You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Terrorism Ever justified?
- Thread starter unlimited
- Start date
If we say that something is "justified", does that mean that everyone on Earth agrees?
If not, if there's just one person who disagrees, then won't he say that it is NOT "justified"?
What does it mean for something to be "justified"? ...if not that everyone on Earth agrees that it's justified?
Baron Max
If not, if there's just one person who disagrees, then won't he say that it is NOT "justified"?
What does it mean for something to be "justified"? ...if not that everyone on Earth agrees that it's justified?
Baron Max
Sniffy:
But what makes it "wrong"?
I would also argue that aggressiveness is too engrained within humanity to take out. It is litterally in our genetic heritage.
But what makes it "wrong"?
I would also argue that aggressiveness is too engrained within humanity to take out. It is litterally in our genetic heritage.
i remember having this conversation once with a so-called satanist, and he fell over himself 'justifying' to me--wit references--why it is man is such an evil so and soPrince_James said:Sniffy:
But what makes it "wrong"?
I would also argue that aggressiveness is too engrained within humanity to take out. It is litterally in our genetic heritage.
you see, he is/was trying to convince himself. in tat way he could-hiding behind his stanist mask--be an uter complete selfish arshple cause his bible told him so....tus so it will be if you believe that BS
'aggression' really is denigrative term whish is simpl referring to a thrusting energy we sare with the animal world. if yo push some animals too far they will trun aggresive. tis is really hndy, oterwise there is no natrual defence....but tis thrusting energy is also useful for good sex and all forms of fun
what contrlling oppressive culture does is pathologisizes agression IF this aggression defies THEIR agression--get me, which being the snivelling hypocrites that hey cn be usually masquearades itself in a 'helping 'mask.......shudderrrr. the most fukin evil has been done behind such a mask!
So rathe if we understand how to npt try and suppress our energy, then we will find oter ways than blowing innocent children, women and men apart and killing them sos to imagine tat that will solve anyting
and remember in tis debate. the ones stage managing many of the terrorist atrocities you are seeing wear that smiling mask i was telling you about.....ie., they pretend they are not THE terrorists!..and from there manipulate public terror for their own means
look you cheeky little so and so..at least i tryand d more tan two sentences andput my self on teline yeaaahHapsburg said:Hey, D, is english not your first language? Becaue you seem to fucking up at it...
i havealready explaind all about tis. i actually find it boring when people mention it. i never ever draw attantion to how people type or spell or compose...i LISTEN to what they are saying. try it!....and dont derail here. any more probs call me privately
James
A selection of ramdom thoughts:
Aggressiveness can be controlled by exerting self control, anger management techniques, drugs and probably by genetic engineering. If it is simply aggressivness that causes us to bomb, shoot and maim then we as a society should be able to getting a handle on it. Cancer pales into insignificance compared the destruction that may be wrought by explosives and a 'cause' (including government sanctioned ones).
In all societies murder is deemed as wrong although killing not necessarily so.
If a society really believes that murder is wrong it couldn't it effectively 'blunt' or eliminate the psycological or physiological causes? Prevention rather than cure? Punishment doesn't seem to prevent.
Weren't some tests in the US done which discovered that during mortal combat few soldiers actually shoot to kill? Doesn't that mean there is some hope? ie that control can be exerted? Of course it is not in the interest of governments to have rational, thinking soldiers hence WMD and so called smart bombs.
The other side of the coin would be to exert aggressive tendancies in other less harmful ways.
I can't think of any other creature that kills just for the sake of it on such a mass scale as humans. I think evolution has played a little trick on us by providing the means to eliminate ourselves completely; a complex brain with which we can think and invent.
I also think the mindset of suicide bombers quite interesting. Having blown one-self up one, literally, doesn't have to live with the consequences of one's actions?
A selection of ramdom thoughts:
Aggressiveness can be controlled by exerting self control, anger management techniques, drugs and probably by genetic engineering. If it is simply aggressivness that causes us to bomb, shoot and maim then we as a society should be able to getting a handle on it. Cancer pales into insignificance compared the destruction that may be wrought by explosives and a 'cause' (including government sanctioned ones).
In all societies murder is deemed as wrong although killing not necessarily so.
If a society really believes that murder is wrong it couldn't it effectively 'blunt' or eliminate the psycological or physiological causes? Prevention rather than cure? Punishment doesn't seem to prevent.
