US soldier goes on rampage in Afghanistan killing 16 innocent civilians

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]But you're arguing semantics with edo during this whole thread...airshocker

No I wasn't. I know the common definition of terrorism. I'm trying to enlighten the fool.

It's pathetic that you can't even set aside your feelings towards me to see that I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]But you're arguing semantics with edo during this whole thread...airshocker

No I wasn't. I know the common definition of terrorism. I'm trying to enlighten the fool.

It's pathetic that you can't even set aside your feelings towards me to see that I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

Arguing about a definition is arguing semantics. If you didn't want to argue about semantics you could have ended this a long time ago by telling him that it is only his opinion and that you don't agree with it. But trying to "teach" him a definition is arguing about semantics...kuraimen

No it's not. You don't tell a teacher who knows the subject matter better than you that his definition is wrong when it's the common definition used by reasonable people.

That's the case here. Until you have served in the military--or law enforcement--and have taught people about terrorism like I have, you are the student and I am the teacher.

You don't have to like it, you don't even have to agree with it, but it's the truth.

Well, you wanted to argue the facts. And the fact is, this man killed, he terrorized the community in this country, but I don't expect people like you to understand anything about empathy. You think I'm the one being "unreasonable" when your arguement is and I quote: "his intentions are all that matter, not the concequences of his actions." Man, the U,S goverment is seriously effective at growing dumb-droids for war.

edo-tensei

He did kill, he may have even caused terror, but if that wasn't his intention then it isn't terrorism.

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

SpartanMSU

You're right. Not sure why I'm feeding the troll.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

airshocker

You're right. Not sure why I'm feeding the troll.

He has now basically implied that manslaughter is also terrorism. It just keeps getting better.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Arguing about a definition is arguing semantics. If you didn't want to argue about semantics you could have ended this a long time ago by telling him that it is only his opinion and that you don't agree with it. But trying to "teach" him a definition is arguing about semantics...airshocker

No it's not. You don't tell a teacher who knows the subject matter better than you that his definition is wrong when it's the common definition used by reasonable people.

That's the case here. Until you have served in the military--or law enforcement--and have taught people about terrorism like I have, you are the student and I am the teacher.

You don't have to like it, you don't even have to agree with it, but it's the truth.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"] Well you're full of **** because I don't view the U.S military as such. But thanks to this terrorist, the taliban has an excuse now to convince thier followers of such. It will reflect on the U.S in that region, because this guy was a representative of them. It's not so different from Americans conndeming Islimic followers as terrorist from the actions of a few.

kuraimen

Like I said, I didn't say any names. Maybe I should have took you out of the quote.

But there is a certain poster here who is very anti-US that loves to call the US as a whole terrorists and that was more directed to him.

Also, while this will hurt relations more than pretty much anything else, the Taliban will always find an excuse to hate us. If it wasn't this it would be an accidental bombing, or the Koran burnings, or a million other things.

Are you sure I'm talking about you? Seems like you think that the description I made fits you in a way...

I don't have to be a terorist to come to the realization of what a terrorist is. But, I'm not going to insult your pride of serving your country to get my point across. I'm a computer scientist student and even I have taught my professors a thing or two about programming implementations. I just hate the fact that I know what I'm talking about, and then have a very biased person, like you, insult me for my informed opinion. Being open-minded helps.

edo-tensei

You aren't well-informed. If you were you would know that we don't charge people with terrorism when they murder somebody. The only time we charge them with terrorism is when their intent was to cause terror.

But you're an idiot. You're far too biased to ever see the stupidity in what you're saying. I may be pro-military, but I know the difference between when somebody simply kills another, and when they kill with the intent of causing terror.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]But you're arguing semantics with edo during this whole thread...edo-tensei

No I wasn't. I know the common definition of terrorism. I'm trying to enlighten the fool.

It's pathetic that you can't even set aside your feelings towards me to see that I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

Ok, this is the last time I will respond to an edo post.

That's exactly what matters when determining if someone commited an act of terrorism, murder, or manslaughter. If I accidentlly kill someone due to negligence that is manslaughter and will receive a lesser charge than someone who deliberately planned a murder and went through with it.

Again, the intentions DO matter when determining what category someone falls under. It's not like airshocker is saying that the results of his actions aren't tragic.

