TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A Primer on "terrorist"
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut LOL, see? This is an absolutely perfect example of what Arbiter was talking about in the other thread: Are you seeing it now igottaknow? If you don't know your facts, then don't argue! The fact is that I DO know the answers to these questions (well, only to a limited extent about what the secrets were obviously). The point was to see if YOU knew, and you obviously don't, so if you don't even know all the facts, why are you so quick to form an opinion? Instead you just post some vague information, draw your conclusion, and tell ME to go do the research. Whew, talk about armchair activism! Look at the facts, THEN form an opinion. Don't form an opinion and scrounge for facts later to support it. Of course! Everything you say is true unless someone can prove you wrong! And once again: Please stop posting this BULLSHIT, nothing you say is "common knowledge", it is "your personal opinion!"

Why do you always say this BS, Diginuts, its your personal opinion as well you croc

Ooooh! DigiNut has found another thread to demonstrate his vast, sorry, "vast" knowledge about the Israel-Palestine conflict! Think I'm gonna sit back and enjoy what he has to say for a change altho I will make a little prediction...

Somebody (who knows what they are talking about) will sooner or later challenge something DigiNut says about the conflict, and DigiNut will disappear from the face of this thread forever! (Unless said person is silly enough to say something else to which DigiNut can say something back of course!)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ooooh! DigiNut has found another thread to demonstrate his vast, sorry, "vast" knowledge about the Israel-Palestine conflict! Think I'm gonna sit back and enjoy what he has to say for a change altho I will make a little prediction... Somebody (who knows what they are talking about) will sooner or later challenge something DigiNut says about the conflict, and DigiNut will disappear from the face of this thread forever! (Unless said person is silly enough to say something else to which DigiNut can say something back of course!)

And you've found another thread to launch personal attacks on others in the vain hope that it will make you look like you have half a brain. Sorry, you failed, try again.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ooooh! DigiNut has found another thread to demonstrate his vast, sorry, "vast" knowledge about the Israel-Palestine conflict! Think I'm gonna sit back and enjoy what he has to say for a change altho I will make a little prediction... Somebody (who knows what they are talking about) will sooner or later challenge something DigiNut says about the conflict, and DigiNut will disappear from the face of this thread forever! (Unless said person is silly enough to say something else to which DigiNut can say something back of course!)

Notice Digi doesn't respond to the content of my post, instead he makes it about me and my lack of knowledge. I didn�t respond to him because he�s not interested in discussing the issue, he would rather engage in mudsling or do anything to distract from the issue. In part he has already succeeded because we are talking about him instead of the issue I raised.

His implications are: I�m not worthy to discuss the issue and if I knew more about the circumstances I would understand the justification for kidnapping Vanunu. Terrorist always defend their actions based on their higher purposes, but understanding their motivations doesn�t justify their actions (ends don�t justify the means).

It�s not debatable whether the kidnapping took place or if it was illegal, however my interpretation it was an act of terrorism is open to debate. Even if someone could convince me that it doesn�t fit �the definition� of terrorism, one must admit it�s a heinous act. Just like you would condemn the abduction of a child by a pedophile.

I think it�s pretty clear Israel treatment of Vanunu was designed to deter anyone who would have the audacity to provide proof that Israel has nuclear weapons program. Most people would consider, kidnapping someone, imprisoning them in solitary confinement for 18 years, and denying him the right to ever leave the country after release, as a form of terrorism to frighten anyone from blowing the whistle on their �secret� WMD program. Sounds like tactics that a totalitarian regime would use to silence its opponents.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow It�s not debatable whether the kidnapping took place or if it was illegal, however my interpretation it was an act of terrorism is open to debate. Even if someone could convince me that it doesn�t fit �the definition� of terrorism, one must admit it�s a heinous act. Just you would condemn the abduction of a child by a pedophile.

Exactly, it is not debatable whether the kidnapping took place or if it was illegal, because when you say he was kidnapped you are by definition telling us it is an illegal action.

Lets define the word "kidnapping" now shall we

kid�nap (src: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kidnapping)
tr.v. kid�napped, or kid�naped kid�nap�ping, or kid�nap�ing kid�naps or kid�naps
To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.

