Palestinian militants fire about 10 rockets at Israel http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060610-2336-israel-rocketattacks.html
Juast like 1929 massacre in Hebron that was the first violent act by Arabs on innocent unarmed Jews, it was always that way, Israel tries to live in the face of those threatening genocide on her.

Now there are genocide bombings and missiles shgooting into homes.

It is funny how biased media forgets these missiles attacks that were going on for a very long time, even before (or immediately after) the Gaza gift to the Palestinians.
But when the Palestinians capitalize on their kids that are wounded when fighting the Israelis, the media does not show what the Israelis endured before, which in fact prompts the war-on-terror actions.

Juast like 1929 massacre in Hebron that was the first violent act by Arabs on innocent unarmed Jews, it was always that way, Israel tries to live in the face of those threatening genocide on her.

Now there are genocide bombings and missiles shgooting into homes.

It is funny how biased media forgets these missiles attacks that were going on for a very long time, even before (or immediately after) the Gaza gift to the Palestinians.
But when the Palestinians capitalize on their kids that are wounded when fighting the Israelis, the media does not show what the Israelis endured before, which in fact prompts the war-on-terror actions.

Anyone who kills innocent unarmed citizens is wrong; it does not matter what excuse they use for justifying their actions.

Anyone who kills innocent unarmed citizens is wrong; it does not matter what excuse they use for justifying their actions.

There's not much of a thing as an "innocent civilian". To say so is using the excuse of Nazi soldiers saying they were "just following orders".

Are civilians working in a factory building guns, tanks, and other weapons of war considered innocent? Are civilians working on a military base developing new rocketry innocent? Are unarmed Iraqi civilians that aid terrorists innocent? Are unarmed Iraqi civilians that aid the invading U.S. instead of their own people innocent?

If you help the other side, you're not innocent, so you're as much of a target as the military. Bomb that factory. Kill those treasonists. Blow up that convoy.

Nobody is innocent. This is why people should do all they can do to avoid war in the first place because in war, there are no rules except those set forth by the victor.

- N

No samcdkey, the terroist are the ones who are wrong when they commit their acts of terroisim from a site that causes the terrorism to be returned on their pople and then call for justice on the people they attacked first. You do have a right to self defense when people attack you, if some one attacks you what will you do at the point of attack call for the police and wait for rescue, or defend your self?

No samcdkey, the terroist are the ones who are wrong when they commit their acts of terroisim from a site that causes the terrorism to be returned on their pople and then call for justice on the people they attacked first. You do have a right to self defense when people attack you, if some one attacks you what will you do at the point of attack call for the police and wait for rescue, or defend your self?

yes but how do you know whether I am defending myself or supporting the terrorist? You don't. Would you expect the entire country to pack up and and leave because the terrorists happen to be from there?

What is your justification for the war in Iraq? And do you believe that all the people who died there were terrorist supporters? They were just collateral damage. Such a nice clean word; no need to imagine bits and pieces blown off of people.

There's not much of a thing as an "innocent civilian". To say so is using the excuse of Nazi soldiers saying they were "just following orders".

Are civilians working in a factory building guns, tanks, and other weapons of war considered innocent? Are civilians working on a military base developing new rocketry innocent? Are unarmed Iraqi civilians that aid terrorists innocent? Are unarmed Iraqi civilians that aid the invading U.S. instead of their own people innocent?

If you help the other side, you're not innocent, so you're as much of a target as the military. Bomb that factory. Kill those treasonists. Blow up that convoy.

Nobody is innocent. This is why people should do all they can do to avoid war in the first place because in war, there are no rules except those set forth by the victor.

- N


Nobody actively wants a war. It is not people who want to fight, it is governments. It is never about religion or justice; it is about fear and power.

There is always a lot of negative propaganda about the opposite side when a war is fought. I travel; I have heard the same things about Americans in the Middle East as I have about the Middle East in America. Believe me, there is NO DIFFERENCE in what the people think they know about the opposite camp.

One thing I have noticed in many of the postings, everyone seems to think you have to be a sadistic monster to be a terrorist. That is not true; anyone can be a terrorist, it is so surprisingly easy.

Here is some information about what it takes to torture people:
Photos of U.S. troops obviously enjoying the torture and humiliation of Iraqis prisoners of war will be images not soon forgotten. The U.S. military's torturing of Iraqi prisoners merely proves yet again that torturing comes easily to humans.

Typically, such torturers do not emerge from under some rock, already pre-disposed towards repression, brutality, and violence. Instead, although not in all cases, the torturer is usually an average, normal individual who becomes a sadistic monster by merely following orders in a culture that encourages such behaviour. Research suggests that it is the rare, exceptional, and highly laudable person who is morally strong enough to refuse inhumane commands by an authority figure.

Be it the Nazi SS officer, the Saddam Hussein henchman, or the U.S. soldier or contract security guard in Iraq, the torturer could easily be your neighbour's son.

A classic film, "Your Neighbour's Son" (1988), documents for all time how easy it is to create a torturer. The film depicts the transforming of average Greek young men into political torturers during the years of the Greek military junta (1967-74). It was made by doctors under the sponsorship of Amnesty International and later the subject of an ABC "Four Corners" program. The film shows that only a modest amount of indoctrination by authorities is sufficient to turn ordinary youngsters into murderers.

For at least fifty years, behavioural science research has demonstrated how simple it is to create a torturer.

The grandfather of works in this field is THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY by T.W. Adorno and others (Harper & Row, 1950). Written soon after World War II, this classic study draws frightening parallels between fascist reality in Germany and "potentially fascist" behaviour in California.

A lesser known but invaluable work is LICENSED MASS MURDER by H.V. Dicks (Sussex University Press, 1972). This book artfully delineates the socio-psychological make-up of a group of Nazi SS officers. It is a fascinating study of the intricate workings of the mind of the torturer and shows how all involved are in some sense victimized.

But still the most chilling study of all is based upon experiments conducted at the psychology laboratories of Yale University under the direction of the late Dr. Stanley Milgram.

In OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY (Tavistock, 1974), Dr. Milgram writes, "This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work becomes patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority. A variety of inhibitions against disobeying authority come into play and successfully keep the person in his place."

Dr. Milgram's experiments consisted of making unsuspecting university students participate in a "learning experiment". Under the orders of a scientist (Dr. Milgram), complete with white laboratory coat and surrounded by scientific-looking equipment, a student became the "teacher" whose task it was to administer steadily rising degrees of electric shocks to a "learner". The learner was unseen, but not unheard. The learner was supposedly strapped to a chair in a nearby room in front of a task to be "learned". The learner was to be "conditioned" by shocks to avoid errors ("to learn better").

Of course, the "teacher" was the real subject of Dr. Milgram's experiment. The object being to discover how far a normal person would go in carrying out orders by an authority--even though obviously injuring or killing another human being.

Unknown to the teacher, the learner was not being shocked, but merely acting the part--complete with cries, shouts, and pleas for mercy all coming from the next room. The learner was, in fact, one of Dr. Milgram's assistants.

The situation was made more realistic to the teacher by the elaborate, sophisticated-looking, supposedly "very scientific-looking" electric shock-inducing switchboard that was to be used. It had a keyboard with marked buttons ranging from "slight shock" to "danger--severe shock". And prior to the teacher administering shocks, Dr. Milgram gave each a tiny, genuine shock. Thus, they could understand what sorts of pain the learner would be receiving--but in ever-increasing doses.

Naturally, the learner intentionally made many mistakes so that the teacher would be called upon to administer numerous and steadily more severe shocks.

Therefore, while at one end of the experiment, there was a suffering victim evoking the humane urge to stop, at the other end there was the authority figure instructing the teacher to continue on at whatever cost.

The authority figure would first say "in the interests of science continue", then "please continue", then "the experiment requires that you continue", then "it is absolutely essential that you go on", and finally "you have no choice but to go on". This would proceed until supposedly fatal shocks were being administered--and when no further cries could be heard from the learner.

This experiment was repeated many times. Dr. Milgram found that ordinary young men would invariably obey what were, in effect, criminal orders to torture and murder a complete stranger--someone never even seen. He writes, "even with this low degree of expected zeal or commitment and without prior conditioning, not one participant refused ab initio to go on the moment he knew he was beginning to cause discomfort to another human being. Two-thirds of the subjects obeyed the experimenter to the last and severest shocks--so to speak against all moral imperative."

Dr. Milgram came to the horrifying conclusion that these subjects, just as the Nazi SS officers before them, behaved as "sadistic monsters" who were merely following orders. (1)

According to the latest annual report by Amnesty International covering 2003, 151 nations abuse human rights. (2) Nations that torture during war or times of social unrest range from A to Z. There is torture in Afghanistan and torture in Zimbabwe.

Some governments seek the right to torture. The U.S. government recently requested that its military be exempt from international anti-torturing conventions. The U.S. government in April 2004 argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that no international anti-torturing laws applied to its military prisoners the U.S. holds in Guantanomo, Cuba---an enclave it rents from the Cuban government.

The U.S. military admits that its troops have used sexual torture in Iraq. Sexual torture as an instrument of war is common. This is according to a Dr. Y. Fischman of the Institute for the Study of Psychopolitical Trauma in Palo Alto, California. (3)

Just as torture is sexy, it is profitable. According to U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, U.S. military-oriented businesses make profits from "trade in the tools of torture". (4)

Torture is commonly a part of war strategy. Indeed, it is rare that military prisoners are not tortured. In one study concerning the former Yugoslavia, it was found that torture occurred in 93 per cent of prisoners as only 7 per cent were "rarely tortured". (5)

Famed psychologist Hannah Arendt studied the case of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and came to the disturbing conclusion that Eichmann thought of himself, not as a monster, but only as a "bureaucrat who simply sat at his desk and did his job."