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

No I wasn't. I know the common definition of terrorism. I'm trying to enlighten the fool.

It's pathetic that you can't even set aside your feelings towards me to see that I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

SpartanMSU

Ok, this is the last time I will respond to an edo post.

That's exactly what matters when determining if someone commited an act of terrorism, murder, or manslaughter. If I accidentlly kill someone due to negligence that is manslaughter and will receive a lesser charge than someone who deliberately planned a murder and went through with it.

Again, the intentions DO matter when determining what category someone falls under. It's not like airshocker is saying that the results of his actions aren't tragic.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

edo-tensei

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

I don't have to be a terorist to come to the realization of what a terrorist is. But, I'm not going to insult your pride of serving your country to get my point across. I'm a computer scientist student and even I have taught my professors a thing or two about programming implementations. I just hate the fact that I know what I'm talking about, and then have a very biased person, like you, insult me for my informed opinion. Being open-minded helps.

airshocker

You aren't well-informed. If you were you would know that we don't charge people with terrorism when they murder somebody. The only time we charge them with terrorism is when their intent was to cause terror.

But you're an idiot. You're far too biased to ever see the stupidity in what you're saying. I may be pro-military, but I know the difference between when somebody simply kills another, and when they kill with the intent of causing terror.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Arguing about a definition is arguing semantics. If you didn't want to argue about semantics you could have ended this a long time ago by telling him that it is only his opinion and that you don't agree with it. But trying to "teach" him a definition is arguing about semantics...airshocker

No it's not. You don't tell a teacher who knows the subject matter better than you that his definition is wrong when it's the common definition used by reasonable people.

That's the case here. Until you have served in the military--or law enforcement--and have taught people about terrorism like I have, you are the student and I am the teacher.

You don't have to like it, you don't even have to agree with it, but it's the truth.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]

Like I said, I didn't say any names. Maybe I should have took you out of the quote.

But there is a certain poster here who is very anti-US that loves to call the US as a whole terrorists and that was more directed to him.

Also, while this will hurt relations more than pretty much anything else, the Taliban will always find an excuse to hate us. If it wasn't this it would be an accidental bombing, or the Koran burnings, or a million other things.

ad1x2

Are you sure I'm talking about you? Seems like you think that the description I made fits you in a way...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] They go hand to hand. You can "terrorize" when murdering, just like we've seen in this case, even if that wasn't the intended effect. The problem is that all of you calling me adumbass base your arguements on what the goverment defines "terrorism" for their own govermental contents. You don't even have an informed arguement to counter what I'm typing,yet you call me a dumbass? "Trolling, the ultimate form of terrorism." Too bad you fail at it...

edo-tensei

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] They go hand to hand. You can "terrorize" when murdering, just like we've seen in this case, even if that wasn't the intended effect. The problem is that all of you calling me adumbass base your arguements on what the goverment defines "terrorism" for their own govermental contents. You don't even have an informed arguement to counter what I'm typing,yet you call me a dumbass? "Trolling, the ultimate form of terrorism." Too bad you fail at it...

edo-tensei

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If the action wasn't done to incite terror...it's not terrorism.....PERIOD. Your argument is illogical.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If the action wasn't done to incite terror...it's not terrorism.....PERIOD. Your argument is illogical.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="-Renegade"]

[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"] wow people still think all this was for binladen?SpartanMSU

This man knows something. This is all about western forces gaining regional control over certain powers around the world mostly in third world countries.

Oh god, not this again...

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You guys haven't given up on edo yet? He has admitted multiple times now that murder=terrorism.

In short, he's a dumbass.

LJS9502_basic

We don't know why the action took place, your assumption is as bad as the poster above you.

But is that really a factor?

Do you think that a soldier killing whole families going house to house did and does not cause terror? Were these people not terrorised?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] Have you even thought of the possibility that this guy, in his effed mental state, "DID" think to incite, to "teach" them, and therefore raised his gun? Making the incite arguement true in all senses? Just the same with the 9/11 terrorist thinking, in their messed up mindset, that they were right? How am I being illogical?

edo-tensei

I see the problem you've had now with othe users over this issue. You don't understand why the term terrorist is applied. It is NOT applied just because violence is down. Terrorism is a tool to affect change wanted by the individual/individuals employing it. Until you can actually understand why the term came into existence....it will continue to be a circular argument. And I don't want to go round and round over semantics. Acts of violence in and of themselves are NOT terrorism. Yes....and indivual will fear terror if attacked. But it doesn't meet the criteria necessary to label an act terrorism. A man getting mugged can feel terror. Hell it would be a unusual individual that doesn't feel terror in attack situations.

