TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

If a foreign government killed your innocent family would you seek revenge?

Are we creating terrorists by killing innocent people?

+2
Share:
progress indicator
  • Jul 25 2013: No, I would not seek revenge.

    Something similar to this did happen to my family. My grandfather was murdered in front of me. It was a gang-related thing that neither I nor my parents knew anything about. Thankfully, both nations involved had strong, dedicated law enforcement. Both nations had strong, dedicated judges. And investigations continued for many years, but finally the criminals were arrested, tried, and punished under law. My parents died of old age before all of justice was done. But in the end the law was satisfied.

    Justice was done. This was not revenge. This was justice. I took no action in revenge because neither religious law nor civil law nor criminal law gives anyone the right to seek revenge. I cooperated for the sake of justice. And that was all that mattered to anyone in the end. Justice was done.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: I did a case study of US suspected terrorists and yes that is basically whay America has done to Afghanistan in the past
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 25 2013: Hello Deepak, You give good advice I agree with you. My intent is not to incite anger, it is to humanize hatred and terror. To illustrate that the anger comes from a place of hurt and to engage in a discussion that suggests that clever people who profit from war know this all too well. Nobody sane and credible will dispute that over 100,000 innocent Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers etc have been killed in Iraq and Afganistan. My hypotheses is that many of their deaths were intentional and for the purpose of preventing peace.
      • Comment deleted

        • Jul 25 2013: To use a flower instead of a gun, requires a courage that can only come from inner peace.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2013: Yes, I would seek revenge of those responsible.

    And yes, killing innocent people is creating hate and revenge in many.

    I am not using your term 'terrorist' here, because this word has been distorted and misused for to many agendas by now.

    Killing innocent people, nicely framed and neutralized by the term 'collateral damage', is terrorism in itself and one of its purest forms!

    Sorry I killed your cat in your garden, but I was aiming for that cockroach which looked like it would cross our fence ...
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2013: I would seek justice. Never revenge.
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2013: And what if your 'justice' does not apply to that foreign government, not even in the 'International Court of Justice'?
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: There's no reason why justice can't take the form of military action.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: Lets assume your assumption was right, what would you personally do, if your government was 'friendly minded' towards that foreign government who killed your family, so that you could not expect any official military actions taking place for your personal justice?

          To give you an example: A high ranked German military officer in Afghanistan asked for air support by the US Airforce on an identified target which he rated 'militarily relevant'. After the airborne attack, it turned out, that over 90 civilians got killed and that the support request was also based on false information. The usual case of collateral damage, so to say. For those Afghan people who lost their family members it is not likely to expect their Government to take 'military actions' against Germany, which caused the bombing, nor against the USA, which executed the bombing.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airstrike

          So how do they get their justice?

          How would you feel if '... Germany announced it will pay $5,000 to each of almost all of the identified families, as an ex gratia payment without admitting liability'?

          And how would you feel about your 'justice' if you got to know, that this very German officer got even promoted later in his career after he returned to Germany?
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2013: Yes of course revenge is the first answer that comes to mind for most people. Anyone can get mad and pick up a gun and start shooting. Any type of killing "justifiable" or not is wrong. I do not care how many wars and how much you fought for everyone's freedom.....congratulations. Does it take guts to fight in wars or stupidity? For both sides....the Axis or the Allies. Back to the point, life is about learning to forgive and move on. That goes for everyone good, bad, or ugly. I cannot believe people are still fighting when we should all be working together to make life prosperous for everyone!! WTF
  • Jul 25 2013: If I was to say yes to, "If a foreign government killed your innocent family would you seek revenge?"

    Then I'd feel somewhat obliged to make it on a scale that few would ever forget. Only because then people might just realize that if they were to do it again, they might not want the same consequences repeated. As by just targeting a president or military leader, does not change society, and you can see that with the use of drones in the previous and current American administrations.

    Or one might see oneself as actively supporting any organization that would take action.

    I think one's actions maybe predicated the the fact, was one the sole survivor?


    If I was to say no, I suppose one could say it was god's will, and hopefully they were now in a better place. That, depending on the strength of one's faith, might take some time.

    As to "Are we creating terrorists by killing innocent people", the answer has to be yes (qualified below). But understand that does not have to be, nor imply, it's the family member who becomes one. It might well be the justification for other to take up the cause and use the death of an innocent as a rallying point.