So even if the "seizing" was illegal (which defintely could be argued as illegal in the context of international law, then again it could also be argued as legal in the context of international law). But the and detain[ed] unlawfully (afterall kidnap is a two part definition, both A and B must be true for it to apply) does not apply. Because even if you disagree with Vanunu's sentance, punishment, etc, he was tried by a court, and sentanced to punishment that was already on the books. He was awarded all his rights, and even if you don't think he is guilty, and even if you think the law is unjust, that still does not make his sentance unlawful. Just because you think it is unlawful does not make it so, the only one that decides the laws with in Israel is the state of Israel, its parliment and its court.

So next time preface your agrument more like I think this is unjust for a b and c reasons... don't go using loaded terms like illegal and terrorism.


Which brings me to your use of terrorism:

quote:

I think it�s pretty clear Israel treatment of Vanunu was designed to deter anyone who would have the audacity to provide proof that Israel has nuclear weapons program. Most people would consider, kidnapping someone, imprisoning them in solitary confinement for 18 years, and denying him the right to ever leave the country after release, as a form of terrorism to frighten anyone from blowing the whistle on their �secret� WMD program.

Not so. Why? Because even you agree here that this would only be terrorism is the intent was to terrorize others.

I can prove to you its not by context, watch:
In the 1960s Israel kidnapped, imprisoned, and then executed a criminal to the state of Israel. Did they do it for terrorism? No. Did they do it for example? No. Did they do it for revenge and justice? Yes.

Who was this man? Eichmann.

So here you have a similar case, where the state of Israel kidnapped (as he wasn't an Israeli citizen I think the term applies here) yet the intent was not to terrorize other people from stopping to mass murder jews - that crime was committed and everyone had ceased mass murdering the Jews.



Now aside from that single arugment you are coming into the realm of law enforcement. To argue that what they do to Vanunu is terrorism would then force you to brand almost all punishment and corrections as terrorism. That cop just gave me a $150 speeding ticket! He did that just to scare me and all my friends from ever speeding again! Damn terrorist !

quote:

Sounds like tactics that a totalitarian regime would use to silence its opponents.

No you must be thinking of something else, a toltalitarian regime would have executed him with out trial or warning in Italy.




As a side note to igottaknow and georegy, lay of Digi.
You guys are complete talk and I'll tell you why I think so. Even though Digi is personally attacking you (and he is, cut it out Digi, you have to attack people by slight of hand not directly... just like I try and do ) you georegy and igottaknow are the ones always championing 'moral superiority' in your worldly views in this forum. You tell us take us the high road. You tell Israel not to retaliate to sucidie bombings, that it is only fueling the violence. Well what are you doing by retaliating to Digi's insults?

Actions speak louder then words.

Yoepus good post, I don't agree with everything you said, but I will need to think about what you said over dinner. Unlike digi I'm always open to change my opinion if given a persuasive and logical argument. So instead of firing back with an insult, I'll construct an appropriate reply.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Notice Digi doesn't respond to the content of my post, instead he makes it about me and my lack of knowledge. I didn�t respond to him because he�s not interested in discussing the issue, he would rather engage in mudsling or do anything to distract from the issue. In part he has already succeeded because we are talking about him instead of the issue I raised. His implications are: I�m not worthy to discuss the issue and if I knew more about the circumstances I would understand the justification for kidnapping Vanunu. Terrorist always defend their actions based on their higher purposes, but understanding their motivations doesn�t justify their actions (ends don�t justify the means). It�s not debatable whether the kidnapping took place or if it was illegal, however my interpretation it was an act of terrorism is open to debate. Even if someone could convince me that it doesn�t fit �the definition� of terrorism, one must admit it�s a heinous act. Just like you would condemn the abduction of a child by a pedophile. I think it�s pretty clear Israel treatment of Vanunu was designed to deter anyone who would have the audacity to provide proof that Israel has nuclear weapons program. Most people would consider, kidnapping someone, imprisoning them in solitary confinement for 18 years, and denying him the right to ever leave the country after release, as a form of terrorism to frighten anyone from blowing the whistle on their �secret� WMD program. Sounds like tactics that a totalitarian regime would use to silence its opponents.

That's interesting, I could have sworn I actually DID respond to the content of your post, and asked you several questions which you did not know the answer to. In response, you told me that *I* should go do the research and "prove you wrong."

Vanunu being "illegally kidnapped" is your opinion. He committed a crime under Israeli law and fled to another country. He did not commit the crime in Italy and thus Italy would not extradite. Extradition requires the cooperation of both states. Apprehending a known criminal is not illegal.