But using the emotion of one or more individuals is not the barometer of what is considered and cIassified as "terrorism". If you aren't going to accept the general consensus on the word than it's worthless to discuss this with you.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="edo-tensei"] They go hand to hand. You can "terrorize" when murdering, just like we've seen in this case, even if that wasn't the intended effect. The problem is that all of you calling me adumbass base your arguements on what the goverment defines "terrorism" for their own govermental contents. You don't even have an informed arguement to counter what I'm typing,yet you call me a dumbass? "Trolling, the ultimate form of terrorism." Too bad you fail at it...

tenaka2

We don't know why the action took place, your assumption is as bad as the poster above you.

But is that really a factor?

Do you think that a soldier killing whole families going house to house did and does not cause terror? Were these people not terrorised?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If the action wasn't done to incite terror...it's not terrorism.....PERIOD. Your argument is illogical.LJS9502_basic

We don't know why the action took place, your assumption is as bad as the poster above you.

But is that really a factor?

Do you think that a soldier killing whole families going house to house did and does not cause terror? Were these people not terrorised?

Your reasoning is flawed, his reason may have been simply to cause terror.

The fact is that you have no idea of his reasoning, so you cannot decide how to define it based upon your own assumptions.

THis is aside from the fact that the agressors never view themselves as terrorists in any case.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

We don't know why the action took place, your assumption is as bad as the poster above you.

But is that really a factor?

Do you think that a soldier killing whole families going house to house did and does not cause terror? Were these people not terrorised?

tenaka2

Your reasoning is flawed, his reason may have been simply to cause terror.

The fact is that you have no idea of his reasoning, so you cannot decide how to define it based upon your own assumptions.

THis is aside from the fact that the agressors never view themselves as terrorists in any case.

Man.....this thread is still going?

If his "reasoning" was to induce terror, then he (his legal representative) won't be taking the insanity defense. By all accounts, the evidence is pointing to a psychological breakdown stemming from perhaps PTSD, or Major Depression; another possibility, although it's unsubstantiated at this time, is ASPD.

Having served in the military does not make you an expert. An expert is the guy who I quoted above who analysed more than 100 definitions of terrorism and couldn't come up with a proper consensual definition. Now that's the guy I consider an expert not you. kuraimen

Makes me much more of one than you. And as I said, I also taught terrorism.

There is a common definition of it that most of the world accepts. But since you're a radical and can never be seen to agree with an american, of course you're going to argue. Pathetic.

i love the logic of OT :lol:

if an american soldier kills 16 innocent civilians and his motive wasnt terrorism so he isnt terrorizing people and he isnta terrorist.

but when so called taliban/afghanis kill american soldiers in afghanistan , taliban are labelled terrorist?

you learn something new everyday here on OT!

i love the logic of OT :lol:

if an american soldier kills 16 innocent civilians and his motive wasnt terrorism so he isnt terrorizing people and he isnta terrorist.

but when so called taliban/afghanis kill american soldiers in afghanistan , taliban are labelled terrorist?

you learn something new everyday here on OT!

blaze_adeel

Considering no one actually said that, I don't know what the fvck you're even talking about.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Having served in the military does not make you an expert. An expert is the guy who I quoted above who analysed more than 100 definitions of terrorism and couldn't come up with a proper consensual definition. Now that's the guy I consider an expert not you. airshocker

Makes me much more of one than you. And as I said, I also taught terrorism.

There is a common definition of it that most of the world accepts. But since you're a radical and can never be seen to agree with an american, of course you're going to argue. Pathetic.

The guy I quoted is an american :roll:

i love the logic of OT :lol:

if an american soldier kills 16 innocent civilians and his motive wasnt terrorism so he isnt terrorizing people and he isnta terrorist.

but when so called taliban/afghanis kill american soldiers in afghanistan , taliban are labelled terrorist?

you learn something new everyday here on OT!

blaze_adeel

People are trying to call him a terrorist because he killed a bunch of people. From what we know so far, what he did was murder, but not an act of terrorism. If he later comes out and says he killed those people in hopes of pressuring Afghanistan to kick us out then you could consider it an act of terrorism.

