NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I have a question for you. Suppose, in a country that oppressed it's people, killed people it didn't like, and did all sorts of bad stuff, would doing something like, say, blowing it's capital to smithereens still be wrong?

Look at some of the times someone has done something that might have been considered "terriosm" - The french revolution, the American revolution, the hungarian uprising, etc, etc.

Bad grammar is wrong! :eek:

Haha, welcome to the internet.

Or should I say...

4@H@ w3l<0mE 2 T3h 1N7erN37!!!11

I dont know what this terroism is but what is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, i think a key example of this would be the tamil tigers, im sure there will be a split of peoples opinons on here on which they are

I'd consider Nagasaki nuking to be terroristic. It was killing innocent civilians in order to coerce a political outcome by the use of fear. And many people would argue that it was the right thing to do.

The reign of terror part of the french revolution which is considered terrorism was wrong, very wrong. It butchered many innocents, as would blowing up a capitol. Their is a difference between armed resistance and terrorism, and terrorism in itself is wrong.

Yeah, you do have a point. But terriosm tends to not be commited by countries, unless they are in the middle east and you are talking to america. But countries tend to just commit "tragedies" or some such shit.

I'd consider Nagasaki nuking to be terroristic. It was killing innocent civilians in order to coerce a political outcome by the use of fear. And many people would argue that it was the right thing to do.

Declared war changes the rules.

The act of war itself is terror......

I dont know what this terroism is but what is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, i think a key example of this would be the tamil tigers, im sure there will be a split of peoples opinons on here on which they are

How many freedom fighters target mainly civilians?

Declared war changes the rules.

The act of war itself is terror......

Well war is an illogical thing in of itself. But even war in the Western world has some rules, such as treating prisoners humanely, (although we in the US have fudged that up a little bit... shhhhh ;) ), but commiting acts to terrorize large groups and targeting civillians is stupid, it turns them against you and unites the country, causing more people to enlist, it is better to hit military targets mainly, and have no civilian bombings and not commit other such atrocities.

How many freedom fighters target mainly civilians?

how much collaboration are these civillians engaged in? do they, themselves, form an occupation force?

How many freedom fighters target mainly civilians?

thier main aim is for the feedom of their people and independance mosof there killings have been against Political figures and arm officers in assasinations, although im not saying i support them either way i was using them as an example of a group which normally gets mixed reactions on the terrorist front

In before the lock

how much collaboration are these civillians engaged in? do they, themselves, form an occupation force?

A country would only use military personnel as part of containment, even if it wuz just suport ppl like medics, i dun think theyd ever send civillians

A country would only use military personnel as part of containment, even if it wuz just suport ppl like medics, i dun think theyd ever send civillians


Isreal-Illegal settlements in the west bank, i think you have a very naive view of the world

I wouldn't say that terrorism is necessarily wrong. It all depends on the situation at hand, such as fighting against an oppressive governmental regime, or something along the lines of that.

Isreal-Illegal settlements in the west bank, i think you have a very naive view of the world

no I thought israel withdrew all the ppl from there, I just didnt bother keeping track, and its the military who lord over the Gaza ppl, the civillians just fight small battles with each other.

Conceivably, no.

In practice, yes - slaughtering innocent people for some political cause or another is not only morally abhorrent, but also a rather ineffective way to get things done.

Conceivably, no.

In practice, yes - slaughtering innocent people for some political cause or another is not only morally abhorrent, but also a rather ineffective way to get things done.

Amen

I feel using terrorism against the Nazis would be legitimate. I feel the people who tried unsuccessfully to assissinate Hitler were morally right.

I feel the people who tried unsuccessfully to assissinate Hitler were morally right.

