Not what you meant, right?
You mean: “No amount of lawyerly head-up-your-arse semantics is going to convince anyone with an ounce of commonsense that acts of war aren’t the same as terrorism.”
Right?
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Again, it comes down to intent. [/quote]
You mean like motivation?
Please read carefully. 
Dangerously close to complete drivel. But there is an important point behind it.[/quote]
Why is this drivel? You don’t think the US is willing to kill innocents, or you don’t think that Al Qu-eda are motivated by extreme religiosu beliefs? Also, how can it be drivel if there’s an important point behind it? WTF are you talking about?
It’s not very helpful just to dismiss someone’s comments as drivel if you don’t say why you think so.
Fred Smith is talking a lot of sense. No amount of lawyerly head-up-your-arse semantics is going to convince anyone with an ounce of commonsense that acts of war are the same as terrorism.[/quote]
Your quote IS drivel. It doesn’t matter where one stands on this issue to see your quote as such. Your statements about the U.S. and Al Queda have no relation to each other. You talk about U.S. methods (in your opinion, the U.S. doesn’t mind killing innocent people) and say this is somehow a marked difference with Al-Queda’s motive (extreme religious beliefs). WTF? Your comparison makes abolutely no sense. If you compare the methods of the two, Al-Queda is clearly more willing to kill innocents. What the hell does that mean to say that the “main difference” between the two is one’s methods are as such, while “on the other hand,” the other’s motives are … You are comparing apples with oranges. Yes, the main difference between Taiwanese and Arabs is that Taiwanese people speak Chinese, while on the other hand, Arabs are known for eating with one hand but wiping their asses with another. What a useful comparison. Why don’t you compare methods to methods and motives to motives?
[quote=“Spack”][quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Again, it comes down to intent. [/quote]
You mean like motivation?
[/quote]
Spack… intent is not motivation.
Here, intent is about how I decide to act. Motivation is why I decide to act.
Don’t try and play semantics. We have all had a long discussion in another thread about how this is the last refuge of a dull-head with a bogus argument.
You equated the US with Al Qaeda and suggested that the only difference was why they were acting the way they are. I pointed out that there is a difference in how they are acting.
Thus, regardless of you motivation (your ‘why’ for the syllablically-challenged) there can be a great difference in the intentions of your actions (your ‘how’).
Do you see?
IYBF:
Certainly I do not support deaths of innocent civilians. I recognize that they will occur and that the US government has a responsibility to minimize those deaths. That said, Japan’s, Italy’s and Germany’s citizens were culpable for the governments they had in WWII. They were responsible as not only governments but also as citizens for raining disaster upon the world. While innocent lives were lost and it was to be deplored, when two sides are at war, it makes more sense for the US to be more concerned about saving lives of US citizens than worrying about how many Germans, Italians and Japanese will die. Why is there so little debate these days about the moral responsibility of Japan and Italy. Even Germany’s new generation is very happy to shift attention to the “greater” evils of Israel and the United States. And how is it that the Russians and their communist movements have failed to attract university students righteous anger? despite the fact that if we want to talk deaths, the communists made Hitler look like a two-bit actor.
To the same extent, while I fully realize the need for the US government to minimize civilian casualties, now is not the time to spend great effort examining each and every combat death but in winning the war. This is where the mistake was made in Vietnam. The casualties we caused were equated with the enemy’s actions. There was no longer a right or wrong but we are all parties involved in a fight. Fighting is bad. If they won’t quit, we must adopt the moral high road and give up first since there is nothing really worth fighting for. We lost that war and how many innocent civilians died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos because of it. How many years of stagnation and loss did those nations suffer and how many decades will it take them just to catch up to the outside world?
I often wonder what would have happened if the US would have been able to hang on another five years. How different would the world have been and perhaps Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos would have been spared the suffering under the communist governments that the Lefties are so keen to forget that they are far more morally culpable for than the Right for actions in Chile.
The authoritarian regimes of the Middle East know full well that the US and the West are weak kneed when it comes to civilian deaths. These are phenomenal strategists and it would be extremely naive to assume that they have not learned the lessons of Vietnam very well indeed. Hence, why the plan to attack civilian international organizations in Iraq like the UN and Red Cross? The Iraqi insurgents and Palestinian authority understand to a far greater degree where their enemies’ weakness lies and it is true the West suffers from excessive and unrealistic and ultimately very costly sensitivity. Palestine is a perfect case in point where the civilian casualties are exaggerated and Western media are strongarmed into reporting what the Palestinian Authority wants printed. Failure to cooperate means you don’t get to work in their areas or you end up dead. Perhaps Israel and the US should start using similar methods to ensure a steady stream of good news?