Being terrified doesn't automatically mean you're a victim of terrorism, otherwise you can consider bullies as terrorists since they make their victims feel terror.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="-Renegade"]

This man knows something. This is all about western forces gaining regional control over certain powers around the world mostly in third world countries.

GrayF0X786

Oh god, not this again...

It wasn't all for killing bin laden...

i love the logic of OT :lol:

if an american soldier kills 16 innocent civilians and his motive wasnt terrorism so he isnt terrorizing people and he isnta terrorist.

but when so called taliban/afghanis kill american soldiers in afghanistan , taliban are labelled terrorist?

you learn something new everyday here on OT!

blaze_adeel

There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists...

The guy I quoted is an american :roll:

kuraimen

So? There is a common definition for terrorism that the rest of the world understands. It's an action intended to cause fear in order to effect some sort of political, economical, or social change. I don't think that's unreasonable.

So why do you disagree with that? I've even seen you give the definition of terrorism on this board when Americans have misused the term. The only reason I can think of of why you would be arguing with me is that you are simply unwilling to admit I'm right because of your personal feelings regarding me.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

The guy I quoted is an american :roll:

airshocker

So? There is a common definition for terrorism that the rest of the world understands. It's an action intended to cause fear in order to effect some sort of political, economical, or social change. I don't think that's unreasonable.

So why do you disagree with that? I've even seen you give the definition of terrorism on this board when Americans have misused the term. The only reason I can think of of why you would be arguing with me is that you are simply unwilling to admit I'm right because of your personal feelings regarding me.

I agree there's a more used definition. What I don't agree with is you guys claiming it is final and/or the only one valid. I never said I agree with whatever definition Edo was using but given that the term is so debated and not even experts come to a consensus I don't see how Edo's definition is necessarily wrong, I'm sure there's some experts out there which will find it appropriate too. He simply uses a less politically loaded definition of terrorism. And even then we still don't know everything about the guy who did it he might have had political motivations for all we know. You're, until now, right form your point of view, many people won't consider it terrorism. But edo is also right from his point of view and many people will also agree with him.kuraimen

It's wrong because, as you said, it's such a politically loaded term. There are reasons we classify crimes such as murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide as such and don't label people terrorists when they commit said crimes without an intent to terrorize. Him using terrorism to define this soldier's crime is a blatant attempt to sensationalize. And you playing devil's advocate, or whatever you're doing, makes you look just as unreasonable as him.

You CONSTANTLY harp on us to not generalize when it comes to the middle east. CONSTANTLY. Yet you come in this thread and you speak out against the people who aren't being unreasonable. That's what I don't understand since you claim you are a reasonable person.

The US military isn't afraid of calling one of it's own a terrorist if he actually is one ie Nidal Hasan, I believe I remember you arguing in the past that Hasan wasn't a terrorist. So why do you have an issue now?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I agree there's a more used definition. What I don't agree with is you guys claiming it is final and/or the only one valid. I never said I agree with whatever definition Edo was using but given that the term is so debated and not even experts come to a consensus I don't see how Edo's definition is necessarily wrong, I'm sure there's some experts out there which will find it appropriate too. He simply uses a less politically loaded definition of terrorism. And even then we still don't know everything about the guy who did it he might have had political motivations for all we know. You're, until now, right form your point of view, many people won't consider it terrorism. But edo is also right from his point of view and many people will also agree with him.airshocker

It's wrong because, as you said, it's such a politically loaded term. There are reasons we classify crimes such as murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide as such and don't label people terrorists when they commit said crimes without an intent to terrorize. Him using terrorism to define this soldier's crime is a blatant attempt to sensationalize. And you playing devil's advocate, or whatever you're doing, makes you look just as unreasonable as him.

You CONSTANTLY harp on us to not generalize when it comes to the middle east. CONSTANTLY. Yet you come in this thread and you speak out against the people who aren't being unreasonable. That's what I don't understand since you claim you are a reasonable person.

The US military isn't afraid of calling one of it's own a terrorist if he actually is one ie Nidal Hasan, I believe I remember you arguing in the past that Hasan wasn't a terrorist. So why do you have an issue now?