Weren't some tests in the US done which discovered that during mortal combat few soldiers actually shoot to kill? Doesn't that mean there is some hope? ie that control can be exerted? Of course it is not in the interest of governments to have rational, thinking soldiers hence WMD and so called smart bombs.
The other side of the coin would be to exert aggressive tendancies in other less harmful ways.
I can't think of any other creature that kills just for the sake of it on such a mass scale as humans. I think evolution has played a little trick on us by providing the means to eliminate ourselves completely; a complex brain with which we can think and invent.
I also think the mindset of suicide bombers quite interesting. Having blown one-self up one, literally, doesn't have to live with the consequences of one's actions?
duendy:
An excellent post with intriguing point, but in what manner do you think we can funnel this aggression aside from its expression as barbaric violence?
Hapsburg:
Stop being a dick. Seriously. And stop posting in areas you obviously have nothing to say in. You're wasting all our time.
sniffy:
3 billion years of evolution hsa a habit of rising to the surface in times of stress. There is a necessary violence to this world that frowns on extreme pacifism.
Murder is far too broadly defined by those cultures to make such a declaration that it is deemed wrong.
Actually, punishment often does prevent. Singapore has a harsh criminal justice system that has few people return to crime once punished. Not to mention that murder arises in normal people, in general, due to circumstance. A man comes home, his wife is fucking his best friend, a knife is near him, he takes it and drives it into both of them and a murderer is born.
I have never heard of this study, but from what footage I've seen in war, this would seem to contradict things. Such slaughter could not be simply accidental and requires the active participation of soldiers. But yes, a soldier who thinks too much about what he is doing is a soldier who is worthless. A soldier must simply fight, for "It is not ours to question why, it is to do or to die."
Such as?
We do not ever kill "just for the sake of it", but always with a goal in mind. Even if only pleasure. But yes, with our intelligence we are the masters of our destiny, including our potential destruction.
I do not think the focus is on not being responsible for one's actions, but rather, there is a sense that only in death can one make a true impact. A suicide bomber, a kamikaze, or any other such soldiers, knows that in order to fullfill a mission he values, he must give up his life, and that is the only way to deal with the enemy. Is not this often true?
An excellent post with intriguing point, but in what manner do you think we can funnel this aggression aside from its expression as barbaric violence?
Hapsburg:
Stop being a dick. Seriously. And stop posting in areas you obviously have nothing to say in. You're wasting all our time.
sniffy:
Aggressiveness can be controlled by exerting self control, anger management techniques, drugs and probably by genetic engineering. If it is simply aggressivness that causes us to bomb, shoot and maim then we as a society should be able to getting a handle on it. Cancer pales into insignificance compared the destruction that may be wrought by explosives and a 'cause' (including government sanctioned ones).
3 billion years of evolution hsa a habit of rising to the surface in times of stress. There is a necessary violence to this world that frowns on extreme pacifism.
In all societies murder is deemed as wrong although killing not necessarily so.
If a society really believes that murder is wrong it couldn't it effectively 'blunt' or eliminate the psycological or physiological causes? Prevention rather than cure? Punishment doesn't seem to prevent.
Murder is far too broadly defined by those cultures to make such a declaration that it is deemed wrong.
Actually, punishment often does prevent. Singapore has a harsh criminal justice system that has few people return to crime once punished. Not to mention that murder arises in normal people, in general, due to circumstance. A man comes home, his wife is fucking his best friend, a knife is near him, he takes it and drives it into both of them and a murderer is born.
Weren't some tests in the US done which discovered that during mortal combat few soldiers actually shoot to kill? Doesn't that mean there is some hope? ie that control can be exerted? Of course it is not in the interest of governments to have rational, thinking soldiers hence WMD and so called smart bombs.
I have never heard of this study, but from what footage I've seen in war, this would seem to contradict things. Such slaughter could not be simply accidental and requires the active participation of soldiers. But yes, a soldier who thinks too much about what he is doing is a soldier who is worthless. A soldier must simply fight, for "It is not ours to question why, it is to do or to die."
The other side of the coin would be to exert aggressive tendancies in other less harmful ways.
Such as?
I can't think of any other creature that kills just for the sake of it on such a mass scale as humans. I think evolution has played a little trick on us by providing the means to eliminate ourselves completely; a complex brain with which we can think and invent.
We do not ever kill "just for the sake of it", but always with a goal in mind. Even if only pleasure. But yes, with our intelligence we are the masters of our destiny, including our potential destruction.
I also think the mindset of suicide bombers quite interesting. Having blown one-self up one, literally, doesn't have to live with the consequences of one's actions?