The notion that it was performed as a deterrent to others is not "clear", it is your opinion. When ordinary criminals in your own home town are apprehended by police, it is law enforcement, not terrorism. Apprehending a known criminal is not terrorism.

I was not speaking of a "higher purpose", I was speaking of a very simple purpose: Vanunu broke Israeli law and was imprisoned under Israeli law. There is nothing special about this. The fact that he was some sort of "hero" for revealing tactical secrets about his country, as opposed to a common criminal, is your opinion.

You made an attempt to use Vanunu as an example of Israel's "terrorism" without having any clue as to what actually happened. You were not able to answer any detailed questions whatsoever. One could surmise that you merely read an article about it somewhere, decided that it flowed well with your personal opinion of Israel, and posted it with the assumption that everyone would agree. Upon being challenged, you could not provide additional details because you did not KNOW any additional details. Thus, yes, you do NOT have the proper knowledge to debate this issue.

Your lack of knowledge is key in this matter because it has resulted in the lack of any coherent, connected argument. You merely state an abbreviated, short-sighted view of what happened and expect those reading to "use their imagination" to fill in the blanks, and therefore agree with you. The problem is that what's really in the blanks is not what you imagine it to be. This was the apprehension of a criminal, not a terrorist act on some sort of war hero.

I do not call this "mudslinging". I asked you a set of questions about the issue YOU brought up, and you replied that you did not know the answers, preferring instead that I should answer them myself. I merely pointed out that you CLEARLY were not in possession of the level of knowledge necessary to carry on a normal debate, which was something that YOU brought to light with YOUR lazy answer to my challenge, NOT a random insult on my account.

You seem to think that your personal opinion has the same authoritative power as factual evidence and that everyone must agree with what YOU consider to be "clear" or "well-known" or "common sense" - this is simply not the case. Please, learn the issues you are debating before you debate them. Then, maybe we can have some intelligent discussion.

Edit: Yoepus, it's all well and good that I shouldn't attack people, but when I present a perfectly rational argument or challenge and they reply by shrugging it off, flaunting some sort of moral superiority, stating their personal opinions as "the facts", or just telling me to go "do my own research", then I'm left with little choice on the matter. It's not as if these "attacks" are unprovoked insults - they address specifically the nature of the posts and why they are not coherent arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut personal attacks

quote:

half a brain.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. <3 drunk postage.

Carry on...

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I ... <3 ... po...r...n...

Even though I don't agree with the underlying obvious slant the article writer appears to have, I still appreciate the point of the lesson. It seems like the past experiences of many of you in this particular forum have already jaded the potentials for discussion. Everything doesn't need to be a "debate" in such a negative sense, no matter the severity or sincerity of the topics at hand.

2 things that come to mind for me:

1) Prior experience of an undesired outcomes in previous discussion in this forum must have been so bad that you guys can't even talk to each other anymore. My opinion, that is sad. Not like you are a sad, pathetic person, but that it is unfortunate if that is the case. Everyone has valuable insight no matter how stupid it may seem relatively speaking.

(To be honest, it's late and I don't remember what I had in mind for a second thought, but I'll put one down anyway)

2) For people such as myself, playing "Devil's Advocate" (although an incorrectly used term) is commonplace. "Variety is the spice of life" and full, unadultered agreement gets boring and ends abruptly. In order to fully understand an issue, it is best to examine it's core by pointing out it's exremities or surface. The nature of such tends to be dualistic. Therefore, attempting to further any discussion by pointing out anything other than originally stated would appear to be contrarian in nature. Online, especially, the possible appearance of negativity is magnified that much more. Note: I'm not being negative here, but it certainly could come across that way.

It would seem silly that I would point out how the subject, point or purpose gets lost as everyone gets sidetracked on the persons, tactics of such persons, or the obstructions to the debate... and then go and do the same thing myself. So, on the point I believe the writer intended to make, I agree. It can be difficult to justify the actions of the United States (as undertaken by their agents through their representation), within the POV of a US citizen, without also justifying some actions of the opposition. (I have a feeling this is an agreed upon notion by the average public, though. That is why I'm surprised it has garnered such heated debate.)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And you've found another thread to launch personal attacks on others in the vain hope that it will make you look like you have half a brain. Sorry, you failed, try again.

Oh no mate, I wasn't trying to look clever, I simply wanted to have a dig at you cos I think you're funny

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.