Is Terrorism Ever justified?
- Thread starter unlimited
- Start date
Hapsburg said:
Name a few instance of terrorist tactics during the War of Independence. I think ye're wrong on that account. ...unconventional, yes; terrorism, ...??
Hapsburg said:
That might, just might be considered terrorist action, but...? At any rate, even during the Civil War, there were very few, if any, terrorist tactics used. If you know more than just Sherman's march, perhaps you can enlighten us?
Baron Max
Wow, I actually agree with Baron Max again, heh.
As to Spymoose, no, there are no rules to war. The only reason why we don't go doing as you suggested:
It's because it's counter-productive. The same reason why we don't use nukes. If we used nukes, the general populace would be angered and those in power would no longer be. Other countries would quit trading with us and all sorts of other things because of our actions and then our country would collapse. What would we do then? Nuke those countries too until nothing is left which then really screws us?
We have other highly efficient means of combatting others so we don't have to use nukes. The only time nukes would be used is if you're on the losing team or don't have any other effective means of fighting. Basically the common sense rule of war is to use the most effective means possible of fighting that will upset the least amount of people. And it's not because it has anything to do with morals, but rather being able to stay in power and keep your country still going. As another person said, self-preservation. In almost all our wars, we've never really been threatened or been on the losing side so we've not had to resort to drastic measures to turn the tides in our favor or go out with one last bang. Do you think "rules" would make us not do that? We've usually always have had the upper hand and we knew we'd still remain on this earth after the war so that's when self-preservation is important.
But there's not really such a thing as terrorism. Everything can be considered a terrorist act. Usually the only people that consider others terrorists are the powerful to the weak. It's usually considered terrorism when the little side doesn't fight the same way as the big guys (aka unconventional means). Americans were considered terrorists by the British when we faught for Independence. Indians were considered terrorists by Americans. The French Resistance were considered terrorists by the Germans. And now we're considering Muslim's as terrorists as well.
Why was the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which is a legitimate military target considered a terrorist act? Why was the bombing of Pearl Harbor considered a terrorist act? Why don't we consider our bombings of civilian targets in EVERY single war or conflict a terrorist act yet when someone does it to us, the #1 power, it is considered one?
The only real times I can say an act is a terrorist act is when picking a worthless target that is of no real importance like when a suicide bomber blows up a movie theatre or something like that. But hey, then winds up being no different than mass murder like shooting everyone in a McDonalds. All criminals wind up being terrorists. Sure, those may have a minor economical impact so I guess it can kinda be considered a strategic target, but it's nothing like trying to shutdown a major infrastructure. I don't consider flying a plane into the Pentagon to be a terrorist attack as it was probably the most important military target there that could be selected. Even the WTC is a highly economic center that had a great impact so I consider that a highly strategic target as well. It would have been even more devastating if Wall Street was struck instead.
As Baron Max and Ward Churchill mention, nobody is really innocent when it comes down to it. WTC is a highly economic center that greatly helps fund our war efforts and it's not really any different than blowing up a war factory or other civilian target helping our war efforts. It's called attacking our supply lines. When it comes to war, there are no real morals, just becoming victorious by any means neccessary.I guarantee you that whenever a nuclear armed country winds up losing a war, they WILL put those to use.
You gotta be careful when you call others terrorists because otherwise we may wind up looking far worse than those who we consider "terrorists". And since we're in that same boat of being considered terrorists, the best thing to do would be to not point fingers at all and not play the whole terrorist name game.
- N
As to Spymoose, no, there are no rules to war. The only reason why we don't go doing as you suggested:
It's because it's counter-productive. The same reason why we don't use nukes. If we used nukes, the general populace would be angered and those in power would no longer be. Other countries would quit trading with us and all sorts of other things because of our actions and then our country would collapse. What would we do then? Nuke those countries too until nothing is left which then really screws us?
We have other highly efficient means of combatting others so we don't have to use nukes. The only time nukes would be used is if you're on the losing team or don't have any other effective means of fighting. Basically the common sense rule of war is to use the most effective means possible of fighting that will upset the least amount of people. And it's not because it has anything to do with morals, but rather being able to stay in power and keep your country still going. As another person said, self-preservation. In almost all our wars, we've never really been threatened or been on the losing side so we've not had to resort to drastic measures to turn the tides in our favor or go out with one last bang. Do you think "rules" would make us not do that? We've usually always have had the upper hand and we knew we'd still remain on this earth after the war so that's when self-preservation is important.
But there's not really such a thing as terrorism. Everything can be considered a terrorist act. Usually the only people that consider others terrorists are the powerful to the weak. It's usually considered terrorism when the little side doesn't fight the same way as the big guys (aka unconventional means). Americans were considered terrorists by the British when we faught for Independence. Indians were considered terrorists by Americans. The French Resistance were considered terrorists by the Germans. And now we're considering Muslim's as terrorists as well.
Why was the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which is a legitimate military target considered a terrorist act? Why was the bombing of Pearl Harbor considered a terrorist act? Why don't we consider our bombings of civilian targets in EVERY single war or conflict a terrorist act yet when someone does it to us, the #1 power, it is considered one?
The only real times I can say an act is a terrorist act is when picking a worthless target that is of no real importance like when a suicide bomber blows up a movie theatre or something like that. But hey, then winds up being no different than mass murder like shooting everyone in a McDonalds. All criminals wind up being terrorists. Sure, those may have a minor economical impact so I guess it can kinda be considered a strategic target, but it's nothing like trying to shutdown a major infrastructure. I don't consider flying a plane into the Pentagon to be a terrorist attack as it was probably the most important military target there that could be selected. Even the WTC is a highly economic center that had a great impact so I consider that a highly strategic target as well. It would have been even more devastating if Wall Street was struck instead.
