Poll: Terrorism
- Thread starter hippykiller
- Start date
Recommended Videos
well I hope you feel clever quoting one of the most over-quoted quotes i've heard in the last five years.Lunar Shadow said:
No, I certainly do not think that anyone fighting for the 'taliban' or 'al queda' can be considered to be a freedom fighter, though they would appreciate the label themselves-- they are fighting for the right to establish a theocracy where shaving, listening to the radio, and teaching girls to read are punishible by death.
You can call it a lot of things, but freedom fighters is not among them.
Oh, come on. We jumped out from behind bushes, while the British came down the road in their bright red jackets, but never has a war been so courteously declared. It was on parchment with calligraphy and "Your highness, we beseech you on this day in Philadelphia to bite me, if you please." No one got hurt at the Boston Tea Party, except some fancy boys who didn't have anything to wash down their crumpets.Mray3460 said:
For this entire discussion we need to draw a line between terrorism and asymmetrical warfare. The former is a social tactic which aims to attack the resolve of a country through attacks on citizens and terrorizing non-combatants. Asymmetrical warfare is a military tactic which aims to use a smaller, less well-armed fighting force to harry a larger, more supplied, force.
They're not the same thing. Terrorism requires some element of "total war", the willingness to attack those who aren't directly in combat. Asymmetrical warfare only exists to allow a smaller force to slowly pick away at a larger one. As comparison:
The Viet Cong: asymmetrical warfare, as it was directly solely against American soldiers.
Osama Bin Laden: terrorist. He attacks civilians, and encourages the use of civilian casualties to promote his agenda.
Also, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was not "terrorism". Those attacks were against largely military areas (and the entire civilian population had been conscripted into a sort of militia). A large death toll doesn't make something a terrorist attack.
Americans judge the success of a military mission by two factors: (a) was it a success, and (b) how few civilians did we injure. They judge success by how many civilians they injure.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Edit: I do not agree with the use of fear and violence to advance political agenda in any form, I just try to view both sides pf the conflict. Like with Al Qaeda, there side is so unsympathetic that none thinks of them as freedom fighters other than themselves.
You assume much. No, I don't feel clever, it's actually what I believe. I wasn't necessarily referring to Al Qaeda either, I was actually referring more towards people like the IRA.thiosk said:
Edit: I do not agree with the use of fear and violence to advance political agenda in any form, I just try to view both sides pf the conflict. Like with Al Qaeda, there side is so unsympathetic that none thinks of them as freedom fighters other than themselves.
milis. i myself just recently started to learn. Im not very good but im still learning.Dazza5897922 said: