Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

[Deleted because it was a shit comparison]

[Loud Whispers]

You could even argue he's not a terrorist, but an enemy combatant. France is at war with IS. He did not target random civilians, he attacked police officers, which are a fringe case of 'legit target' in time of war (although the wife apparently had only an administrative job with the police, so she probably counts as a civilian)

You cannot be at war with a non-state Martinuzz.

Hollande disagree with you though.

George W. Bush and Barack Obama as well. Ever hear of the "war on terror?" :V

That miserable failure?

[Cthulhu]

Now I'm wondering, do we have these terms defined effectively?

Radical, according to every dictionary I've read, is about change, not about moral content.  A radical pushes for extensive and fundamental change.

Militant is advocating violence and force for your agenda, which isn't necessarily radical.  A militant conservative might want to see people jailed for advocating change.  If he wanted to see the articles of confederation restored and was willing to kill to do it, then he'd be a radical himself.

Extremism is the one I have an issue with.  Like radicalism, people seem to mostly put extremism on a moral hinge and it becomes a thought-terminating cliche.  If I'm a Christian, and I see the part of the Bible that says homosexuality is an abomination and gays /must/ be put to death, what's "extreme" about acting consistently with the principles of my worldview?  It's "bad," it's "immoral," I should "go to jail" if I do it, but "extreme?"  I dunno, man.  A priori it's pretty reasonable.  When someone makes an internally logical conclusion that you don't like, you call it extreme.  People who advocate banning guns don't see banning guns as extreme, they see it as the obvious logical response.  People who don't want to ban guns say it's extreme, you should do something not as significant. 

If I had to define "extremism" I'd say "consistency you don't like." 

And along those lines, I've seen the videos and news people posted in response to the thing I said about the moderate Muslims I know.  Yeah.  I think religion is a key factor here, one religion in particular but I'm certainly not a fan of most of the others.  They are all-encompassing worldviews with dangerous contents.

This is turning into an essay, but one last word I don't like:  "radicalization."  To me at least "radicalization," aside from the stuff I said above about "radical" puts the blame at least partly on us.  Arguments about radicalization often implicitly or explicitly say that western treatment of Muslims is what drives these behaviors.  "ISIS wants us to respond with force because that'll increase recruitment."

Buddy, if you're telling me that the average friendly Muslim dude down the street is one microaggression away from becoming a suicide bomber, maybe you're not on the side you think you're arguing for.

[Loud Whispers]

So would you use fundamentalist instead of extremist, with the focus being on adhering to the fundamental principles?

[Shadowlord]

free radicals can cause cancer

[Sheb]

This is turning into an essay, but one last word I don't like:  "radicalization."  To me at least "radicalization," aside from the stuff I said above about "radical" puts the blame at least partly on us.  Arguments about radicalization often implicitly or explicitly say that western treatment of Muslims is what drives these behaviors.  "ISIS wants us to respond with force because that'll increase recruitment."

Buddy, if you're telling me that the average friendly Muslim dude down the street is one microaggression away from becoming a suicide bomber, maybe you're not on the side you think you're arguing for.

Not one microaggression, no, but if you spend even a couple hours watching hihadi propaganda (or hell, just go and grab their magazine), it's pretty clear that their do want to drive a wedge between sunni muslims and the rest of the world.

It really doesn't take a genius, it's strategy 101 for an insurgency. If they can trigger and outgroup into lashing back at all sunni muslim, they can then pause as protector of all sunnii and get their support. It's not just the West, it's been their strategy in Iraq too, with stuff like the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samarra that aimed at creating a Shia backlash and strength Al-Qaeda in Iraq's hand.

Likewise, if you want to defeat an insurgency, you need to cut off the insurgent from the population, which mean coopting the population, pretty much what happened during the Sunni Awakening in Iraq too.

[Loud Whispers]

free radicals can cause cancer

Why is Obama pro-oxidant? Is he a free radical huh?!! HUH?!!

[Strife26]

Assuming that our terrorist had a uniform or other sign clearly distinguishable from a distance and a state of war existed (which is, to my knowledge, possible from even stateless groups, although I don't know how the actual legality would work), attacking a police officer would probably be legal under the laws of war. Probably-maybe-enjoy_infinity_in_gitmo. It'd still meet most good definitions of terrorism, because it's an attempt to use terror against civilians to achieve a non-military goal, though.

[Shadowlord]

Are you sure? Police are not military, except for military police / gendarmes. Are police really legitimate targets?

[Frumple]

*shrugs* They're an armed organization, by and large, and often are pretty involved in fighting insurrectionists and whatnot. More or less a militia/military dedicated to combating domestic threats, really. Would say they'd be pretty legitimate, especially in areas where they're substantially involved in various harms to the population.

No clue how they're considered insofar as international law et al is concerned, though.

[Shadowlord]

France has gendarmes instead of police anyways, doesn't it?

[Sonlirain]

Well it's not clear but... the police force is:
- Armed.
- Wearing uniform.
- Connected to the goverment.
- Follows a system based on military ranks (usually)

Also notable when germany attacked in 39 they considered all polish uniform wearing services as fair game for target practice.
EVEN THE MAILMEN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Polish_Post_Office_in_Danzig
(Those silly germans).

But yeah i don't see why an invading military wouldn't gun down the policemen... as horrible it is they are loyal to the state they are fighting against AND they are armed.

[Shadowlord]

Well it's not clear but... the police force is:
...

Also notable when germany attacked in 39 they considered all polish uniform wearing services as fair game for target practice.
EVEN THE MAILMEN

Are you trolling right now? I can't believe that you're making this argument seriously.

[Sonlirain]

Well it's not clear but... the police force is:
...

Also notable when germany attacked in 39 they considered all polish uniform wearing services as fair game for target practice.
EVEN THE MAILMEN

Are you trolling right now? I can't believe that you're making this argument seriously.

That was the last big war that happened in europe (and weren't a chaotic genocidal bloodbath like Yugoslavia) and Germany did have PoW camps so it's not like they completely ignored the rules of engagement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prisoner-of-war_camps_in_Germany
And note that those were PoW camps and not concentration caps and unlike the latter you were more likely to survive than die when in one.

Nazi germany was evil but they did respect the rules (usually).

[martinuzz]

Okay you should change the topic title. Guy is not a Jihadi.
It turn out it's just a normal criminal, he had a personal conflict with the cop, and killed him and his wife for that.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/-abballa-kende-politieagent-die-hij-vermoordde~a4321518/

Not everyone crying allahu akhbar while killing people is a muslim terrorist. There's also fakers.