I don't think the assasination of a national leader qualifies as terrorism, at least not in most cases.

no I thought israel withdrew all the ppl from there, I just didnt bother keeping track, and its the military who lord over the Gaza ppl, the civillians just fight small battles with each other.


they withdrew all settlements (forcably) from the Gaza Strip

No, leader-shopping isn't terrorism, terrorism has to be aimed at the masses and inspire fear, while killing leaders is just a means of altering who you have in charge to serve yourself, not terrorize the masses.

OK, I admit defeat.

they withdrew all settlements (forcably) from the Gaza Strip
Then how is it possible for the nonexistent israeli citizen base in Gaza to terrorize the Palestinian or pakistani i forget which citizens that are stationed in there?

if you read my earlier post i refered to the west bank not gaza

if you read my earlier post i refered to the west bank not gaza

i read the earlier post clearly, otherwise i would not have misresponded.The better statement is that I should have read it better. Moving on, I still think that is wrong, and that instead of terrorism going on, both sides should just try and work out a peaceful agreement, which would work out lots better then senseless acts of terrorism.

Not always, and this is considering it in a very simple view.

According to the Patriot Act, a terrorist is anyone who "breaks the law of his government" (or something along those lines). Therefore, if I ran for office, didn't believe in God, and got elected, I would be a terrorist (the US law states that only men who believe in the one true God are allowed to gain a government position).

If I J-Walk, I'm a terrorist.

If I liter, I'm a terrorist.

Not always, and this is considering it in a very simple view.

According to the Patriot Act, a terrorist is anyone who "breaks the law of his government" (or something along those lines). Therefore, if I ran for office, didn't believe in God, and got elected, I would be a terrorist (the US law states that only men who believe in the one true God are allowed to gain a government position).

If I J-Walk, I'm a terrorist.

If I liter, I'm a terrorist.

Most ppl on NS already didnt like the patriot act, but I for one didn't know how extreme it became.

Okay, I have a question for you. Suppose, in a country that oppressed it's people, killed people it didn't like, and did all sorts of bad stuff, would doing something like, say, blowing it's capital to smithereens still be wrong?

Look at some of the times someone has done something that might have been considered "terriosm" - The french revolution, the American revolution, the hungarian uprising, etc, etc.

Neither the American nor the French Revolultions were terroristic, nor were the Prague Spring, Budapest in 1956, or the Viet Nam War.

The difference? NONE of those revolts targeted civilians in an attempt to spead fear. All were attempts to change the government, not kill people.

According to my definition (the use of violence against civilians to create fear), it is always wrong, yes.

Not always, and this is considering it in a very simple view.

According to the Patriot Act, a terrorist is anyone who "breaks the law of his government" (or something along those lines). Therefore, if I ran for office, didn't believe in God, and got elected, I would be a terrorist (the US law states that only men who believe in the one true God are allowed to gain a government position).

If I J-Walk, I'm a terrorist.

If I liter, I'm a terrorist.


Really? Show me this law....

Neither the American nor the French Revolultions were terroristic, nor were the Prague Spring, Budapest in 1956, or the Viet Nam War.

The difference? NONE of those revolts targeted civilians in an attempt to spead fear. All were attempts to change the government, not kill people.

one of the Vietcong's objectives was to terrorize the people thus making the villagers more likely to collaborate and not support America or the southern government to do this they used terrorism (basically they showed that there government was unable to protect them)

And as for terrorism I’m not touching it with a 10 ft pole especially when there is no official definition

Terrorism isn't always wrong, but it's a very very thin line.

Bad grammar is wrong! :eek:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

Neither the American nor the French Revolultions were terroristic....

"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country. " - Robespierre.

Neither the American nor the French Revolultions were terroristic, nor were the Prague Spring, Budapest in 1956, or the Viet Nam War. Depends on perspective.

The difference? NONE of those revolts targeted civilians in an attempt to spead fear. All were attempts to change the government, not kill people.Sometimes killing people seems the only way to make a government change its policies.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

I am so glad I read through the whole thread before I was going to post that very picture... (You're getting way too quick for my liking, Ifreann... :D)

Okay, I have a question for you. Suppose, in a country that oppressed it's people, killed people it didn't like, and did all sorts of bad stuff, would doing something like, say, blowing it's capital to smithereens still be wrong?