    Further is the perspective that says if an innocent person was killed, then the one who did the killing is the terrorist, so the 2nd question might need be phrased differently.
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2013: RE: "Can America justify. . . " . If you want to publish your beliefs that the US is guilty of everything you care to mention may I suggest you start your own conversation with that specific headline. Give people a choice about joining or not. But don't hijack this conversation. I would not respond to such a post and you are amiss to derail this conversation to pursue your agenda. Thank you, and welcome to TED Conversations.
      • Jul 27 2013: It does belong here. My only agenda is Truth. That you dont want to hear it is simply put - irrelevant.

        Further, to simply say someone can only be a "terrorist" who puts on a suicide vest, is again a vast oversimplification of what constitutes terrorism and why both individuals and governments use it.

        My comments were and are about a regime that has long pursued terrorism, just as other countries have, and to not include it as a legitimate example of why people may retaliate against that, their logic in doing so, is to only see "terrorism" as simply a narrow interpretation, from a media educed belief of what terrorism is. ie an Islamic with a bomb.

        Also the question starts with - "foreign government killed your innocent family", of which I am giving clear and present examples, you might not want to believe them, you might not want to accept them, you might want to wish they never existed, but history proves each one of them happened, and there are alot more examples, from various empires throughout the ages.

        I have not at this point even touched on the other terrorism that exists today.... economic terrorism.

        And if you really want to understand whats behind people becoming terrorists, both governments and individuals, which is at the CORE of this question, then I'd suggest you look at my comments with fresh eyes and with an open mind.
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2013: Why not post your own question? This post asks a question which has nothing to do with bashing America and soliciting sympathy for terrorism. By attaching your thoughts to this post you get more attention than you would if you posted separately with an honest, revealing headline stating your purpose. Title your post, "The USA is a terrorist nation!". You will attract more of the demographic you seek and close-minded people like me will not be tricked into reading your expressions. I have no issue with your agenda. The only reason we are having this dialog is that you jumped on your soapbox in the middle of another discussion. Take it to another post and let people choose whether to participate or not. By the way, I said nothing about suicide vests or about anyone or anything Islamic, those are your words. Your assessment of what I want, and do not want, to hear is ill-advised, inappropriate, and totally irrelevant. Thank you for your example of just how free we are in America to speak our minds. . . even to undermine the very source of the freedom.
      • Jul 27 2013: Go watch ... "the fog of war".

        go read.... http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/50985/george-c-herring/the-wrong-kind-of-loyalty-mcnamara-s-apology-for-vietnam


        .. and then ask yourself one simple question, if the only way the people had to fight american soldiers and Robert McNamara, was to use terrorism, you seemingly have the audacity to blame them for that too.

        If there is a god, I think he will have a hard time in forgiving what soldiers albeit pawns did to those innocent people.

        I wonder how many like McNamara, in that article, in his, book, in that film, that are still on this earth are looking for redemption, or have visited many a priest, confessional, or psychologist, from the guilt of causing so much pain and destruction to so many innocents.

        Maybe what those soldiers don't realize, pawn or no, prayers or no, god or no, like McNamara realized in his last moments - none is to be found.

        You live with what you do, man up and accept your complicity, blaming them is the cowards way out.


        God cannot drive men to do the things you have done, men drive themselves to do such things, you always have a choice, and thru that choice God may know the true heart of that man.
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2013: Post your own question about your beliefs that the USA is a terrorist nation. Label it clearly so folks know your agenda. Then you will get, or not get, honest responses from folks who know what your motive is. Leave this coversation alone. Move your soapbox to another street corner, this one's taken. Honesty is the best policy. Thank you for the reference to The Fog of War. I've viewed it several times on public television and find it to be a lucid presentation of one side of a complex issue. Post your own conversation and call it, "Terrorists-- the Misunderstood Heroes."
      • thumb
        Jul 28 2013: I do concur Edward and I thank you as I quickly leave this conversation.
  • Jul 25 2013: Hi dear Casey Middleman.If you read real history which is about world war two happened between China and Japan.So many Chinese people been killed by Japan goverment.Should they all keep the hatred and seeking revenge one generatoin to another?No,I totally agreed with TED talk:Forget and forgive...

