Honest Self Examination.

"Peter pretends to be "compassionate", yet his inability to put himself in someone else's shoes demonstrates the exact opposite. His form of "compassion" is a phony, self congratulatory smugness that smacks more of egotism than anything else."

Whaw. I never realized the complexity of my personality. somebody knows a good shrink?

"First, an inability to put oneself realistically in someone else's shoes."

There's the rub.

Peter pretends to be "compassionate", yet his inability to put himself in someone else's shoes demonstrates the exact opposite. His form of "compassion" is a phony, self congratulatory smugness that smacks more of egotism than anything else. And we all know that the egotist is pathologically incapable of compassion.

@ pvdh

Your statement that "Bomber Harris was certainly not a courageous war hero" was the most disappointing to read in the previous discussion.  Especially because I know that this is now 'conventional wisdom' among your and later generations in Western-Europe.  It tells me two things:

- First, an inability to put oneself realistically in someone else's shoes.  Maybe not every 'Harris' was morally courageous, but many must have been.  Once an all-out war has begun, and survival is at stake, survival can then only become possible (not assured) if enough people show moral courage.  Obviously, many did not, then, but enough did.  I don't have to be a military flyer in war to understand that.   

- Given the prevalence of your opinions today, it is likely that Europe will not be able to defend itself the next time when the need arises against a strong totalitarian ideology. Because the quality of moral courage wil be lacking.  And it will be lacking because its need is no longer sufficiently recognised.   

@ Kapitein

It sems rather pointless to define "terrorism" as "the use of terror".  Virtually every type of 'violence', even among a few individuals, will be experienced as terror by its victims, and often even by its perpetrators too.  Terrorism is not just "fear" or "causing fear". 

A more useful definition would associate it with either (1) legitimacy of the violence, or with (2) the distinction between civilian and military targets.   But, as I said earlier in this discussion, "distinctons must be made by making honest examinations of the ultimate goals or purposes behind any acts of violence".  The key word here is "honest".

Clearly, there is no chance of ever getting much agreement on such a loaded term like "terrorism". But, in practice, in most Western minds today it means something like "the deliberate targeting of civilians in order to achieve political ends".   In principle that is 'bad' in a democratic setting where there are nonviolent ways to achieve reasonable ends. 

Two further comments:

- "Ends" that are not supported at the ballot box, in genuinely free elections, make violence "unreasonable".

- Deliberate targeting of civilians in all-out-war between states is not a very sensible, nor relevant, example of "terrorism".  Such a war in itself is terrorism.  The question then becomes, who is to blame for the war. That will differ from case to case, and the blame will often be shared to different degrees.  
 

You're another moral relativist.

Frankly, you and Kapitein Andre have no credibility in making assertions about Christianity. Neither of you are Christians, and you are both woefully ignorant of its teachings. Instead, you "preach" a watered down and distorted version of it.

As far as war is concerned, I don't place much value on the opinion of someone whose record of squishiness is well documented.

 
@Peter and KA
Have either of you ever been in a situation where you have had to defend your life or another's against an aggressor? KA I might be able to see, but Peter your comments suggest to me you have no understanding whatsoever of what it means to be in a life and death struggle, which is what war tends to be...

For the record, those bomber crews did not all make it back to England to celebrate their 'terrorist' success against the innocent Germans who unleashed the Nazis against the world. In fact, the losses at times were staggering.

The argument that the bombing did not serve any legitimate military aims is pure horse manure. It pummeled and help to destroy the morale of the Germans and undermined the legitimacy and authority of the nazi regime. Much like the bombing of Japan.

Too bad you guys weren't around in the middle of WWII I'm sure you could have convinced everyone to stop the sensless slaughter. Or in KA case, get the Brits to admit that they were morally equivalent to the Nazi regime and simply trying to one up the Nazis as a terrorist practioner. 

My dear PVDH, have you forgotten that Germany was attempting to conquer and subdue Great Britain, as it had already conquered and subdued Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Norway? There was a war on. Even revenge can be strategic, in terms of its effects both at home and abroad. In any case, there were military purposes served by the bombing of German cities, even if they were debatable at the time and in retrospect.

It is interesting to see Germans donning the victimary mantle they did so much to create. I read a German author's interesting and eloquent account of the bombing of Hamburg. There is not one scintilla of acknowledgement in it that the bombing resulted from the Germans' brutal attacks on other countries.

You and KA seem to adhere to a pacifist version of Christianity that makes it unworkable in the real world. Without meaning to get personal, it looks like an excuse not to be a Christian.

"he is obligated to defend himself, the innocent, the weak, and the just from aggressors."

Yes, but as KA explained, the bombing of the Germany had nothing to do with "defending", it was an act of revenge. Eye for an eye. We shouldn't mix up things. Bomber Harris was certainly not a courageous war hero, deserving a statue. But then again, if Napoleon has a statue in Paris then why not ...

