Terrorism... or not

Message boards : Politics : Terrorism... or not
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 824000 - Posted: 27 Oct 2008, 21:42:30 UTC - in response to Message 823959.  

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God.

The Japanese did it out of loyalty to their country, the 'terrorists' do it to fight persecution and oppression... ;)


The emperor was a living god. Look up Shinto.


ID: 824000 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 824041 - Posted: 27 Oct 2008, 23:20:12 UTC - in response to Message 824000.  

The people of Japan were willing to commit suicide for their God.

The Japanese did it out of loyalty to their country, the 'terrorists' do it to fight persecution and oppression... ;)


The emperor was a living god. Look up Shinto.



Thanks, I was looking for that. :D
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 824041 · Report as offensive
fpiaw

Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 99
Posts: 236
Credit: 1,203,409
RAC: 0
United States
Message 824378 - Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 0:18:10 UTC - in response to Message 823985.  
Last modified: 29 Oct 2008, 0:22:25 UTC

Thanks for your answers. However, the fact is that in Wars (ww2 is a good example) we have used the tactic of killing innocent people (along with their buildings) to bring a civilization to its knees. Right or wrong this is what the terrorist and their followers are trying to do to us. If they had large well marked armies I'm sure they would try to invade us the normal way. Then if their army were defeated they would switch back to the method that they are using now. I don't like it, but that is the way it is. When the chips are down and a person has a belief, be it religious or a feeling of pride for their nation they will fight and die to defend it. They will do everything they can. Even if it is nasty and even if their belief is so off the wall.

In this case I believe they are wrong using terrorism against us. In the case of WW2 I believe we were right to use it against Japan and Germany. Was their a few attacks we did that was not needed ... sure, but there was no real way of knowing for sure before those terrorist attacks.

We are all people, we all think and feel in similar ways. No matter where we live or what our skin color is. Once we feel the end is near for our beliefs or civilization we do things that we once would not. In a lesser example just think about the 700B dollar bailout. Just a few years ago republicans would never have supported a big government bailout (granted a few held to their beliefs), but now the chips are down and they did it.

Chris.


Thanks for your answers.

However, I take issue with the answer to question 2. The people attacking our country ... the people that our politicians say we are at war with (the war on terror) do not have a country. They don't have standard army or methods of attacking. You say that "in war the populace is held ultimately responsible for the existence of it's gov't". This is what the terrorist are saying to us. They are saying "Because your government supports our enemies we are hold the populace responsible." A concept that you agree with and to a degree I agree with. This is how they justify bombing buildings in New York and subways in London.

You're all over the place here. American B52s are clearly marked. The planes that firebombed Dresden were clearly marked. The civilian populace (not to mention the military) were well within their rights to seek to shoot them down.

But what you're doing is expanding a relatively small concept (terrorist, or terrorism) to apply to open warfare. That doesn't work because war, especially world war, is the ultimate attempt to completely and utterly disassemble the conventions of civilization. Similarly, military attacks can and are designed to bring about the goal of doing so.

That the mentally muddled try to justify bombings in New York and London the same way is just silly. Such tactics do not work and never have.

This is the same reasoning that you used to say that we could attack buildings in Germany and Japan. Going as far as to nuke two cities in Japan(which by the way I supported for many reasons). The fact is that we needed to win WW2 and that is why we did "terrorism" in WW2.

Again, the concept of terrorism is too small to be expanded to encompass all-out wars where an attempt is being made to utterly destroy a country or a culture.

And that is why they are doing it today. They are at war with us and are holding our people ultimately responsible for the existence of our gov't and it actions.

That they use such justifications does not mean that they have a valid point. Look at the idiocy posted on these boards as an example--just because people say stupid things does not mean that they are true.

The people you are referring to deliberately hide to do things to cause fear, to support an ideological agenda, that deliberately target innocents, and that cannot hope to bring about their desired result.

Attempting to win a world war, with clearly marked weapons and soldiers, as the non-aggressor, that can and did bring about the desired result is a much different concept.

I'm sorry to say that the terrorists have a point here.

To you, maybe. I think they are just so frustrated with impotence that they use these miserable tactics to make themselves feel better that they've done something.

Kinda like all the back-patters here, just not as bomby or killy.

Now can't we all just get along and crush the terrorists instead of invading the wrong countries and creating more.

This is once again just an opinion call. Killing "terrorists" over there is like shooting fish in a barrel. The more fanatic ones make it a point to travel over there, where they get to play the fish in the barrel.

While you may be of the mind that that "creat[es] more" of them, well, terrorists have existed long before the U.S. went into Iraq, and they will exist long after. Key point: they will exist because they always have and they always will. Dubya may annoy the crap out of a few more of them, but no matter who wins this election the net result is more status quo.

And there will plenty of terrorists regardless.

ID: 824378 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 824436 - Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 2:00:45 UTC - in response to Message 824378.  

In this case I believe they are wrong using terrorism against us.

Odd that nobody believes bombing their cities for the past fifty years was wrong... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 824436 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 824548 - Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 6:10:27 UTC - in response to Message 824436.  

In this case I believe they are wrong using terrorism against us.

Odd that nobody believes bombing their cities for the past fifty years was wrong... ;)

Tit for tat isn't right either unless you believe that stuff about an eye for an eye. Problem is after a while everyone looses score.

ID: 824548 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 824549 - Posted: 29 Oct 2008, 6:16:44 UTC

then we get what was in north-ireland, that each side was just wrong.
and the same case goes to israel and Palestine, they have both be wrong
couple of decades, and in both cases, it is fruitless to ask, was somebody in one time more right.
ID: 824549 · Report as offensive
Profile Uli
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 10923
Credit: 5,996,015
RAC: 1
Germany
Message 824779 - Posted: 30 Oct 2008, 2:44:28 UTC - in response to Message 824436.  

In this case I believe they are wrong using terrorism against us.

Odd that nobody believes bombing their cities for the past fifty years was wrong... ;)


I believe it was wrong. Jeffrey, you have no clue of the devastion the bombing caused.
Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt
ID: 824779 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 825111 - Posted: 31 Oct 2008, 2:15:41 UTC - in response to Message 824548.  

Tit for tat isn't right either unless you believe that stuff about an eye for an eye.

I have to admit, I'm starting to lean in that direction... ;)

(Trying to reason with unreasonable people has proven to be ineffective.)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 825111 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 825185 - Posted: 31 Oct 2008, 5:33:08 UTC - in response to Message 825111.  

Tit for tat isn't right either unless you believe that stuff about an eye for an eye.

I have to admit, I'm starting to lean in that direction... ;)

Delving into the Old Testament?
me@rescam.org
ID: 825185 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Politics : Terrorism... or not


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.