    Anyway no matter terriosts or war,all are the most crual thing for our humanbeing to avoid...That's why we all needed to come together to against any brutal war happen again,peace in the world is the fundermental dimention to have happy life.
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2013: By "revenge" do you mean take the law into my own hands? If you do mean that then the answer to your question is NO! If you mean doing everything possible to see that justice is served then the answer is YES! Terrorists are devious and cowardly in that they use innocent civilians for cover. This causes the tragedy of collateral damage. Those innocent civilians ought to be mad at the terrorists who hide in their neighborhoods attracting violent strikes. Tell the cowardly terrorists to go out on the battlefield and face their enemies in military combat.
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2013: 'Tell the cowardly terrorists to go out on the battlefield and face their enemies in military combat.'

      It seems you are not familiar with the concept of asymmetric warfare:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

      During the occupation of France by Nazi Germany during WW2, the French 'Résistance' had no other choice but to use the concept of asymmetric warfare to fight the German occupying forces, because they were just few in comparison and with only little equipment.

      How do you think the members of the Résistance were called in Germany at that time? Right, they were called terrorists, guerrillas or partisans. Coward terrorists who didn't dare to face the Wehrmacht on an open battleground.

      Of course they didn't! Wisely they didn't, because they knew they couldn't win.

      Any village they passed through, they endangered just by doing so. Those countryman who were willing to help, hide or support them, and those who didn't. They knew about the fact, that German soldiers would executed whole village in their pursuit to get them, the 'terrorists', as which they referred to themselves as Résistance, but they had no other choice but to risk it.

      There is a very true quote which source is unknown to me, stating:

      'The terrorist of one is the freedom fighter of another.'

      I don't know about you, Edward, but I have never ever heard the arguments of 'the other side' in mainstream media (in Germany). I never got to hear why Al-Qaeda is doing what they are said to have done.

      It was the same during WW2. Also there the reasons why the Résistance was doing what they did remained unspoken within 'The Reich'. Not that it would have changed much - I am convinced, it wouldn't have - but having just sight on one side of a coin doesn't give you the whole picture.

      The term 'war on terrorism' is contradictory in itself, unless you either render the legal definition of 'war' useless, or you accept terrorist as legal combatants. Either way, something will remain false.
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: In a declared war where armed military forces fight against armed military forces in prolonged battles there are measures available to minimize, if not to eliminate, harm to unarmed civilians. Terrorists, or "Asymmetric Warriors" (LOL), use those unarmed civilians as strategic defense resources. . . they hide behind the women, children, and elderly. Terrorists are cowardly vermin with no concern for the safety of their own people. You seem to believe their agenda justifies such heartless, cruel tactics. I could not disagree more. You are seriously amiss to compare the Loyal Underground of WWII to Terrorists. You need to rethink that whole concept and stop casting aspersions on those valiant heroes by characterizing them as prototype terrorists. Did the French Resistance bomb churches, markets, roadways, and schools? Did they accept the death and dismemberment of their own people as a tolerable effect? They did not. You, sir, are fundamentally wrong when you try to justify terrorist tactics. I saw the terrorist tactics in Viet Nam. Innocent, unwilling villagers were used as cover. It usually ended with the village being evacuated and destroyed, rarely without casualties. Those are not acts of dedicated warriors standing against their declared enemy in battle. Terrorism uses death and destruction of the innocent as a strategic asset. That's just wrong, Lejan.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: There was a risk in this comparison to be misunderstood, so let me try again.

          'You seem to believe their agenda justifies such heartless, cruel tactics. I could not disagree more.' And rightly so and so do I, as no agenda justifies such things to me. But as I said before, I never got to hear the agenda from the other side, did you? I only got to hear 'us' framing 'their' agenda, which isn't the same.

          Thanks to wikileaks we got to see how those '... measures available to minimize, if not to eliminate, harm to unarmed civilians' can look like in practice. In case its unclear what I am referring to, feel free to have a look here:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

          To me there is no difference in terms of inhumane behavior to use 'unarmed civilians as strategic defense resources' or to eliminate them from high tech helicopter gunships. Is there to you?

          I also noticed, that whenever 'we' are going to war, we get to see the horrible news about what 'the other side' did to children, yet we are spared to see the same result if its about 'our' 'collateral damage'.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv28_q98Xe8
          http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html

          Propaganda is used as a weapon to make people believe they are 'the good guys' and I know for certain, that in all major conflicts we are not getting the whole picture! That's why I am very careful to make up my mind on it, as we tend to grant ourself the following:

          'The end justifies the means'

          Because 'we are the good guys' aren't we? Are we?