As Baron Max and Ward Churchill mention, nobody is really innocent when it comes down to it. WTC is a highly economic center that greatly helps fund our war efforts and it's not really any different than blowing up a war factory or other civilian target helping our war efforts. It's called attacking our supply lines. When it comes to war, there are no real morals, just becoming victorious by any means neccessary.I guarantee you that whenever a nuclear armed country winds up losing a war, they WILL put those to use.
You gotta be careful when you call others terrorists because otherwise we may wind up looking far worse than those who we consider "terrorists". And since we're in that same boat of being considered terrorists, the best thing to do would be to not point fingers at all and not play the whole terrorist name game.
- N
Baron Max said:
See, you have no appreciation for my argument. These rules were in place because to attack North Vietnam would be to court direct Chinese involvement which would have led to the nuclear confrontation we were all anticipating during the period. It wasn't some arbetrary desicion, it was nessisary that we not attack North Vietnam, so we attacked South Vietnam instead. They were comunists too, but once we started rounding up and killing the most vocal of them enough of them managed to become collaborators with the US to support our rhetoric about keeping Vietnam free.
Killing civilians and burning towns down to get rid of Loyalists, or the British intimidating many colonists into staying on thier side...fear and intimidation.Baron Max said:
All terrorism is, is using fear, terror, and intimidation for military and political gains.
Also, Civil War. Remember Sherman?[/QUOTE]
How old do you think I am!!
I suspect not terrorism as he was regarded as a commander of a 'legitimate' army.
And I'm not sure the terror tactics of the Isreali's against the British occupying forces were successful in the long term. When have they ever had peace?
How old do you think I am!!
I suspect not terrorism as he was regarded as a commander of a 'legitimate' army.
And I'm not sure the terror tactics of the Isreali's against the British occupying forces were successful in the long term. When have they ever had peace?
neildo says 'we dont use nukes'
He is totally wrong!
The US andUK are using nukes via the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) in their Weapons of Mass Destruction
Want to see what they do to children? You need a strng stomach to even look!
And bear this in mind. Not only have the utterly evil scum unleashed nuclear radiation onto innocent Iraqi civilians, but also onto their own soldiers who they then refuse to help when tey get sick, and die. Also their use of these weapons have made the lands of war uninhabitable for over 4 billion years
Pentagon: lies about Depleted Uranium (DU)
by Christopher Bollyn http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=70&contentid=2706&page=2
He is totally wrong!
The US andUK are using nukes via the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) in their Weapons of Mass Destruction
Want to see what they do to children? You need a strng stomach to even look!
And bear this in mind. Not only have the utterly evil scum unleashed nuclear radiation onto innocent Iraqi civilians, but also onto their own soldiers who they then refuse to help when tey get sick, and die. Also their use of these weapons have made the lands of war uninhabitable for over 4 billion years
Pentagon: lies about Depleted Uranium (DU)
by Christopher Bollyn http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=70&contentid=2706&page=2
Hapsburg said:
When and where did the American settlers do that during the War of Independence? Just saying it isn't enough, Hap, please provide some details, locations, dates, times, incidents, etc.
I don't disagree that there were some incidents of American citizen "mobs" perhaps that broke into, looted and burned some loyalist stores and such, but I'm also of the opinion that it was NOT sanctioned by the revolutionary council(s).
But please provide some historical data to back up your statement.
Baron Max
Nope, no rules. Heck, we're not even signed up for the International Criminal Court anymore so we don't have to follow any rules even if there were some. It's why we're able to use some of the bombs and other types of weaponry in Iraq that are deemed illegal. Those aren't as bad as nukes so things kind of slide even though it leaves a distaste in other countries mouths. We like to skate on thin ice getting a close to the line as possible without crossing it so we don't wind up getting screwed through boycots, embargoes or whatever that may be used against us due to our actions.
- N
Baron Max said:
not just me.....andwhat it take you to stop your smug laugh hey fool?
http:www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/4.html
Baron Max said:
From about 1965 - 1972 did you miss it? There was a draft and protests and everything. We couldn't attack the north for fear of goading Russia or China into the conflict. Most of the war was fought against political and military forces composed largely of the people of South Vietnam. Most of our bombs were dropped on South Vietnam. Nearly all of our Agent Orange was dropped on South Vietnam. The CIA carried out the terrorist "Phoenix Program" which assassinated 19,534 South Vietnamese citizens thought to be sympathetic to communism. Like it or not, we attacked South Vietnam more vigorously than we ever attacked North Vietnam.
I know I shouldn't expect any sort of honesty from you when you attempt to mock your betters, but you did say:Baron Max said:
It dosn't seem that you asked for any examples of a specific side terrorizing a different side, so it seems my responce was entirly appropriate, and your dismissal of that responce lacked any sort of credibility on your part.Baron Max said:
SpyMoose said:
Ahh, so history is now being rewritten by Spymoose??? ...LOL! Just rmember, Spymoose, if you say it/write it often enough, long enough, there are many who'll believe it.
We fought IN South Vietnam, but it was AGAINST North Vietnamese regular armies AND North Vietnamese recruited Viet Cong, the "terrorists" of the war.
I suppose you're going to rewrite World War II, European theatre, to show that we were actually fighting the French, not the Germans, right? ...LOL!
Baron Max