[QUOTE=OrDnAs;18068991]Even as self-defense, I don't think is justificable. I wouldn't cause terror on a population because I am "self-defending".[/QUOTE]
Wait, what? A "population" attacks/extorts/tortures/kills you or your family, and it's not justified to kill the people responsible in self-defense? Sure, just don't make that count for me.
[QUOTE=Aurain;18069000]Terrorism to you is Fighting for their Beliefs/Families/Freedom to them.
Good and Bad are a point of view.[/QUOTE]
The stereotypical terrorist is an extremeist muslim. They are not fighting for freedom.
[QUOTE=Aurain;18069000]Terrorism to you is Fighting for their Beliefs/Families/Freedom to them.
Good and Bad are a point of view.[/QUOTE]
But you can still put up certain criteria for being good or bad and then not be a hypocrite about it, like most people are.
[editline]12:09AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;18069072]The stereotypical terrorist is an extremeist muslim. They are not fighting for freedom.[/QUOTE]
Please elaborate, or I will be strongly inclined to disagree.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18069069]Wait, what? A "population" attacks/extorts/tortures/kills you or your family, and it's not justified to kill the people responsible in self-defense? Sure, just don't make that count for me.[/QUOTE]
I would clasify that as revenge. Sel-defense is only apicable when your life is in danger,not for revenging.
[QUOTE=OrDnAs;18069146]I would clasify that as revenge. Sel-defense is only apicable when your life is in danger,not for revenging.[/QUOTE]
Define revenge and explain how that applies to the situation I described, please?
It seems as though your definition of revenge would apply to any after-the-fact punishment, making the punishment of criminals an act of terrorism.
I know, it sounds ridiculous, but that's not my fault.
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;18069072]The stereotypical terrorist is an extremeist muslim. They are not fighting for freedom.[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
Not fighting for freedom from oppressive governments or from being locked in a region that they used to control until another people was legitimately allowed to put up shop their without their consultancy?
In the context most of us use it in, terrorism is never justified. It's only right to pick a fight with the person causing the grievances, not a bystander.
[QUOTE=KaIibos;18068396]One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter[/QUOTE]
I wanted to say that.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;18069536]In the context most of us use it in, terrorism is never justified. It's only right to pick a fight with the person causing the grievances, not a bystander.[/QUOTE]
Tax-paying citizens funding a war are bystanders?
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;18069072]The stereotypical terrorist is an extremeist muslim. They are not fighting for freedom.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the stereotypical terrorist would be the Irish dude. The history of terrorism between the Irish is much longer and much more brutal.
No
Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks weren't terrorizing anybody.
[img]http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/guy_fawkes.gif[/img]
Terrorism can be justified - when working against an oppresive regime.
No.
Yes.
[QUOTE=Identity;18068209]"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -Declaration of Independence[/QUOTE]
That quote you replied to pretty much said the same thing.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
[QUOTE=Poltergeist Three;18068540][Hiroshima] not justified[/QUOTE]
but the US did it so it's ok. :smug:
No.
[QUOTE=Poltergeist Three;18068540]not justified[/QUOTE]
Either the atomic bomb that caused less death than the fire bombings of Tokyo.
Or a massive naval invasion of the Japanese homelands which would cause 10x+ the number of casualties on both sides when compared to the atomic bombs.
Put yourself in Roosevelt's feet and think long and hard about that.
1984.
[QUOTE=Wolf_Marine;18071466]Either the atomic bomb that caused less death than the fire bombings of Tokyo.
Or a massive naval invasion of the Japanese homelands which would cause 10x+ the number of casualties on both sides when compared to the atomic bombs.
Put yourself in Roosevelt's feet and think long and hard about that.[/QUOTE]
Roosevelt wasn't involved with the decision to drop.
for a televangelist like you knowing history is important
[QUOTE=Wolf_Marine;18071466]Either the atomic bomb that caused less death than the fire bombings of Tokyo.
Or a massive naval invasion of the Japanese homelands which would cause 10x+ the number of casualties on both sides when compared to the atomic bombs.
Put yourself in Roosevelt's feet and think long and hard about that.[/QUOTE]
There are still areas of Japan that cannot be used due to radiation.
[QUOTE=Identity;18068101]
Now when Rosa Parks (Really old example, I know) sat at the back of the bus, was she committing terrorism? Was Martin Luther King Jr committing terrorism?
[/QUOTE]
What? Both of these characters advocated non-violence above all else. The successful civil rights endeavors were all made on the foundation of non-violence. The Black Panthers kind of used a method of intimidation, but never really managed to pull off anything. They did plan to make improvised bombs, but the intent to do harm does not make a terrorist.
The systematic use of violence along with intimidation is necessary to be classified as a terrorist organization. There have been many cases throughout history that such organizations have overthrown oppressive regimes, the American Revolution included. The Iranian Revolution went down a similar way, but they ended up in an arguably more oppressive society as a result.
[QUOTE=Identity;18068101]
Not all terroristic acts are committed by those who wish to kill.[/QUOTE]
Fuck. Finally someone else who understands!
[editline]01:22AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=radioactive;18071789]There are still areas of Japan that cannot be used due to radiation.[/QUOTE]
A simple google search proves you wrong.
Your view of it all depends on whose side you're on.
It's justified when Americans do it but not when middle-easterners do it.
Or so we've been told.
Depends of it's my country being bombed or if it's some other one.
[editline]06:30PM[/editline]
Fuck ninja'd.
they deserve to die for killing people
[QUOTE=Zeke129;18071960]It's justified when Americans do it but not when middle-easterners do it.
Or so we've been told.[/QUOTE]
No. It is still wrong when my country does it.
It is all motives though.
I do not think the terrorists of Al-quieda (No idea how to spell it) should be killing innocent people like they did in the event of 9\11.
They should not blame the people of this country for the mistakes the leaders make.
[QUOTE=Cathbadh;18071796]What? Both of these characters advocated non-violence above all else. The successful civil rights endeavors were all made on the foundation of non-violence. The Black Panthers kind of used a method of intimidation, but never really managed to pull off anything. They did plan to make improvised bombs, but the intent to do harm does not make a terrorist.
The systematic use of violence along with intimidation is necessary to be classified as a terrorist organization. There have been many cases throughout history that such organizations have overthrown oppressive regimes, the American Revolution included. The Iranian Revolution went down a similar way, but they ended up in an arguably more oppressive society as a result.[/QUOTE]
But terrorism doesn't always have to be violent. We're used to terrorism being violent with all the car bombings and secretarial violence. Rosa Parks or MLK Jr, could have been committing non-violent acts and it could have been labeled as terrorism with the definition FEMA has put into place.
No. It doesn't matter if you're scaring people with God's wrath, the possibility of someone flying a plane into your house or by flying a plane into someone's house, terrorism won't really help anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.