I do not think the focus is on not being responsible for one's actions, but rather, there is a sense that only in death can one make a true impact. A suicide bomber, a kamikaze, or any other such soldiers, knows that in order to fullfill a mission he values, he must give up his life, and that is the only way to deal with the enemy. Is not this often true?
James
I think that's what they want us to think they think.
What goals other than needing food (and we don't need to eat each other) and protection of self or loved ones from harm could possibly justify murder of a fellow human being? What goal could 'justify' mass murder? Governments try to cook them up and disguise what they are trying to do but more and more people are sceptical and see through it. It is no coincidence that governments don't like their populations to see live footage of wars and no coincidence that terrorists do. When faced with the realities of death by deadly weapon most humans turn away in disgust.
From what you say all the punishment in Singapore doesn't prevent crime but does help to keep a check on repeat offenders, which is interesting. Even the death penalty doesn't stop murder most foul.
The study I mentioned covered both World Wars and possibly others. It lead to the US army completely changing its training tactics to bring out more aggressiveness in foot soldiers (also where possible to select the most aggressive recruits). There's a book about it but unfortunately I can't remember the name of it or the author.
A good book on this subject though is 'The Lessons of Terror' by Caleb Carr.
I think that's what they want us to think they think.
What goals other than needing food (and we don't need to eat each other) and protection of self or loved ones from harm could possibly justify murder of a fellow human being? What goal could 'justify' mass murder? Governments try to cook them up and disguise what they are trying to do but more and more people are sceptical and see through it. It is no coincidence that governments don't like their populations to see live footage of wars and no coincidence that terrorists do. When faced with the realities of death by deadly weapon most humans turn away in disgust.
From what you say all the punishment in Singapore doesn't prevent crime but does help to keep a check on repeat offenders, which is interesting. Even the death penalty doesn't stop murder most foul.
The study I mentioned covered both World Wars and possibly others. It lead to the US army completely changing its training tactics to bring out more aggressiveness in foot soldiers (also where possible to select the most aggressive recruits). There's a book about it but unfortunately I can't remember the name of it or the author.
A good book on this subject though is 'The Lessons of Terror' by Caleb Carr.
Sniffy:
According to Frank Herbert, as voiced through his character of Miles Teg in "Chapterhouse: Dune", "Battle? There's always a desire for breathing space motivating it somewhere." That is to say, to have room to live and to prosper in a world where resources are limited, and tensions arise when too many people, specifically people of different cultures, are near one another. Moreover, humans are creatures of abstract thoughts, and are willing to kill for other things. This is the way of the world.
Repeat offenders make up a significant amount of criminals in the United States and in other countries. 75 percent here in the US. If one can reduce the crime rate 75 percent, one can definitely say one is stopping new crimes from the punishment system.
This may be due to the fact that most of the people they were fighting were culturally similar, save for in the Pacific War in WWII. The marines who fought in the Pacific were noted for the brutality which they fought the Japanese.
Covering the terrorist mindset?
What goals other than needing food (and we don't need to eat each other) and protection of self or loved ones from harm could possibly justify murder of a fellow human being? What goal could 'justify' mass murder? Governments try to cook them up and disguise what they are trying to do but more and more people are sceptical and see through it. It is no coincidence that governments don't like their populations to see live footage of wars and no coincidence that terrorists do. When faced with the realities of death by deadly weapon most humans turn away in disgust.
According to Frank Herbert, as voiced through his character of Miles Teg in "Chapterhouse: Dune", "Battle? There's always a desire for breathing space motivating it somewhere." That is to say, to have room to live and to prosper in a world where resources are limited, and tensions arise when too many people, specifically people of different cultures, are near one another. Moreover, humans are creatures of abstract thoughts, and are willing to kill for other things. This is the way of the world.
From what you say all the punishment in Singapore doesn't prevent crime but does help to keep a check on repeat offenders, which is interesting. Even the death penalty doesn't stop murder most foul.
Repeat offenders make up a significant amount of criminals in the United States and in other countries. 75 percent here in the US. If one can reduce the crime rate 75 percent, one can definitely say one is stopping new crimes from the punishment system.
The study I mentioned covered both World Wars and possibly others. It lead to the US army completely changing its training tactics to bring out more aggressiveness in foot soldiers (also where possible to select the most aggressive recruits). There's a book about it but unfortunately I can't remember the name of it or the author.