"because Christ was referring to everyday human arguments and interactions, and not to war or situations involving deadly force."

Considering that you, as a Christian, certainly believe in the existing of “divine ethical rules” it is rather funny that you believe in a God creating rules that are suddenly not applicable any more at some blurred man-made frontier called “war”.

Wrong.

You do not understand Christianity at all. There is nothing in Christianity that says one cannot defend oneself. Indeed, a Christian who fully understands God's laws realizes that he is obligated to defend himself, the innocent, the weak, and the just from aggressors.

If you want to invoke the "turn the other cheek" directive, it doesn't fly, because Christ was referring to everyday human arguments and interactions, and not to war or situations involving deadly force.

On the contrary, you display an outlook inconsistent with either Christianity or Western civilization, as the former disposed of equitable retaliation.   
 
Britain is responsible for its acts of terror; so too is Germany for hers.

First of all, the fact that you accused the British of "terrorism" in their bombing Germany in WWII and omitted Germany's responsibility for that bombing because they started it first, indicates a level of moral relativism on your part. If Germany started it, they deserved to "reap" what they started. So, your assertion that the British bombing is terrorism is incorrect.

"But if terrorism is simply the "use of terror", anything can be terrorism! War strikes terror into people's hearts- even the most stalwart soldier can feel terror in battle."
 
Precisely.
 
"So I have to disagree with your overly simplistic definition. I also think that "terrorism" has a component of attacking unarmed civilians."
 
This is dealt with by "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity", although the boundary between war and crime is blurred. 

But if terrorism is simply the "use of terror", anything can be terrorism! War strikes terror into people's hearts- even the most stalwart soldier can feel terror in battle.

So I have to disagree with your overly simplistic definition. I also think that "terrorism" has a component involving the attack of unarmed civilians.

"Then Hitler's Baedeker raids on Britain also constitutes terrorism by your standards, does it not?"
 
Certainly. 
 
"Apparently there is no true definition of terrorism that is agreed upon internationally, therefore your list is purely subjective."
 
The "true" definition of terrorism is the use of terror.  To use the term politically is disingenous, as it used to derogate an opponent.  States refer to militant non-state actors as "terrorists" in order to de-legitimize their cause, even if their cause is reasonably just (e.g. security, self-determination) and the actors enjoy popular support (i.e. representative of the majority).  The Third Reich and Soviet Union branded resistance and anti-communist movements as terrorists, as the British did with rebels to Imperial rule.  However, "state terrorism" is often invoked to disparage and exaggerate the law enforcement and/or military activities of a state.  To accept a political definition of terrorism is to rationalize/justify one use of terror and emotionalize/impugn another.

"The aerial bombardment of German towns and cities during World War 2 has been argued to constitute terrorism. It had no impact on German industrial output (which peaked in 1944), failed to incite effective and popular opposition to the NSDAP and failed to sufficiently impact German military morale. Indeed, the air raids were a punitive measure against German civilians."

Then Hitler's Baedeker raids on Britain also constitutes terrorism by your standards, does it not?

"They have sown the wind, let them reap the whirlwind."

Apparently there is no true definition of terrorism that is agreed upon internationally, therefore your list is purely subjective.

Britain routinely employed terrorism in the preservation of its empire.  20th Century examples include Iraq (e.g. chemical weapons), South Asia, Ireland and Northern Ireland.  In the latter instance, the British government carried out terrorism through various Protestant/Unionist paramilitaries, although British special forces and intelligence services are implicated in atrocities.
 
The aerial bombardment of German towns and cities during World War 2 has been argued to constitute terrorism.  It had no impact on German industrial output (which peaked in 1944), failed to incite effective and popular opposition to the NSDAP and failed to sufficiently impact German military morale.  Indeed, the air raids were a punitive measure against German civilians.
 
Continuing from my previous comments, the issue here is not whether the terrorism is justifiable or not, but whether it is terrorism, and it is.

The context and weight of Foreign Secretary, David Miliband's words could be considered incitement under U.K government legislation.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thank you for clarifying.

@ Atheling

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.  I am sure that Kan-wil-san is not forgetting the Ruandan genocide.  From his perspective, that genocide strengthens one part of his arguable/questionable  'case' (which was that societal conditions under current 'African' rulers are much worse than they were under 'Apartheid').

The boer wars were between the British and the 'Afrikaners' (descendants from mainly Dutch settlers in South Africa).  And, the other part of his case was that the British committed atrocities during those wars.

As I said, none of this is relevant to the subject of the article, which was the stupidity and hypocrisy of Mr Miliband.   

Kan Wil Sal also seems to forget the very recent Rwandan genocide, where Hutus massacred Tutsis.

