War criminals should have terrorists status.

[Aedes]

Yes, I agree. I mean the difference may be semantic given that the actual tactics on the ground may be identical. But there's a reason why the US and the UN have always spoken of "state-sponsored terrorism". It's because the terrorist activities are never overtly the executors of government policy. It's only below the radar screen. And this pertains to the whole spectrum -- from the Libyan government sponsoring the destruction of the PanAm flight through the US funding Central American paramilitary organizations in the 1980s.

But a lot of this has to do with 1) terminology and 2) ultimate responsibility. Not so easy to pin down outside of war. The US can easily claim to have been unaware of the terror tactics of, say, the Sandanistas. The US can easily disavow any terrorization of local people committed by its own troops. Sometimes it's more credible than others.

But the US really needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops if it wants any kind of credibility when something inevitably happens.

[Arjen]

Although I appreciate the aesthetical ideal that I think Aedes is still clining to I would like to point out that it is not just the US needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops, but all governments. None of them ever will though, even though the appearance may be upheld for some time, only to require a new president, general or senate now and again because the orders for the altrocities were actually part of the standing orders the soldiers had recieved from their superiors.

The aesthetical ideal I am referring to is the thought that 'the state' exists for the benefit of the people and is the 'good' people refer to when saying that one has done the 'right' thing. I am very skeptical when it come to that because of the fact that the weapons that are supposedly used to keep back the enemies of the state (and by that ideal of the people) are also pointed towards the people living under the reign of any state and they are used to enforce unpopular decisions, or charge at unwelcome demonstrations.

I do not think that any people, living under any government are free. I think that people may think so because of the indoctrination of said aesthetical ideal though. This brings up the question to what extent government actions are terrorist acts, intent on influencing the decision making process to the side of giving up a little freedom to gain a little security.

Perhaps this quote will be superfluous:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
~Benjamin Franklin

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Although I appreciate the aesthetical ideal that I think Aedes is still clining to...

What "aesthetical" ideal?

There are two aspects to this argument. The first is terminology. We have not done a good job in this thread about defining terms. So let's consider what terrorism means, what war criminal means, and perhaps some related terms and scenarios that might come up.

The second aspect is the human ethics element. In this we are probably all in loose agreement that insofar as there are political conflicts that at times result in war, it is unacceptable to inflict harm or death on noncombatants or deprive them of their basic needs, and it is expected of all combatants that noncombatant casualties be tactically and strategically minimized. This loose definition avoids some of the lumping and splitting.

So inasmuch as we all think war crimes are very bad and terrorism is very bad, and inasmuch as we're not out to turn this thread into a worn out good-USA versus bad-USA debate, then the key is to debate whether terrorism should always be reclassified as war crimes or if war crimes should always be reclassified as terrorism.

This is not really a moral argument, let alone an "aesthetical" one. It's a matter of getting down to the semantics.

I would like to point out that it is not just the US needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops, but all governments.

Agreed. But what's more insidious is the complicity of various governments in crimes they don't commit themselves. The behavior of France during the Rwandan genocide was, frankly, of historically criminal proportions, and yet it rarely comes up unless you read the history closely. The behavior of China in the current crisis in southern Sudan (incl. but not limited to Darfur) is similarly criminal. Very difficult to prosecute this when the best we can do is get the president of Sudan indicted after roughly 20 years of war and 2-3 million dead.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Aedes

What "aesthetical" ideal?

There are two aspects to this argument. The first is terminology. We have not done a good job in this thread about defining terms. So let's consider what terrorism means, what war criminal means, and perhaps some related terms and scenarios that might come up.

The second aspect is the human ethics element. In this we are probably all in loose agreement that insofar as there are political conflicts that at times result in war, it is unacceptable to inflict harm or death on noncombatants or deprive them of their basic needs, and it is expected of all combatants that noncombatant casualties be tactically and strategically minimized. This loose definition avoids some of the lumping and splitting.

So inasmuch as we all think war crimes are very bad and terrorism is very bad, and inasmuch as we're not out to turn this thread into a worn out good-USA versus bad-USA debate, then the key is to debate whether terrorism should always be reclassified as war crimes or if war crimes should always be reclassified as terrorism.

This is not really a moral argument, let alone an "aesthetical" one. It's a matter of getting down to the semantics.

Much to the contrary I think this is your version of voicing your own aesthetical ideal; in two ways even. The first and most obvious is your aesthetical ideal of what should take place in this topic, and on the forum in general. The second and I think most destructive is your aesthetical ideal on governments in general.

As I showed in my previous post war-crimes are a result of following orders from a government, while terrorism are a result of following orders from a none-governmental group. To expand on that when one investigates the matter further it turns out that both groups have the same goal: to influence the public opinion to an end of personal or ethnical gain (which lead to the same: personal gain): they are two sides of the same coin.