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Don’t try and play semantics…this is the last refuge of a dull-head with a bogus argument.[/quote]
Oops! I think you just shot yourself in the foot!
My, my…who would have thought?
Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Saddam Hussein’s government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam’s 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq’s Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
“The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam’s government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the “Anfal,” in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq’s far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert.”
Anfal: 1985-88
Following the Halabja attack and Iraq
[quote=“Spack”]
Perhaps that’s what we might see in the future - an attempt by Al Qu-eda to legitimize its actions in non-religious terms. It could demand, for example, that all Americans leave the Middle East, or else face the consequences. Then again, I won’t be holding my breath.[/quote]
Bin Laden’s stated goal was to get the US army of occupation out of Saudi Arabia - whether he wants them out for religious or social reasons what is the difference - it is his country is it not. Why do you think he is doing all this? And don’t just try to say Bush’s propoganda about not liking your way of life. Bin Laden doesn’t give a shit how many crispy creames you ate this morning. 911 was done in revenge for all the arab murders by Israel and all the other regimes propped up by the US thru coups, arms sales, etc… over the last 50 years.
Spack, instead of replying, you seem to be playing with what words mean (that’s playing semantics for the syllablically challenged)…
You didn’t intend to write motivation, you intended to write intent. What motivated you to write motivation when it clearly wasn’t your intent doesn’t really matter now, because you have defined them to be the same… but what was your motivation and what is your intent?
Clearly your motivation was that you saw you were wrong and your intent was to confuse.
Anyhow, freddie, we seem to have lost Spack on this one.
I think he is still caught up in the idea that there is no difference between the US and Al Qaeda, except in terms of their goals.
And, I note that you do invoke the call for a greater good as a key distinction:
I understand your point, but it does not satisfy me. Al Qaeda could quite easily claim to be saving everyone’s souls. And does it matter if a few thousand die now, if so many million ‘future’ souls are thereby saved? Listen, I’m an atheist, but I can see the similarities between the two arguments.
When two sides are having an argument, each is equally convinced they are right.
And that is where the motivation for an action and your intent in carrying out the action differ.
It is the age old question of whether the ‘end justifies the means.’ And the answer has to be “No.”
No matter how laudable the motivation:
In a world where outcomes are unknown and unknowable, the US cannot start using the same tactics - deliberate targetting of civilians. because such tactics are a deliberate attack on innocence. A deliberate attack on those who have no part of the quarrel.
But you see this… as you comment above shows. And I assume that you reject being quoted in support of Spack’s view (my italics)
That satisfies me.
I do think that your comment about the US opinion being relatively vulnerable to civilian deaths is true. However, to sacrifice this distinction for what is, after all, a tactical change, would be to sacrifice the only moral distinction between the US and al Qaeda.
Of course, if Spack was honest with himself, he would accept that there is no additional moral ground to be lost by the US now engaging in deliberately targetted strikes against entire civilian settlements in Iraq and Afghanistan. To entirely level vast areas and to engage in genocide.
For that is the logical conclusion of his argument.
IYBF:
Let me think a bit more about your very fine lines.
I guess I would still stress that while America should minimize civilian casualties, I consider that we are at war. I believe that you are equating my view with that of the al Qaeda in that I believe I am right. I do and I believe they do as well, hence war it is. We have been at war since the oil embargo of 1973. We(the West) just have not been fighting back. Will the al Qaeda get angry? I expect so. Will innocent Muslims and Arabs die in the process? I suppose so, but to me, while we could argue the ethical issues involved, I would choose to put primacy on survival of my fellow citizens and our system of beliefs first and foremost. When push comes to shove, I guess the Arab world better wake up because I for one am willing to push back and as hard as it takes.
IAYBF:
Originally, you said about my earlier quote that…
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
This, for the umpteeth time in this thread, seeks to judge only by outcomes. [/quote]
You ignored the part before that quote where I mentioned that motivation was more important than a definition of terrorism. ‘Motivation’ is very different from ‘outcome’, isn’t it? So, I was correcting your error.
Then, to avoid admitting this mistake you proceeded to lecture me about the difference between motivation and intent. Who’s playing with words, then? YOU are! These words are similar, but both are very different from ‘outcome’. See below how you endlessly ramble on about these two words and then have the cheek to say I am the one playing semantics.
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”] Spack… intent is not motivation.
Here, intent is about how I decide to act. Motivation is why I decide to act.