Look at some of the times someone has done something that might have been considered "terriosm" - The french revolution, the American revolution, the hungarian uprising, etc, etc.

It depends on the reason for using it. But you could argue that the Insurgents in Iraq are merely freedom fighters fighting for their freedom. You can say that we are giving them democracy, but that isn't freedom. We're giving them a Government they don't want, and aren't ready to have.

Terrorism isn't always wrong, but it's a very very thin line.



http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif


You're running out of spaces for my Seal of Approval man.


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9153/sealofapprovalpq1.png

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It depends what side of the lines you're on. The French Resistance was a terrorist organisation as far as the Nazis were concerned, for example.

"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country. " - Robespierre.

..and? Please consider which side Robespierre was on. The Reign of Terror was just the regular purge most revolutionaries initiate once they topple the old government. That it was so bloody was due to it being the first coup against a Monarchy in Europe. The Communist Revoultion in Russia was no less bloody, and no more humane; but quite clearly neither were terroristic.

Depends on perspective.

No, no it does NOT depend on perspective. To equate the George Washington, Ho, or Alexander Dubček to Osama bin Laden is not only deplorable, but is wankerish academic dishonesty of the worst kind.

Sometimes killing people seems the only way to make a government change its policies.

Yes... people that are IN the government, army, etc. There is a BIG difference between randomly striking innocent people and actually fighting a war.

At no time during the Prague Spring did the Czechs shell Bratislava to make the Warsaw Pact leave. During the American Revolution, the North Carolina regiments never practiced slash-and-burn to kick out the British. Etc.

Terrorism is always wrong, terrorists are vermin, and I look forward to the day when it is a deceased ideology like the Divine Right of Kings, Fascism and Communism.

one of the Vietcong's objectives was to terrorize the people thus making the villagers more likely to collaborate and not support America or the southern government to do this they used terrorism (basically they showed that there government was unable to protect them)

And as for terrorism I’m not touching it with a 10 ft pole especially when there is no official definition

Intimidation and terrorism are not the same thing. The Cong very rarely attacked civilians, and those only if they were supportive of the South. They certainly didn't go around burning random villages for no reason, unlike (say) a Mosque-suicide bomber in Iraq.

Never mind that in Viet Nam, the Americans kept changing the South's government and used the same intimidation tactics.

if a group of people are opressed and they bomb a military building, it may in some situations be ok. i can think of one.

"If it's morally wrong to kill anyone, then it's morally wrong to kill anyone." -George Carlin

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It depends what side of the lines you're on. The French Resistance was a terrorist organisation as far as the Nazis were concerned, for example.

A spurious example. The French Resistance didn't send suicide bombers into churches to blow up the collaberative French. Nor did they bomb the Netherlands, even though there were Dutch SS units in France.

Don't confuse guerilla warfare with terrorism. Che was no terrorist, for example.

..and? Please consider which side Robespierre was on. The Reign of Terror was just the regular purge most revolutionaries initiate once they topple the old government. That it was so bloody was due to it being the first coup against a Monarchy in Europe. The Communist Revoultion in Russia was no less bloody, and no more humane; but quite clearly neither were terroristic.

Point taken, but I was responding more to:


The difference? NONE of those revolts targeted civilians in an attempt to spead fear.

Some of those behind the revolt were clearly not opposed to violence against civilians if it did serve their political interests.

The question remains however; if a group stormed a prison today and freed numerous prisoners believed to be political, would it be regarded as an act of terrorism by modern government bodies? Hmm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#Timothy_Leary_episode)

I wouldn't consider that terrorism even though the government probably would call it that. I don't know if I'd blow up the capital though. You wouldn't want to kill innocent people.