Poll: Terrorism
- Thread starter hippykiller
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You could say that. However, I get the feeling that al-Quaida's goal was something a bit more than waste a superpower's time. Hell, we don't even need terrorists to do that.MaxTheReaper said:
"Your words are as empty as your soul. Mankind ill needs a savior like you!"XDJulianking93 said:
But on topic: I think it's rather barbaric to target civilians who haven't really done anything.
Someone said this, and I tend to agree: "declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on U-boats instead of Hitler."
Japan is perhaps the site of the largest acts of terrorism; regarding the bombing of Japan in World War II, the United States made the calculation that killing civilians would hasten the end of the war and ultimately result in less lives lost. Unconditional surrender by a foreign government is a political goal after all; there is really no arguing that the United States' treatment of Japan toward the end wasn't terrorism. But I don't have a problem with that. What makes civilians so sacrosanct, but not soldiers? Especially in a democracy: if we, the people, are those who elect the government, who but we could be responsible for its actions? If you are at war with a democracy, you are at war with its people by definition it seems to me. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go after civilians, but it hardly seems to me that it is fundamentally illegitimate or something. It's rather futile to expect people with agendas not to use tactics that work. The challenge is in creating situations where violence or the threat of violence is and is perceived to be a less effective strategy than cooperation and engagement. This is not always possible.
Japan is perhaps the site of the largest acts of terrorism; regarding the bombing of Japan in World War II, the United States made the calculation that killing civilians would hasten the end of the war and ultimately result in less lives lost. Unconditional surrender by a foreign government is a political goal after all; there is really no arguing that the United States' treatment of Japan toward the end wasn't terrorism. But I don't have a problem with that. What makes civilians so sacrosanct, but not soldiers? Especially in a democracy: if we, the people, are those who elect the government, who but we could be responsible for its actions? If you are at war with a democracy, you are at war with its people by definition it seems to me. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go after civilians, but it hardly seems to me that it is fundamentally illegitimate or something. It's rather futile to expect people with agendas not to use tactics that work. The challenge is in creating situations where violence or the threat of violence is and is perceived to be a less effective strategy than cooperation and engagement. This is not always possible.
Hmmmm, under that definition wouldn't the Republican party classify as a terrorist group?Souplex said:
Well, I don't know about other countries, but here in the UK we elected Tony Blair to rebuild our schools, not go to war against Iraq. Had the british public known he'd pushed us to war, we probably wouldn't have elected him in the first place.Seanchaidh said:
Secondly, just because the majority of people in a country elect a president/ prime minister, it doesn't mean every single person agrees to their decisions. I for one didn't vote labour and I sure as hell don't agree with paying my taxes for some dirty yob to be trained to invade other countries.
Someone once theorised Jesus Christ was a terrorist. Would anyone agree with that? And if so, would that mean terrorism isn't always a bad thing?canadamus_prime said:
Well in a way the Americans used Terrorism to win the war against the Japanese in WWII. in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 220,000 people were killed. a hell of alot more than those killed in IRA bombings.LockHeart said:
I neither support nor endorse terrorism. It is simply a method.
Also:
Victory=Revolutionary
Defeat=Terrorist
Example: The American Revolution (And the events leading up to it, particularly concerning the actions of the Sons Of Liberty). We tarred and feathered tax collectors, dumped cargo into the ocean, and used insurgent tactics/guerrilla warfare during the revolution itself.
Also:
Victory=Revolutionary
Defeat=Terrorist
Example: The American Revolution (And the events leading up to it, particularly concerning the actions of the Sons Of Liberty). We tarred and feathered tax collectors, dumped cargo into the ocean, and used insurgent tactics/guerrilla warfare during the revolution itself.
I'd say it was a strategic move to end the war - Hiroshima had important military and industrial centres and Nagasaki was a major industrial centre and one of the largest port in Japan. Destroying these, even if the Emperor did not capitulate, would seriously impede the Japanese ability to wage war, as well as destroying morale and demonstrating American military might to the Soviets. But anyhow, this probably isn't the time and place for an atomic bomb debate...hippykiller said:
If you need to use violence and fear to get a point across, BlackJack47 thinks you've got the wrong kind of point.
The fact that 14 people have already voted I'm a Terrorist scares me. The fact that I myself am among those 14 scares me even more.
I completely agree as Cromwell was it not sure said and this isn't exact but "we can beat the king 99 out of hundred battles but if we lose one then it'll be over" something to that affect. Darn i should remember the quote aswell. If parliamentarians would have lost against the king they would be tried for treason. It is the winners that write history not the losers. A terrorist is not going to say they are a terrorist but rather a revolutionary (a violent one not a peaceful one).Mray3460 said:
I'm going to assume you're talking about terrorists that use threats and killing to get their point across.
Moral values aside, I dislike and like terrorists because they're both a convenience and an inconvinience to met. For example, it costs us tax money to support having the Canadian army in Afghanistan but on the other hand, it's the bases of the plots of many great action movies and video games.
Moral values aside, I dislike and like terrorists because they're both a convenience and an inconvinience to met. For example, it costs us tax money to support having the Canadian army in Afghanistan but on the other hand, it's the bases of the plots of many great action movies and video games.