieve those goals, then what the fuck is the difference? You have repeatedly tried to pretend that collateral damage should be considered similar to an accident: a totally unintended consequence of action. However, that is simply false in the vast majority of cases under discussion; the use of indiscriminate area-effect weapons in civilian areas is bound to cause civilian casualties.

Your analogy is useless. If a strategy and overall campaign is to be judged you DON'T just judge the final result, you judge the path you took to get there. Especially when every step of that path we're arguing here involves the deaths of civilians.

And if the path the army takes to get there kills as many civilians as the path the terrorists take? Or many times more?

You have not yet even TRIED to produce an argument to justify the assumption that it's OK to kill large numbers of civilians if you just pretend it was an accident ... that you keep committing over and over again. You just keep repeating yourself, and expecting people to eventually agree with you.

But that does not invalidate the term. War is usually declared by a political authority, those who need to deal with it are typically the armed forces. If France declared war on Luxembourg the armed forces would suddenly be obligated to disable Luxembourg's ability to threaten France. It's massively unbalanaced, and self defence hardly seems like the right word, but it is still technically applicable for the military personel of France.

Not if the act of unnecessarily declaring war is factored into the ethics of the situation.

Whyever not? Lowering the crime rate through deterrence or rehabilitation clearly has positive utility. That would involve targetting those that have demonstrated a will to commit the crimes, i.e., those who have had the intent to do so. Whether from the point of view of determent or rehabilitation, treating those with intent differently makes sense. Unless states are/should be amoral, the analogy carries over.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that intent is totally irrelevant. The problem is that Lord Woodlouse is declaring a particular definition of "intent" in which one undertakes actions which will knowingly cause exactly the same kind of harm as the criminal undertakes, but declares that they are not criminal because there was some sort of benefit bundled in there as well. To him.

[Kuroneko]

I should probably add that several manslaughters would definitely be much worse than one murder. That analogy is more appropriate here than the "all things being equal" one.

[Plekhanov]

I'd love for you to show me a definition of terrorism that excludes violence against military personel. Weren't the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon terrorists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The United States Department of State defines terrorism as, "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

Would this be the same state department which routinely describes those who attack troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine as terrorists?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.

Do you really not understand that 'against the state or the public' includes attacks on both civilian and military targets?

It's hazy ground though. Naturally it's idiotic to assume a terrorist will simply not strike a military target if given an opportunity, of course they will. The difference is that it's not part of their overall strategy to do so. If it's part of their overall campaign strategy to target soliders and military infrastructure the term usuallly used is Guerrilla warfare.

There is obviously going to be some blending of these terms since you can't very well expect everyone to accept a cozy definition of themselves. But if you're talking about terrorism or terrorists it's usually accepted that you're talking about those who target civilians and civilian infrastructure.

So I take it that you don’t consider Hamas & Hezbollah to be ‘terrorist’ organisations then, seeing as how they routinely target soldiers and military infrastructure.

[Edi]

Yes you do, fucktard. Otherwise you can make totally self-contradictory arguments. After all, you don't need a coherent ethical principle. You can use whatever argument comes to mind in order to justify completely contradictory positions in two situations.

Then point out any incoherency as it arrives.

That's what he has been doing, as have I.

My openly declaring a philisophical idealogy does not force me to debate on the straight and narrow,

What's this? I've never seen much use in declaring adherence to a specific philosophical school of thought. I couldn't even name more than one or two, never mind tell you what their main tenets were, but that has never stopped me from logical analysis or applying logic. Within that sense, we're all obligated to debate on the straight and narrow, i.e. to make logical, consistent arguments.

neither does not declaring it force me to be dishonest. Prior to this argument I have placed no thought on what label suits me best, that does not stop me debating ethics,

No, it does not, but the problem so far has been that your arguments have been somewhat inconsistent and contained logical holes.

Then why don't you agree that the harm caused by military action is just as unethical as the harm caused by terrorist action?

Because of intent. It's like comparing murder and manslaugter. Hell, it's not even the same as that. I've already told you that some collateral damage is entirely unpredicted and is completely accidental.

Some, but the majority of it is predictable. You cannot generalize from an outlier data point to achieve a rule that applies all across the set.

You also invoke "intent" as if it were some magic wand that will make all problems vanish. I'd still like to hear what the actual ethical difference between stabbing someone to death or shooting them dead is, because that is a valid analogy for the issue when viewing it from the context of ultimate objectives (assuming the objectives are equally worthy).

Now torturing some to death vs just shooting them is a different matter, since the first one entails a greater amount of suffering than the second.

And I've already pointed out that the long-term intent of the terrorist and the soldier need not be any different from each other. You are focusing on intermediate intent, which is a bit like saying that a drunk driver wasn't really intending to drive drunk, he was just intending to turn the ignition key and step on the gas.

Long term their goals may indeed be similar, possibly even exactly the same. But you can't ignore the short term plans and objectives of these people, especially considering a military or terrorist campaign can potentially go on for decades, easily outliving everyone who begins that campaign. Tactical does not automatically mean short and fleeting.

The kind of situation you talk about always involves occupation of territory by hostile forces, so you're deluding yourself if you think the guerillas/terrorists are going to ignore military targets. Jus think back to the resistance movements in WW2.

Your analogy is useless. If a strategy and overall campaign is to be judged you DON'T just judge the final result, you judge the path you took to get there. Especially when every step of that path we're arguing here involves the deaths of civilians.

So death by car bomb vs death as collateral damage of artillery strikes is different in what way, exactly? Which path is better? Because you're assuming a conflict between a military and a guerilla/terrorist force, and the terrorists/guerillas are not really going to get anywhere if they just target civilians in the occupied areas. It's a different matter if they can strike elsewhere (such as in the home country of the occupier).

Killing civilians intentionally is of course unethical, but how is it any more ethical to shell and bomb areas where you know the civilian collateral damage to combatant kills ratio is going to be 10:1 or greater, especially if you wish to claim some kind of moral high ground?

But that does not invalidate the term. War is usually declared by a political authority, those who need to deal with it are typically the armed forces. If France declared war on Luxembourg the armed forces would suddenly be obligated to disable Luxembourg's ability to threaten France. It's massively unbalanaced, and self defence hardly seems like the right word, but it is still technically applicable for the military personel of France.

So, to take an analogy to your example, some random guy on the street who's about five feet tall, skinny and generally small enough that a strong gust of wind will knock him over threatens to beat me up and I (with martial arts background, general military training and specifically military police training) whip out an asp, maul him to a pulp so that he needs several weeks in a hospital to fix his broken bones and other damage. HOW is that justifiable self-defense? Technically, I was responding to a threat and defending myself. In the real world that bullshit wouldn't fly at all and I'd go to prison for a long time. Pick a better analogy, Woodlouse.

There must be an actual, applicable threat for the self-defense argument to get off the ground.

Edi

[Edi]

I should probably add that several manslaughters would definitely be much worse than one murder. That analogy is more appropriate here than the "all things being equal" one.

Is this aimed at me? If it is, point conceded. Sloppy work on my part.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Interestingly enough, Lord Woodlouse's argument results in the conclusion that a massive nuclear first strike which killed millions of people would have been ethically acceptable during the Cold War (or at least, ethically superior to anything he calls "terrorism"). Because according to him, once you declare war, it becomes ethical to destroy the enemy's ability to make war on you, through any means necessary.