C.P. Snow once remarked, "more horrible crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than for any other cause or ideology."

When torturing prisoners of war is sexy, profitable, and enjoyable, and when creating a torturer is so easy, no wonder it's so common?

1) Juan, S. (1990) Why Creating A Torturer Is Easy. In Juan, S. ONLY HUMAN. Sydney, Random House Australia, pp. 53-55.

(2) Amnesty International. ANNUAL REPORT, 2003. London, Amnesty International.

(3) Fischman, Y. (1996) Sexual Torture As An Instrument Of War. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY 66:1:161-162.

(4) Knight, D. (2003) Trade In The Tools Of Torture. The U.S. Government OKs The Export Of Shackles And Stun Guns. U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 24 November, pp. 30-31.

(5) Kucukalic, A. & Bravo-Mehmedbasic, A. (2002) Torture As A Part Of War Strategy In Bosnia And Herzegovina. MEDICINSKI ARHIVE 56:5-6:281-283.


Here is the link
harper collins (http://www.harpercollins.com.au/drstephenjuan/0405news.htm)

Nobody actively wants a war. It is not people who want to fight, it is governments.

Yes, it's the government that primarily wants the fight, but what happens when the people support the decisions of that government, or even goes so far as to fight in that war or help manufacture the arms in that war? They become targets by aiding the enemy.

The "I was just following orders" excuse don't work. It didn't work with the MPs in Abu Graib, it didn't work with the Germans in WWII, and it shouldn't work not just with those hideous acts mentioned, but in fighting a war period. "I'm just supporting or fighting in the war because I'm a blinded patriot". Heck, they outta be jailed just for their stupidity of confusing "patriot" with "sheep".

- N

Samcdkey, you didn't answer the question,

You do have a right to self defense when people attack you, if some one attacks you what will you do at the point of attack call for the police and wait for rescue, or defend your self?

Samcdkey, you didn't answer the question,

You do have a right to self defense when people attack you, if some one attacks you what will you do at the point of attack call for the police and wait for rescue, or defend your self?

I thought I answered it elsewhere in another thread.

That is my point; you attack another country; they fight back.

Are they:
1. supporting the terrorists?
2. defending themselves?

How do you know? You don't.

No one is going to pack up and leave just because the terrorists happen to be from their country.

Look at this scenario:

There are nuclear warheads in the US.

Tomorrow a militant country on poor terms with the US starts having a difference of opinion with the US government.

The US govt. threatens to launch a pre-emptive strike.

The militant country is afraid that they may be attacked with nuclear warheads.

They launch their pre-pre-emptive strike.

Now what will YOU do?

And if you happen to live in the vicinity of where those warheads are, what are your chances of getting caught in the crossfire?

You may not agree with the war on either side, but you won't pack up and leave the country to prove it ( I wouldn't).

So, to the other country, are you a terrorist? or defending yourself?

Now all you have to do is put yourself in the shoes of the average Iraqi who hated Saddam, did not want the war and had nowhere to go.

This is the way I see it.

By the way, I would defend myself, in case I didn't make myself clear.

It would not be for the govt but to protect my way of life, of course, but these fine distinctions are usually not so clear to the other side.

This whole terrorism/anti-terrorism debate is D.O.A. As long as there is no coherent distinction between terrorism and anti-terrorism we are looking at a definitional distinction without a difference.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Etc.

If on the other hand we can point to some contextual moral advantage that one man's slaughter of the innocents has in comparison to another, then we might have a debate. But pointing to who shot first is a long train of circular logic. One side uses missiles and the other uses people. And you don't even need to be a "radical" comprehend such easily gained wisdom.

On the other hand you can just sit out the thinking game and run with your bias (on both sides). But if you use a faction's religion as a compass then everything is moral and nothing is unjust. Because every atrocity that can be thought of has been exercised by every side.

On the micro level it seems the only distinction between terrorists and soldiers are their uniforms. As far as Iraq goes there are probably a billion reasons why the invasion was doomed, but the greatest factor in that equation was the conduct of war. It still is. Bombing city blocks, restaurants, weddings, etc. are not effective policing methods. Possibly you might kill an intended target on accident, but then you've also created a new network of insurgents. There has yet to be a successful occupation in all of history. (AND NO Japan and Germany do not count because of the war-weariness, feelings of guilt, and most importantly because of infrastructural aid that improved the lives of actual citizens).

There's actually a community of terrorists (that meet everybody's definition) living in Havana right now. These are people who bombed hotels, hijacked airplanes, etc. while the USA looked the other way. Who knows what kind of shady alliances like this are made (Bin Laden anybody). It seems to me that people move in and out of terrorist status without much to justify why (Libya). So then it looks like the true defintion of terrorism is "uncooperative AND occupying strategic resources." Just look at all the African murderers who go unnoticed simply because Africa is insignificant.