Physician, heal thyself.

@ Atheling

As you can see, for some the 'boer wars' in South Africa (of more than a century ago) are not yet over.  The bitterness of 'Kan-Wil-Sal' (in English: Can-Will-Shall)  is understandable.

It's the old story: one man's terrorist is another man's 'freedom fighter'.  It is always dangerous to make comparisons over different centuries.  And distinctons must be made by making honest examinations of the ultimate goals or purposes behind any acts of 'violence'.     

Hoever, there is no need to discuss the rights and wrongs of the different sides in the 'boer wars' of South Africa, in order to establish the stupidity and hypocrisy of Mr Miliband. As the opening sentence of the article showed, he did that himself quite effectively.

So you claim that during apartheid the violence committed was mainly "blacks on blacks", and now the violence is committed by whom on whom?

Grow up, Kan Wil Sal. The violence in S. Africa is still blacks on blacks, as it is in the US.

How about learning to civilize yourselves, you racist thug?

Apartheid might have been an unjust system, but lets be honest if you compare quality of life in terms of property rights and security the new South Africa is more unjust then the old. During apartheid +- 20, 000 people died due to violence(mostly black on black) but that was over decades it lasted 48 years, and now violent crime is so staggering that, that many people die every 4 months due to violent crime. I can give many more examples but, who cares? It’s over! There is no point in justifying or explaining history.

So from my perspective, I want as much diversity in England as possible, I am going to start a fund in South Africa and ask white South African’s to contribute, it will be used to settle Nigerians, Somalis, Pakistanis and many more in England, I want the English to share the racial utopia they helped created over here. I think another 50 Million Arabs and Africans would look wonderful in London, England. When I hear English politicians spewing such garbage as this, I wonder why not help fund diversity in England? If they don’t have the political balls to save themselves, how would they stop me? They wont, I’ll scream racist till God hears me.

If terrorism was so great in my country, Why not help fund it in yours??

And to the question where did England practice terrorism? Well my attitude should give you a clue, Permit me to put in your tong as English is not my language, If I had a 100 atomic bombs I would drop without exception every one of them on England!!

http://www.anglo-boer.co.za/concentration-camps/
http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Editorial_10/The_British_Ethnic_Cleansing_and_Concentration_Camps.shtml

Britain has been both a perpetrator and a victim of terrorism.

Give an example where Britain has been a "perpetrator" of terrorism. News to me.

I fully concur with marcfrans' distinctions between facts and opinions, content and mode of delivery.  It is entirely possible for a person to exercise or abuse their freedom of expression in such an extreme way as to impinge on the freedoms of others.
 
As for Mr Miliband, I condemn his pretensee at objectivity rather than his justification of terror.  Terror is an aspect of war.  If war can be justified, so too can terror.  If war can produce "success", then the same applies to terror.  Such positions, however, assume a degree of rational objectivity that is impossible beyond the confines of academia.
 
Britain has been both a perpetrator and a victim of terrorism.  As a nation, it is not possible for the British people to objectively view terrorism without marring their past accomplishments or lending encouragement to their present adversaries.  Beyond the intellectual exercise, neither outcome is good for Britain.  Mr Miliband was not elected to engage in "critical thinking", but to both lead and represent the British people, and further the British interest.  Self-interested nations and people alike must be subjective, even at the risk of hipocrisy.

"The legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.

It is of course easy to agree with the criticism by the author of the current British Foreign Secretary.  The latter is dishonest and does not respect freedom of opinion.

Nevertheless, I think that the author does not deal effectively with the silly argument (that is often used to justify restrictions on freedom of speech), i.e. Holme's statement that "one can not cry (falsely) fire in a crowded theatre".   The insertion of the word "falsely" misses the essential point, and it still leaves open the possibility for intolerant/undemocratic  political/judicial authorities to make a judgment as to what is "false" and what is not "false".   

A better way of disposing with the silly argument is that freedom of speech is really about freedom of opinion.  It is the CONTENT of the speech that matters not it's physical manifestation.  Speech itself is an act or deed, and clearly should be subject to proper control or regulation.  'Speech' should be free in appropriate circumstances, i.e. circumstances that do not directly/physically infringe on others' freedom to live their own lifes.  For instance, one should not be 'free' to shout loudly in a movie theatre, or to harass someone by shouting obscenities in front of their house, etc... However, all opinions should be tolerated and beyond criminal prosecution if expressed in appropriate circumstances (in publications, in designated places, in private places, etc...).  Governments should not be able to control WHAT people say.  But people have a moral duty NOT to physically harass others through the sound of 'speech'.       

P.S. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not expressing an "opinion".  It is at best a factual observation (if there is an actual fire) or, at worst, it is an act or deed to create havoc or a disturbance.