Don’t try and play semantics. We have all had a long discussion in another thread about how this is the last refuge of a dull-head with a bogus argument. [/quote]
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”] Spack, instead of replying, you seem to be playing with what words mean (that’s playing semantics for the syllablically challenged)…
You didn’t intend to write motivation, you intended to write intent. What motivated you to write motivation when it clearly wasn’t your intent doesn’t really matter now, because you have defined them to be the same… but what was your motivation and what is your intent? [/quote]
WIth all your semantic quibbling about intent/ motivation one would be forgiven for thinking, as you put it so aptly yourself, that you are a dull-head with a bogus argument.
well i’ll be damned.
Drop that martini, finish your fine meal of duck breast orange or whatever and truffles, and pick up that rifle and ship off to Iraq Fred Smith… send me a postcard when you get there. 
show the arab world what fred smith is made of.
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … ortal.html
Check this out for politicial correctness gone wrong. Prison officer in the UK is sacked for making feeble joke about Osama which might have been overheard by female Asians (presumably Muslim), who might have been offended by it.
Here is an interesting opinion piece on this story.
telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main … dl0503.xml
well I’ll be damned.
Drop that martini, finish your fine meal of duck breast orange or whatever and truffles, and pick up that rifle and ship off to Iraq Fred Smith… send me a postcard when you get there.
show the Arab world what fred smith is made of.[/quote]
You’ll look quite dashing in fatigues, Fred. 
Doug and Alien:
I am glad that you have determined that since I am not going to actually go to fight that I cannot have an opinion. (How mindless is this?) I will totally yield on the question of noncombat civilians not having a say in our nation’s defense strategy IF this also means that nontaxpaying Americans will no longer have a say in how the budget is spent. Agreed? Or perhaps we could say that those who pay the most have a greater vote in how tax dollars are spent? And naturally, this will include defense expenditures so I guess I can have an opinion on U.S. defense policy after all? But in the meantime, can you imagine Lefties not being able to put their hands in our nation’s till. Hah!
So joke away, but my point (which you have so hilariously satirized really) is that I will continue to support any such efforts (Iraq, Afghanistan) and even new ones if that is what it takes to stop the intolerant, fascist policies of what passes for leadership in the Middle East.
Alien: Nice photo of people injured and dying in a desert. Yet, much better surely than seeing a repeat of people being pulled out of a smoldering World Trade Center before it collapses? It is not a choice as you seem to be implying between deaths and injuries and no deaths and injuries, but where they will happen. Would you prefer this battle continue to be fought in the cities of the West, on our airlines, in our merchant shipping, in our embassies and multinational corporations and even schools and hospitals located abroad? or would you prefer to take this fight to where it is originating? I think everyone knows how I feel about this. How do you? And you cannot continue to argue like we have an option of an ideal, everyone living at peace kind of world. That has proved to be a wishful delusion. What do you really think should be DONE as an alternative?
Perhaps we could send Saddam and Osama a nice hanging plant with a note, “Sorry about the misunderstanding. Hope we can all be friends. I really shouldn’t have called you a dune coon. I just baked some chocolate chip cookies. Want to come over for some tea and a chat?”
Love Fred Smith
[quote=“Spack”]IAYBF:
Originally, you said about my earlier quote that…
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
This, for the umpteeth time in this thread, seeks to judge only by outcomes. [/quote]
You ignored the part before that quote where I mentioned that motivation was more important than a definition of terrorism. ‘Motivation’ is very different from ‘outcome’, isn’t it? [/quote]
Well, no, not really. Your motivation is the reason why you are doing something. it is what you seek to achieve. It is very clearly linked to outcome. Your intent when you commit an act is how you go about achieving that outcome.
Spack, you continue to dance. But having explained it AGAIN, I want to know whether you actually believe that it matters not HOW you conduct yourself and that the only difference is your motivation or what you seek to achieve?
Are you able to stop playing word games and answer this question?
[quote=“fred smith”]
I am glad that you have determined that since I am not going to actually go to fight that I cannot have an opinion. [/quote]
I never said you aren’t entitled to opinion, but having an pro-opinion about the war effort sounds different from what it sounded like you were saying… that you would [personally] do what it takes to push as hard as it takes [paraphrase]. all that gung ho rhetoric really sounded like you would personally go to the M.E. and kick some camel butt.
Doug:
I know I know that is why I admitted that you had satirized my position beautifully.
And I am going back to Sand Land again in mid-January. I will kick a camel’s butt and have a photo taken of the experience to share with all my good friends on Forumosa. After which, I will head to a very good restaurant for martinis and duck breast with truffle oil. You, however, and that Alien are NOT invited. 