          'You are seriously amiss to compare the Loyal Underground of WWII to Terrorists.'
          I didn't make this comparison. I gave this as an example that what is seen as 'Terrorists' on one side is 'Loyal Underground' on the other. What do you think a suicide bomber thinks about himself and about what he is going to do? Do you think he sees himself as a 'coward terrorist' or more of a 'holy warrior' on the way to its highest sacrifice?

          ... tb continued
        • Jul 25 2013: Can America justify the overthrowning some 50 odd democratically elected countries?

          or the use millions thru the "national endowment for democracy" to kidnap President Chavez? and try to take over the country from it's democratically elected leader - that was in 2002.

          or the use of Asymmetric warfare in funding and training rebels Nicaragua, or the bombing of the Cambodian people?

          or the use of CIA agent provocateurs to stop Onassis being the sole shipper of Saudi Oil.

          Or the support of Saddam Hussein, where do you think he got those weapons from?

          Or the bombing and insurgents used in Guatemala to get rid of president Arbenz. Even Howard Hunt, of the CIA and watergate fame, admits that.

          Or can anyone actually know how many times the US government tried to assassinate the democratically elected leader of Cuba - Fidel Castro.

          Know about Sept 11 - 1973 - When the presidential palace of Allende was bombed so the dictator Pinochet could replace him. The horrors/torture he did with the support of the US government. Watch the film - Missing.

          Know about the CIA involvement in Afghanistan, not now - but back in the 80's.

          Know there is a school called "the school of the Americas" in the US where every murdering dictator or his minions has been "professionally trained". Look it up.

          Or that the UN said the wholesale slaughter of the Mayan people of Guatemala was "genocide"

          Know that hundreds of people quit the UN because of the constant, 100's of sorties a day against the iraqi people.

          Know the dictator Lozada in Bolivia who Washington backed, who sold off state assets to American corps. One was water, who then made it illegal, that's right illegal, to collect rainwater for drinking, less the people don't pay. search bolivia water illegal


          It's an ugly truth that America gov. doesn't want known, nor want to teach kids of today.

          This list could go on for longer.... a lot longer.

          I hope that clears up America use of terrorism which it's been doing for a long time.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: And don't get me wrong here again. I am not legitimizing suicide bombing! I am trying to understand what makes people do such horrible things and to sacrifice their own lives.
          Because only if you understand their reasons, you have a chance to change the circumstances, if there was a way to change them.

          But because of the history of my country I got a sense for how propaganda works. And one of its tricky parts of propaganda is, that there is no necessity for one to know if and when being influenced by it and to what extend. Because propaganda is about false information which is difficult to spot in complex situations.

          'You, sir, are fundamentally wrong when you try to justify terrorist tactics.'
          There is no justification of 'terrorist tactics' in explaining that 'terrorism' is only a matter of ' point of views'. Nazi Germany did see the Résistance as a terrorist organization, because they simply did. I hope you are not mistaken me, thinking the same.

          'Did they (the Résistance) accept the death and dismemberment of their own people as a tolerable effect? Unfortunately there was no other way but to accept this, because it could simply not been avoided. Not actively and by themselves, even though they eliminated French collaborators who teamed up with the Germans, but passively by putting their fellow countryman at risk everywhere they were hiding. I a wider view that could be seen as a form of 'acceptance', but again, there was no other way around it.

          'I saw the terrorist tactics in Viet Nam. Innocent, unwilling villagers were used as cover. It usually ended with the village being evacuated and destroyed, rarely without casualties.'

          Again this is a matter of perception about 'terrorism'. The Vietcong defined itself as an 'liberation army' within a civil war, as which this conflict started out. It got elevated later on international levels as the 'clash of systems' of the communist and capitalistic ideologies.

          ... to be continued
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: Now, the undeniable aspect of any civil war is, that part of your countrymen turn into your enemies, for whatever reason that may be. And by saying this, I am not justifying this, neither do I agree on this, but as a matter of fact, that is what a civil war is about.

