6 ms·

Edgy. But really, your comment just cheapens the discussion.

droithomme 10y ago
I disagree with you that his comment cheapens the discussion. I do think that your comment cheapens it. His point that the US military, with its illegitimate wars, torture practices, and widespread murder of civilians, is reasonably considered to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable and good comment which advances the discussion intelligently and productively. The fact is that US military are in fact terrorists, as is the citizenry that supports this terrorist regime with tax money. So the honest and true response for US citizens at least would be to answer yes to that question.
- curryst 10y ago
  Classifying the US military forces like that just cheapens the word "terrorist". I'm not arguing that everything the US did in Iraq was morally right or justifiable, but it's generally implied that terrorists are almost always non-state actors. If you use that definition almost every nation in the world is full of terrorists. China, North Korea, and large swaths of the Middle East enforce their power using fear, so they're all terrorists. You can chuck in Japan, Italy and Germany for their involvement in WWII and inhumane treatment of PoWs. In fact, I think Switzerland may be the only country in the world not considered to be terroristic, purely because of their lack of involvement in any major modern wars.
  - droithomme 10y ago
    Torture and attacks on civilian populations are both terrorist actions. If you define terrorism as necessarily non-state, then you have to discard the state sponsored terrorism of Libya, ISIS (which is in fact now a state), Afghanistan, Nazi Germany, etc. I do not believe that discarding state sponsored terrorism as "not terrorist" by defining terrorism as not possible by states to be a useful definition, do you?
    - malka 10y ago
      > ISIS (which is in fact now a state) No. Absolutely no state in the world recognizes ISIS as a state. State is a circular definition by nature btw.
- ythl 10y ago
  The US does not use terror as a weapon in the same way terrorists do. The US Military does not purposely target the innocent.
  - fletom 10y ago
    I think that's a good point, but to make a counterpoint, there are many documented cases of their soldiers independently doing just that.
- dang 10y ago
  > The fact is that US military are in fact terrorists, as is the citizenry that supports this terrorist regime with tax money. Please don't post shrill ideological denunciations to HN. It's not what this site is for, there's no substantive argument that requires it, and one needn't be a militarist to know that.
  - droithomme 10y ago
    dang/mod account, you host many political threads and then frequently censor viewpoints contrary to yours. Deleting off topic comments, spam and abuse is appropriate. Attacking and censoring all who are reasonably critical of the american military's torture and surveillance state, its illegitimate wars, and its harm to civilians, in the context of related discussion, is not appropriate. To maintain the credibility of HN and ycombinator, I suggest you review your censorship and control issues associated with your moderators. Thank you.
    - michaelvoz 10y ago
      I am very critical of America's torture, surveillance apparatus, wars and all the things you list. However, it cheapens the discussion you and I have against it. Terrorism is fundamentally very different from an invading and occupying force. The nature of the soldiers, their funding, purpose, propaganda used to send them off, as well as their very mission and goals all differ to such an extent. Calling this terrorism cheapens the word (terrorism), and makes it easy to ignore your somewhat valid points. I think there is a place for discussing the merits, drawbacks, and issues associated with America's unreasonable middle east adventures, but this is not it. It is also unreasonable to cry 'Censorship!' Whenever one strays and veers far off the OP topic. Please, do put up a thread, a blog, a news article and we can discuss, debate, and learn together about which is which, and why. But not here, and not in a way that cheapens the wonderful site that this is. Let us do all we can to not become reddit.
    - dang 10y ago
      You've sidestepped the issue with your comment in a way that unfortunately just confirms it. But let me try to answer these concerns. As I said, there's no defense of militarism in asking people not to post ideological rants here. If that weren't true, it would mean there is no civil way to state your view. That would be a rather strong refutation of said view. Re my personal opinions: you're assuming that you know what they are and then getting angry at your assumption. That's a self-referential activity. I know how tempting it is to conclude, when we moderate X on HN, that our politics must be anti-X. But even perfectly apolitical moderation, if it were possible, would generate the same reactions—more of them, actually, because there would be more Xs. So that feeling is not to be trusted. It's too easily explained by the simpler theory that none of us likes it when our own statements, or ones we agree with, get criticized.
- malka 10y ago
  Almost by definition, a terrorist is on the other side of the conflict. Therefore, relative to the US, they are not terrorists.
centizen 10y ago
I don't think so, I think it raises an interesting point about the flexibility of the definition of the word "terrorist"

I disagree with you that his comment cheapens the discussion. I do think that your comment cheapens it. His point that the US military, with its illegitimate wars, torture practices, and widespread murder of civilians, is reasonably considered to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable and good comment which advances the discussion intelligently and productively. The fact is that US military are in fact terrorists, as is the citizenry that supports this terrorist regime with tax money. So the honest and true response for US citizens at least would be to answer yes to that question.

curryst 10y ago
Classifying the US military forces like that just cheapens the word "terrorist". I'm not arguing that everything the US did in Iraq was morally right or justifiable, but it's generally implied that terrorists are almost always non-state actors. If you use that definition almost every nation in the world is full of terrorists. China, North Korea, and large swaths of the Middle East enforce their power using fear, so they're all terrorists. You can chuck in Japan, Italy and Germany for their involvement in WWII and inhumane treatment of PoWs. In fact, I think Switzerland may be the only country in the world not considered to be terroristic, purely because of their lack of involvement in any major modern wars.
- droithomme 10y ago
  Torture and attacks on civilian populations are both terrorist actions. If you define terrorism as necessarily non-state, then you have to discard the state sponsored terrorism of Libya, ISIS (which is in fact now a state), Afghanistan, Nazi Germany, etc. I do not believe that discarding state sponsored terrorism as "not terrorist" by defining terrorism as not possible by states to be a useful definition, do you?
  - malka 10y ago
    > ISIS (which is in fact now a state) No. Absolutely no state in the world recognizes ISIS as a state. State is a circular definition by nature btw.
ythl 10y ago
The US does not use terror as a weapon in the same way terrorists do. The US Military does not purposely target the innocent.
- fletom 10y ago
  I think that's a good point, but to make a counterpoint, there are many documented cases of their soldiers independently doing just that.
dang 10y ago
> The fact is that US military are in fact terrorists, as is the citizenry that supports this terrorist regime with tax money. Please don't post shrill ideological denunciations to HN. It's not what this site is for, there's no substantive argument that requires it, and one needn't be a militarist to know that.
- droithomme 10y ago
  dang/mod account, you host many political threads and then frequently censor viewpoints contrary to yours. Deleting off topic comments, spam and abuse is appropriate. Attacking and censoring all who are reasonably critical of the american military's torture and surveillance state, its illegitimate wars, and its harm to civilians, in the context of related discussion, is not appropriate. To maintain the credibility of HN and ycombinator, I suggest you review your censorship and control issues associated with your moderators. Thank you.
  - michaelvoz 10y ago
    I am very critical of America's torture, surveillance apparatus, wars and all the things you list. However, it cheapens the discussion you and I have against it. Terrorism is fundamentally very different from an invading and occupying force. The nature of the soldiers, their funding, purpose, propaganda used to send them off, as well as their very mission and goals all differ to such an extent. Calling this terrorism cheapens the word (terrorism), and makes it easy to ignore your somewhat valid points. I think there is a place for discussing the merits, drawbacks, and issues associated with America's unreasonable middle east adventures, but this is not it. It is also unreasonable to cry 'Censorship!' Whenever one strays and veers far off the OP topic. Please, do put up a thread, a blog, a news article and we can discuss, debate, and learn together about which is which, and why. But not here, and not in a way that cheapens the wonderful site that this is. Let us do all we can to not become reddit.
  - dang 10y ago
    You've sidestepped the issue with your comment in a way that unfortunately just confirms it. But let me try to answer these concerns. As I said, there's no defense of militarism in asking people not to post ideological rants here. If that weren't true, it would mean there is no civil way to state your view. That would be a rather strong refutation of said view. Re my personal opinions: you're assuming that you know what they are and then getting angry at your assumption. That's a self-referential activity. I know how tempting it is to conclude, when we moderate X on HN, that our politics must be anti-X. But even perfectly apolitical moderation, if it were possible, would generate the same reactions—more of them, actually, because there would be more Xs. So that feeling is not to be trusted. It's too easily explained by the simpler theory that none of us likes it when our own statements, or ones we agree with, get criticized.
malka 10y ago
Almost by definition, a terrorist is on the other side of the conflict. Therefore, relative to the US, they are not terrorists.

centizen 10y ago

I don't think so, I think it raises an interesting point about the flexibility of the definition of the word "terrorist"