Now, when I said that any government behaves in such a manner and that no government will ever prosecute war criminals like terrorists. The illusion of the aesthetical ideal that the state is the 'good' must continue to exist. If that picture is lost people might wake up to see what exactly has been happening and who they have been taking orders from. So when any government in the world stands to loose that stature of being 'the good' is become of great importance to governments to denounce these governments, out of fear of losing the same ideal; even though behind the curtains the dealings go on as usual.

All this points to something else entirely, namely that it is in the nature of any state to decieve its populace because the state exists to dominate its populace, but in doing so violates every piece of the social contract; you know, the social contract in which the populace pledges to work together for mutual beneficial reasons.

Although I agree that we have not set out our terminology quite correctly I think we see pretty much eye to eye and understand eachother perfectly. If there are any questions, feel free to ask them. Getting to the first clarification needed I'll quote your previous post, Aedes:

But the US really needs to be better about prosecuting human rights violations by its own troops if it wants any kind of credibility when something inevitably happens.

This is why I said that you are still clinging to an aesthetical ideal: the ideal that the state (in this example the usa) is 'the good'. As if you have been led to believe that if you do not support your state you are a traitor. It is here that the aesthetical ideal named 'nationalism' rears its ugly head. I hope you realise that al wars are fought by nationalists and 'patriots'. Without itpeople would not be deluded into suddenly marching to their neighbours (often brothers or cousins even!) and taking guns to their doors. But perhaps the ideal is rooted even deeper in the ideal that states exist to benefit its populace, instead of to prey upon them.

I hope this gets my point across.

Arjen

A government creates its own revolution, there can be no revolt without it.
~Lenin

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

This is why I said that you are still clinging to an aesthetical ideal: the ideal that the state (in this example the usa) is 'the good'. As if you have been led to believe that if you do not support your state you are a traitor.

I do not believe that at all, and even the vaguest attention to my posts on this site would demonstrate that. I'm also about the last person you could call a nationalist. You are misusing the word "aesthetical" in this post anyway, and I'm not really sure which word you're searching for.

Your on-topic points are valuable, but they're lost in your interpersonal commentaries which serve only to create acrimony. Leave them out please.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I do not believe that at all, and even the vaguest attention to my posts on this site would demonstrate that. I'm also about the last person you could call a nationalist. You are misusing the word "aesthetical" in this post anyway, and I'm not really sure which word you're searching for.

Aedes, perhaps you should look deeper into yourself because you obviously do believe that. I have read yur posts on this website before and time and time again it shows. It may no longer be dominantly available in you because you have relised certain truths, but the aesthetical ideal is still there. Deni-all is a sure way of making that gain influence on you again while yous tate it is not present within you. I never said you were a nationalist, I was pointing out how that sort of thing works. I do think, however, you have the defininate basis of nationalism in you, which is what I was referring to with the word aesthetical ideal. If you think I have used the word in an incorrect manner, perhaps you should re-read Nietzsche's 'Jenseits von Gut und Böse', as I have pointed out to you before. It seems valuable for you because you find ways to deny the usage of such thought-objects by your definition of it.

Your on-topic points are valuable, but they're lost in your interpersonal commentaries which serve only to create acrimony. Leave them out please.

I am sorry you view things that way. I was after two things:
1) To prevent inquisitive minds from reading your words and being misled into thinking that some governments might be 'the good' and that 'those other governments' simply lost their way or anything.
2) To help you see the thought-objects you are using so you can free yourself from the workings thereof.

Being the carefull reader that I am I notice that you are not willing to investigate your own workings. That is fine with me, offcourse. I hope you, and any other will find some usefull information in this topic and leave it at that.

[Aedes]

If anyone would like to return this thread onto the topic, feel free, and I apologize for the little extracurricular interlude here.

[Arjen]

Allright, I think the topic has halted at the point where I stated that all governments have the intent to influence their populace into allowing them to gain a certain control in the sense of security in exchance for freedom because of its very pretence: to supply a mutual beneficial coöperation within certain (drawn-up) borders. In that sense no government will ever classify war-crimes as terrorist acts because it would undermine that control in the sense that the aesthetical ideal that the government is 'the good' would be forfitted. The truth being the mortal enemy of the lie would become the enemy of state and all would have to be done to suppress that truth; effectively showing dictatorship being at the very roots of any government.

After that Aedes went a little offtopic and I responded to that, trying to show how thing added up...which I now realise was a silly thing to do.. So, lets not go down that road again and get back on topic.

[Holiday20310401]

.......

Anyways, I was wondering what is so bad in putting the USA over other countries, when it comes to rights, and government. Democracy to me is a lot better than fanaticism, dictatorship, and communism. Even though some think communism is just better in certain countries, it is ironically, only for stability.

Arjen, I appreciate the new use of the term aesthetical ideal.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Anyways, I was wondering what is so bad in putting the USA over other countries, when it comes to rights, and government. Democracy to me is a lot better than fanaticism, dictatorship, and communism.

Yes, but I'd hardly hold up the USA as the model of how democracy should work. We're more of an oligarchy than is immediately obvious. It's probably impossible for a country to be both rich/powerful and fair at the same time.

Arjen, I appreciate the new use of the term aesthetical ideal.