          So from the Vietcong point of view, the South Vietnamese people were 'nothing but' enemies and the 'official definition' of war, in which two uniformed armies are facing each other within a well defined 'combat zone', do not always apply for civil wars. Sometimes they do, as the US civil war was leaning somewhat toward that 'definition', but it is no necessity.

          By taking that perspective, the Vietcong was facing 'the enemy' in their own fellowman, of which the distinction of 'civilians' didn't matter anymore. And when the US entered this civil war, the South Vietnamese people 'simply' turned into 'friends' of 'invading US forces', who were entering the territory they were trying to 'free' from a capitalistic system.

          When the Vietcong was using 'Innocent, unwilling villagers ... as cover.' that was definitely wrong and there is nothing I can think of to justify such horrible acts.

          To me this is no terrorism, but the usual and bloody 'faces of war'.

          There is also no difference to me in killing those innocent villagers or to put them at risk by using them as cover OR to kill thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by dropping atomic bombs on them while setting an example of 'ultimate lethal destruction'.

          For demonstration purposes, they could have just been announced and dropped in plain sight into the North Pacific Ocean, which might have also changed the course of war. We'll never know.

          'Terrorism uses death and destruction of the innocent as a strategic asset. That's just wrong, Lejan.'

          I agree with you, I condemn this, but its not only terrorism which is using this strategy!

          ... to be continued
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: There was a time where I shared your view of ' dedicated warriors standing against their declared enemy in battle.' When I believed in the principles of 'honor' and 'heroism' and to 'protect the weak' from 'evil forces'.

          Actually, I still believe in those principles. But I had to learn, that warfare, especially modern warfare, is not the place to find it. There are exceptions of course, as always, but it has never been a rule.

          There was a time where leaders were to be found at the front of a battle. Today they are the ones best protected.

          There was a time where one had to stand face to face with the enemy. Today we have 'fire and forget' weapons and unmanned, radio controlled drone attacks.

          As you were using the term 'coward' before, sitting in an air conditioned control shelter somewhere in the US steering an missile armed Predator drone in a manhunt for 'terrorist' is, to me, not much different in terms of 'having the guts' for a direct confrontation.

          What is the true difference of 'hiding behind people' or hiding behind 'technology'.

          And being on that side of the 'guys with the big guns' shouting to 'come up' is always easy, especially while doing so from a distance.

          My personal believe is to seriously question our-selfs how much of this so called 'terrorism' is actually self-made, as it went out of 'control'.

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-we-created-al-qaeda/5337222

          Unfortunately I couldn't get hold on the whole context of that speech, but much of what was said her I consider as being 'part of the problem'.

          Let's find out what solutions could look like. Lets find out what we are doing wrong in the pursuit of our 'economical interests'.

          Let's make sure that we'll stand to our believes in 'human rights' and 'democracy' and never again just watch genocides happen in plain sight such the one in Rwanda. Because if we don't there is a very high risk to be seen as hypocrites, chasing for resources just 'bending the truth' in our favor...
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: RE: "There was a risk. . . ". Well, Lejan, I don't think I misunderstood your intent. I admit to having no interest in hearing the rationale behind the slaughter by sacrifice of innocent non-combatants. Such conduct is universally deplorable and must be condemned. it still seems that you, and also Tifi, are sympathetic to terrorism. I think you two bring suspicion upon yourselves by such expressions. You should categorically condemn terrorism and stop trying to raise awareness of the hardships terrorists face. I don't care what trouble they face. Rid the world of them and their homocidal hatred of everyone who opposes them. Think about it and pick a side, Pro, or Anti, Terrorism..
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: This is an impressive example that indoctrination does work.

          'I think you two bring suspicion upon yourselves by such expressions.'

          But this only because of people like you, Edward, who choose to refuse to think for themselves and beyond the mechanisms of propaganda.

          If by all what I said in my comments here your suspicion would be that I am sympathizing or justifying 'terrorism', you simply didn't listen.

          You can just not condemn categorically what isn't just one category.

          I condemn the murder and the killing of innocent people, because this to me is one category. Without exceptions. Without the framing and 'softening' definitions of 'collateral damage'. If this doesn't clarify my intentions but to makes me 'suspicious', I then can't help this, and it shall be as you say, but it remains wrong.

          It is your right to doubt my intentions, thats fine with me, but freeing oneself off personal doubts about ones own agendas and actions, is to me the usual way to end 'reflection' and communication, which is part of the creation of terrorism and not part of the solution.

