rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,009
- 4,876
- 290
Context:
the thread is following this:
Basic moral question -
in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?
But I'd rather discuss more specifically the various tactics used in this conflict,
and poster's own ideas about 'self-defense' vs 'terror(ism)'.
I'll start with self defense, because it's clearer, and try to define it as closest to absolute as I can, to try and establish a clear consistent definition, at least how I think about it for now.
Self-defense in its intent is to stop or prevent an attack.
In it absolute way it is to cease confrontation, rather than prolong or trigger escalation.
In its most clear way it is a limited action, in the way it's target is engaged directly in an attack at a limited target. Meaning - one person initiating the attack the other responds in self-defense -
to CEASE CONFRONTATION.
Terror on its own is basically the result of any attack, either in self defense or as an initiated offensive.Terrorism is a different thing, a contrast to self-defense, in that its intent is solely to instill terror, and instead of cease confrontation, solely to trigger more - intent of escalation.
Now on this axis,
I think self-defense and terror(ism) somewhere fuse, in a way that explained above:
terror - result of any attack.
And as explained above, self-defense in its most absolute way I managed to frame it,
is to cease confrontation.
In that way they correlate, between the scales of cease vs escalation.
That for now I think is the most consistent category I can define 'self-defense' vs 'terror(ism)'.
And along that correlation terror can be a function of self-defense, within a clear moral framework.
However, let's say we could measure any of those kinds of attacks by percentage of cease and escalation,I think it would be purely logically fair to say that when an intent of the action clearly crosses into plus 50%into escalation, it begins to lose moral basis. However this is too simplistic, we can't measure that methodically.
Some numbers can be brought up, but they are only part of the picture,
which includes the cultural attitudes and specifics of the region.
And this is exactly OUR IDEA comes in.
We are the only ones talking here anyway.
We can't talk to any of those videos or articles.
This is the grey area (?) where I think we, as individuals can express our personal attitudes.
Then, only then when we have clarified our own idea of self-defense vs terror, can we look at laws, ask and argue about their morality and/or lack of and flaws.
I think, if one cannot clarify a consistent set of values and measures along these, or other clear lines, only judges each hostility according to unexpressed biases.
(On a side note)
I clearly emphasized the detachment from political preferences, and Tinmore mentioned religion.
But I think this is valid as much as the opening question of the thread,
in fact, in Israel the term 'terrorism' is not used as it is used in the West.
More specifically 'terror' was initially used to define attacks from a united Arab front in its various tactics.
Personal attackers are defined as 'saboteurs', the word terrorist for individuals is used to define specific actions, that have clear criminal intent and/or ideology of clear escalation motive, that in no way occur against individuals engaged in any direct or immediate attack against the individual engaging the attack.
It's a psychological principle in dealing with this sort of reality, not to dramatize their activity,
or feed into narcissistic tendencies or agencies of radicalization.
the thread is following this:
Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.Your post was mindless clutter.Nice duck.Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).
(COMMENT)Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?
I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.
Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:
View attachment 378755
This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.
I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.
Most Respectfully,
R
Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?
Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.
It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.
Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?
But we can discuss our idea of self defense and terrorism.
Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.
I propose - the subject of war.
What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.
Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.
At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.
Are you in?
Basic moral question -
in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?
But I'd rather discuss more specifically the various tactics used in this conflict,
and poster's own ideas about 'self-defense' vs 'terror(ism)'.
I'll start with self defense, because it's clearer, and try to define it as closest to absolute as I can, to try and establish a clear consistent definition, at least how I think about it for now.
Self-defense in its intent is to stop or prevent an attack.
In it absolute way it is to cease confrontation, rather than prolong or trigger escalation.
In its most clear way it is a limited action, in the way it's target is engaged directly in an attack at a limited target. Meaning - one person initiating the attack the other responds in self-defense -
to CEASE CONFRONTATION.
Terror on its own is basically the result of any attack, either in self defense or as an initiated offensive.Terrorism is a different thing, a contrast to self-defense, in that its intent is solely to instill terror, and instead of cease confrontation, solely to trigger more - intent of escalation.
Now on this axis,
I think self-defense and terror(ism) somewhere fuse, in a way that explained above:
terror - result of any attack.
And as explained above, self-defense in its most absolute way I managed to frame it,
is to cease confrontation.
In that way they correlate, between the scales of cease vs escalation.
That for now I think is the most consistent category I can define 'self-defense' vs 'terror(ism)'.
And along that correlation terror can be a function of self-defense, within a clear moral framework.
However, let's say we could measure any of those kinds of attacks by percentage of cease and escalation,I think it would be purely logically fair to say that when an intent of the action clearly crosses into plus 50%into escalation, it begins to lose moral basis. However this is too simplistic, we can't measure that methodically.
Some numbers can be brought up, but they are only part of the picture,
which includes the cultural attitudes and specifics of the region.
And this is exactly OUR IDEA comes in.
We are the only ones talking here anyway.
We can't talk to any of those videos or articles.
This is the grey area (?) where I think we, as individuals can express our personal attitudes.
Then, only then when we have clarified our own idea of self-defense vs terror, can we look at laws, ask and argue about their morality and/or lack of and flaws.
I think, if one cannot clarify a consistent set of values and measures along these, or other clear lines, only judges each hostility according to unexpressed biases.
(On a side note)
I clearly emphasized the detachment from political preferences, and Tinmore mentioned religion.
But I think this is valid as much as the opening question of the thread,
in fact, in Israel the term 'terrorism' is not used as it is used in the West.
More specifically 'terror' was initially used to define attacks from a united Arab front in its various tactics.
Personal attackers are defined as 'saboteurs', the word terrorist for individuals is used to define specific actions, that have clear criminal intent and/or ideology of clear escalation motive, that in no way occur against individuals engaged in any direct or immediate attack against the individual engaging the attack.
It's a psychological principle in dealing with this sort of reality, not to dramatize their activity,
or feed into narcissistic tendencies or agencies of radicalization.
Last edited: