Innocence Riots

No, I did not say war is justified.

My bad, what you said was that the actions of the US during a "war" can be justified.See here: Their actions however, since you feel it is a one-sided war, or that they cannot be at war, are murder at best (your words). And murder as you said is NEVER justified.But, if you consider them at war too, then their actions can be justified as acts of war compared to that of the unfortunate children dead to drone attacks.- Oni

But they are not at war.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want.- Oni

I don't think its fair to slash the Mujahideen with Al-Qaeda. And even Al-Qaeda, itself, isn't really a cohesive group. "Loosly banded" is more like it. Actually, referring to them as militants distinguishes them from those in an actual military. I've read up, which is the part that makes it certain that they're cohesive? I don't agree with that. A military implies a governing body with professional soldiers. The Mujahideen were referred to as the Afghan Military? Or was that the DRA's army? So? I think it makes sense that I would see it this way. I'm still not seeing the military advantage. But they're wrong and it doesn't matter that they feel that way. A bad war is still a war. And some militants bombing shit is still not a war. Its not really that analogous, but would you consider the nuts at Waco and/or Ruby Ridge to be in a "war" because of their ideologies?

Yes you have.Read what you yourself have said.You have defined any act of warfare conducted by a non-state organisation as "unjustified".

A non state organization cannot conduct a war.Murder is always unjustified.

Thus we see justification/condemnation by definition rather than consideration...You have proved my point for me...

No, by act.Sorry but there is reality.An individual might be able to justify killing someone else but only when the person is a direct and immediate threat.The terrorists acts do not meet that test.

A member of Al Qaeda and a US (or British if you prefer) bomber pilot meet in the desert.Both have been responsible for killing innocents on the opposite side. Both are, as far as they are concerned, "soldiers".Only one of them has a gun.A) If the member of Al Qaeda kills the pilot - By your definitions this is unjustifiable murder.B) If the pilot kills the member of Al Qaeda - By your definitions this is a justifiable act of warfare.

NO, stop misrepresenting my position.Read what I wrote and try again.

Is that a fact or is this your opinion? You haven't supported that statement with any evidence. In message 142 you said "I don't think non Nation States can conduct war."So, you don't think they can or do you know that for a fact?- Oni

Who gets to decide which are acts of terrorism and which are acts of war?Consider a drone attack on Pakistan (which we are not at war with) that kills a dozen civilians. Who gets to decide if that's an act of war or terrorism? Are you saying drone attacks are preventing immediate threats?- Oni

Drone attacks are carried out by a military acting under governmental orders, and so they are an act of war.AbE:Let me try to help you.A drone attack carried out by a non-governmental agency though would be terrorism.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Mujahideen is anyone doing jihad. Like Al Qaeda. The fact that you know their name, we knew who their leader was and currently is, and that they are in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan fighting against US soldiers means they are a cohesive group. Now, the US military has kicked their ass enough to disband them, sort of. But that's just the result of fighting them. Al Qaeda was refered to as the Afghan army. THEY refer to themselves as mujahideen, which again means those who take place in jihad. The US placed Bin Laden in power, with his then "army". Until he turned his army on us, then they became militants.That's how euphemisms work. Well yeah, because you are working those euphemisms to your advantage.Them = terrorist
US = the good guysIf I asked them , it would be reversed. No? Are we not at war with them? Have we not engaged them on their land? Have they not killed enough US soldiers? US citizens?The holy war has begun, that's what they wanted. It may well prove to be a bad idea since they are going against us, as powerfully armed as we are. But that's irrelevant. How are they wrong? You just saying they're wrong is not the answer. They have their opinion you have yours. If they are wrong then we are wrong equally depending on who you ask.They attacked us in retaliation for supporting and funding Isreal with military aid that Isreal is using to kill them with. We ignited the flame. Now you're saying they're wrong for defending themselves by trying to take out and engage the imperialist US nation in war? That's crazy talk. This sentence couldn't be more drenched in US propaganda. The Waco people did NOTHING to deserve what they got. I don't even know how to answer this. Were they at war? No. They never declared they were.Bin Laden made it perfectly clear he and his group were/are at war with the infidels.- Oni