This may be due to the fact that most of the people they were fighting were culturally similar, save for in the Pacific War in WWII. The marines who fought in the Pacific were noted for the brutality which they fought the Japanese.
A good book on this subject though is 'The Lessons of Terror' by Caleb Carr.
Covering the terrorist mindset?
When the French got kicked out of Algeria...Originally Posted by sniffy
Could someone please xplain to me how terrorism has 'worked' giving real life examples?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...Am pretty sure the english thought old georgie and his civilian army were nothing more than a bunch of terrorists.
mountainhare said:One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...
Perhaps. But the topic is "Is Terrorism Ever Justified", not what a terrorist is. For example, is a "freedom fighter" justified in using acts of terrorism in his quest for "freedom"? Is "freedom fighting" a justification for, say, blowing up 10,000 men, women and children in the market square on market day? Or blowing up 1,000 children in a school house?
Baron Max
IS TERRORISM EVER JUSTIFIED?
The terrorists think so.
Nuff said.
The terrorists think so.
Nuff said.
A Canadian said:IS TERRORISM EVER JUSTIFIED?
The terrorists think so. Nuff said.
Well, perhaps it's not 'nuff said.
What does it mean when we say that something is "justified"? ...just that one person in the world says/thinks that it is? ...or does there have to be some kind of majority? ....or does it mean that everyone agrees that it's justified?
What, exactly, do we mean when we say that something is "justified"?
Baron Max
Depends if a greater good is achieved. Was the atomic bombing of Japan justified in WWII? I'm sure a number of Americans would say 'Yes'.Perhaps. But the topic is "Is Terrorism Ever Justified", not what a terrorist is. For example, is a "freedom fighter" justified in using acts of terrorism in his quest for "freedom"? Is "freedom fighting" a justification for, say, blowing up 10,000 men, women and children in the market square on market day? Or blowing up 1,000 children in a school house?
More civilians died in the atomic bombings than in ANY two acts committed by terrorists (two atomic bombs were dropped, remember...)
mountainhare said:Depends if a greater good is achieved.
Well, sure. But who determines that "greater good"? And "greater good" for whom? ...a majority of world peoples? ...a majority of a select group of people?
"Greater good" means nothing, "justified" means nothing, without some clear, agreed-upon understanding of those terms relative to the world's population. And for me, that's the problem ...there is no agreed-upon definition on which to debate the issue(whatever the issue might be).
Baron Max
Those are all excellent and valid questions. Insurgents often commit acts of terror in the belief that they are commiting a minor evil for the 'greater good'. As Lenin once said, 'You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette'.Well, sure. But who determines that "greater good"? And "greater good" for whom? ...a majority of world peoples? ...a majority of a select group of people?
Whether the terrorists are in any position to determine what constitutes as 'the greater good' is debatable. But then who IS in a position to make that decision?
However, I think it is quite definite that in some cases, you have to 'break some eggs to make an omelette'. For example, personal rights sometimes have to be curtailed for the good of society.
I still keep wondering what we mean when we use the term "justified"?
If I, personally, do something and feel it's "justified", does that mean that it's "justified"? Or do I have to have more people to agree? ...how many? And what if "you" don't agree, what if "you" don't think it was "justified"? Is it still "justified"?
Baron Max
If I, personally, do something and feel it's "justified", does that mean that it's "justified"? Or do I have to have more people to agree? ...how many? And what if "you" don't agree, what if "you" don't think it was "justified"? Is it still "justified"?
Baron Max
Baron Max:
Your questions basically point out that when people ask the question 'Is this justified?', they are assuming that morality is set in stone. However, morality tends to differ, depending on your culture and upbringing. What might be justified in the eyes of one person is not justified in the eyes of another. Since Westerners such as us tend to grow up in a democracy, we assume that 'what the majority says, goes'. What the majority sees as justified is justified...
I think that the OP has asked the wrong question, which makes it difficult to give a precise answer.
If I, personally, do something and feel it's "justified", does that mean that it's "justified"? Or do I have to have more people to agree? ...how many? And what if "you" don't agree, what if "you" don't think it was "justified"? Is it still "justified"?
Your questions basically point out that when people ask the question 'Is this justified?', they are assuming that morality is set in stone. However, morality tends to differ, depending on your culture and upbringing. What might be justified in the eyes of one person is not justified in the eyes of another. Since Westerners such as us tend to grow up in a democracy, we assume that 'what the majority says, goes'. What the majority sees as justified is justified...
I think that the OP has asked the wrong question, which makes it difficult to give a precise answer.