          'I don't care what trouble they face.'

          And as long you don't you will never be able to find out if 'you' actually have a part in the creation of those 'ghosts' you are fighting.

          'Rid the world of them and their homocidal hatred of everyone who opposes them.'

          If you was part of creating that hatred, how could you ever rid the world of it? Especially as you seem to refuse to consider 'cause and effect' loops to be part of the problem. The problem of simplifying the world in 'black' and 'white' is denying the reality of 'gray-scales'.
          This way, nothing is gonna change for good.

          I picked my side already, which seems to be out of your imagination in the given context.

          And this not because you are unimaginative, but because you choose to be.

          In case you are willing to ever change your mind, this is a good talk to start from:
          http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html
  • Jul 25 2013: Definitely yes to both questions.
  • Jul 24 2013: I didn't see where you wrote terrorism, just thought you meant war in general.
    If everyone did that, there would be few people left alive today to talk about it!
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2013: what i would do would depend on the circumstances. I tend to think I would understand the bigger picture, that terrorism is a horrible thing and some innocents are going to die in the war on terrorism, but it's easy to say that when you probably aren't going to face it.

    Depending on the circumstances, one might not have to seek revenge, one might seek financial restitution.
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2013: Imagine another nation would seek their 'terrorists' in your country and your family would be turned into collateral damage in a drone attack?
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: Why do you put terrorists in quotation marks, Lejan ., do you not believe there are real terrorists in the world?

        Yes, I was imagining the exact situation you describe. I would feel terrible, but perhaps understand as well. As I say, under certain circumstances I might seek financial restitution.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: Because I don't know what a 'real terrorist' is.

          I put 'terrorists' in quotation marks because to me it is a propagandistic, simplified term which can be used under any agenda. It is a matter of 'viewpoint' only, as:

          'The ones terrorists is the others freedom fighter'

          I can imagine many people who see the USA as a 'nation of terrorists', and, does this make them terrorists per definition? What definition? Who's definition?

          I don't think terrorism just forms without a reason. I think terrorism is a negative reaction on negative circumstances which promote them to occur.

          And even though I don't think that the genuine instinct of humans is 'good', I don't think that our genuine instinct is 'bad' either.

          So if a suicide bomber kills himself and several others, I have a hart time to believe, that that was 'just' a brainless fanatic act. Fanatic I think it was, but was it brainless in the context of this fanaticism? And then, what created this fanaticism in the first place?

          I wrote some long comments on my views in this blog to Edward Long, in case you wish to follow my thoughts on this in more detail.

          On financial restitution of this given incident I can only say, that I feel ashamed of my nation to have offered the following:

          '... Germany announced it will pay $5,000 to each of almost all of the identified families, as an ex gratia payment without admitting liability'?'

          We are paying billions for banksters at the moment but its a price tag worth $5.000 for one Afghan. I don't know what to say about this.
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: well, lejan ., I would think we consider many factors when we decide someone is a terrorist, we go on what we read, what we hear, what we see. We consider the source of our information, do they seem biased or unbiased, why or why not? Taking everything into account, I at least feel I can make a judgement as to who is a terrorist, perhaps not perfect in every case but usually pretty good. Are you next going to tell us we can't tell who is a criminal, because all the people in prison may instead be freedom fighters as well. Do you believe the people in prison in your country deserve to be there, or is it only a point of view and the opposite point of view, that they don't deserve to be, has just as much credence? Because I believe in most cases they deserve to be there.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: I believe in the system of justice as a legal part of democracy. I don't think its flawless, as nothing man-made is, but my hope is, that the errors are limited as much as possible.

          In terms of the current liquidation of 'defined terrorists' I can't see justice put in practice at all.

          What I see in the 'global war on terrorism' is actually the opposite of justice. Just to name Guatanamo Bay, or drone attacks on 'terrorist subjects' in foreign countries here.

          I think it is naive and also dangerous to believe, that all terrorists can just be killed, globally, and from then on, it is all just going to be fine.

          I think 'we' can not be taken seriously in 'our' 'global war on terrorism' if we keep producing 'potential new ones' in the interest in 'our' foreign affairs the moment they seem 'useful' to us.

          I don't know if you are aware that training 'opposing groups' in asymmetric warfare in foreign countries is not a just myth.

          And as long 'we' are using this 'double standard' I just learned to be very very careful to buy official statements, such as 'weapons of mass destructions' and alike ...

          I don't know about you, but I have never seen an interview with a 'terrorist' which was done by investigative mainstream reporters. Honestly, I don't know what Al-Quaida is really up to. What there true motives are. Do you know this? I mean 'unfiltered' by other agendas and sources.

          And to know and to find 'motives' is what justice is about, isn't it? And then to decide what to do with it.

          But to create an organization as a 'weapon' to use it in my interest, and then to condemn this very weapon when it turns against me, isn't quite my idea of a democratic foreign politic.

          Thats why I put 'terrorism' in quotation marks, as I would with 'criminals' if they were made for a purpose.
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: well, part of what convinces me that these drone attacks, Guantanamo Bay, etc., are justified is that one hears so little protest from anyone affected by them, one hears little protest from the family survivors, little protest from the country where the drone attacks occur, etc.

        Offhand, I can't think that I've seen an interview with a terrorist by a mainstream reporter, but I have to believe it has happened. If it doesn't happen often it would be because these people don't want a spotlight, of course if you believe they are freedom fighters that could be because they can fight for freedom better in obscurity, but it also might make one suspect they are criminals who don't want the spotlight any more than other criminals.

        I also don't lose sleep over drone attacks because I believe the people who authorize them are humane people who don't casually kill other people and who know, like us, if they killed large numbers of innocent people they would create enemies for us.

        Really, Lejan ., if we were creating more terrorists wouldn't we see a large increase in the number of terrorist attacks, but I don't believe we've seen it. Of course the drone attacks are relatively recent, but I don't even hear any whisperings of a huge new wave of vengeful terrorists coming along.

        My understanding is that many countries are happy to see terrorists killed in their country, sometimes those terrorists kill people in the countries where they are living.
        • thumb
          Jul 25 2013: Greg, what are the chances of someone getting his(her voice heard in the US about being affected by done attacks? Certainly not the 'terrorists' and if you are lucky, very lucky you might get a voice of someone who lost a beloved person as collateral damage. Certainly not at prime-time, certainly not as 'breaking news' and certainly not across all mainstream media. I don't get to here them here in Germany either, and we are not using drones at the moment at all. But I know those voices exist because I searched for them.

          http://www.livingunderdrones.org/victim-stories/

          'Offhand, I can't think that I've seen an interview with a terrorist by a mainstream reporter, but I have to believe it has happened.'

          You don't have to believe anything the moment you choose not to. This applies to my words as well, so it wouldn't make any difference to repeat them.

          But let me finish to say, that 'creating new terrorists' doesn't mean that those will always turn against their creators. But since I remember, the Middle East has never been a peaceful region and 'terrorist attacks' have been reported repeatedly from there ever since.

          To me it is no coincidence, that those regions are rich in fossil fuels, but it is on you to make any further connections of who would profit from instability in those areas...
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: Lejan ., since drones are an object of much discussion here now in the u.s., I would think that a survivor would have some chance of getting heard in media. The fact is, I don't watch or read stories about drone attacks very much, so I don't know if those voices get represented. I think the media is always interested in stories about people who have great passion, and if the drone survivors are not in the media, I think it might be because they don't have strong feelings about what happened. What do you think?

        What I meant is because there are thousands of journalists, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and thousands of terrorists, I have to believe some journalists have interviewed some terrorists. Is there possibly some danger to a journalist to interview a terrorist, actually I love the question you are asking, it would be interesting to read more interviews with terrorists, perhaps they refuse interview requests because they are sullen people, I don't know.

        I believe quite a bit of research is done before a terrorist is drone-attacked. I don't know why we don't attack with human forces except that the terrorists are spread out, and it might become very expensive to plan and execute attacks on them, expensive too in the loss of life of innocent soldiers. By the way, you're concerned about innocent people near the terrorists who might get killed in a drone attack, what about innocent soldiers who might get killed in a human attack? Possibly a drone attack has some sort of psychological advantage, if the army started trying to attack terrorists, some people might become terrorists because they enjoy the cat-and-mouse game with the army, or they want an excuse to kill soldiers, the drones take that away from them.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2013: excellent question, click "edit" to add more time.