A Conversation for Terrorism
maestro chapo Started conversation Mar 26, 2002
I really think that all this negative stuff about trerrorists being devlisch brainwashed fanatics is just so much mediafeed. these freedom fighters are brave sodiers fighting an uneven battle against the infamous western rip off. It is one of the only ways they can mean something in this battle and they are so faithfull to their cause that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. it is the consequence of treu heroism.
Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron Posted Mar 26, 2002
There's an element of bravery in what they do. I don't think there's any reasonable way to deny that. They are foolishly willing to commit suicide to further their goals.
None of this should muddle the water that they are murdering b******s. They target civilians who have no dirret influence on their cause.
Ferino Posted Oct 4, 2002
i think it fair to say that wiping out innocent people is hardly "true heroism".
Also, when every side of every conflict (Northern Ireland, Middle East, USA/Taleban) sees themselves as freedom fighters, it's difficult to solve the underlying problems.
Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron Posted Oct 4, 2002
Well no one ever sees themself as a villian. Everyone is always fighting for the right reason.
NightShade Posted Oct 10, 2002
That may be the case, but how does one decide what is "right" or what can be considered a "right cause?"
If we apply everything to the same moral system, is that moral system one everyone can believe in? Is it something that the whole world will agree to? How watered down does the "moral" system have to get before more than one person will agree to it, much less the entire planet?
And besides, if we were to apply the same standards to everyone, wouldn't this be a form of forcing our standards on someone (think: Hitler), which is, in and of itself, morally "wrong?"
So where do we draw the line has to who has a "right cause" and who doesn't?
Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron Posted Oct 10, 2002
I think it may come down to what we're willing to live with. If a person believes that killing teengae girls and raping them, society is going to act. If Iraq thinks that its acceptable to invade Kuwait, then the United States and the United Nations will act. If a group of people decide to fly airplanes into highly symbolic buildings and kill thousands of people, then the United States will react.
It's not really important how the serial killer, rogue dictator, or the terrorist feels about it. We won't accept their behavior and if necesisary we're willing to execute, counterattack, and kill to secure our interests.
Rik Bailey Posted Dec 11, 2002
I think there are two types of terrorist.
The first being people who use some thing as a excuse for causing harm to other's i.e. Osama bin laden saying he is commiting Jihad but the truth is he is not he is using the word because in the west it is translated as Holy war which is not what it means at all and he is using it to pull those who dislike America and the rest to his cause.
The second type of terrorist are those who are fighting against a state and is only a small group of people. i.e. Israelies say that the palestine freedom fighters are terrorist's but if you look at the facts you will see that Israel has killed far more innocents than palenstine freedom fighters. In this sense its the case of those who support one side accuse the other of being terrosists.
Israelies see palestine as a terrorist state and palestine see's Israel as being a terrorist state.
hmm, freedom fighters, interesting term, what do they fight? well fire fighters fight fire, so what do freedom fighters fight? hmm....
of course, im not knocking the "freedom fighters" at all, just being a jacka$$
keep-it-simple Posted Feb 22, 2007
I have an observation on suicide bombing because this subject is currently of interest.
Its clear to me that suicide bombing, a method where the bomber is the vehicle for the explosive, is not in itself a terror tactic. it is merely a method of delivery, like an artillery shell or a missile. Its what you do with your missile that makes it terroristic or otherwise. Therefore a suicide attack on a civilian bus would be a terror attack, while a suicide attack on a group of soldiers would not.
Suicide bombing is actaully a very militarily effective delivery system because it is intelligent, difficult to stop, leaves little evidence, and aims to achieve maximum damage for minimum loss ( 1 person ).
I have noted that in the Palestine/Israel conflict, the Isralis have started to call these attacks "Homicide attacks" while the Palestinians term them "Martyrdom operations". I think I'll stick wth "suicide attack" because its a neutral term.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: maestro chapo (Mar 26, 2002)
- 2: Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron (Mar 26, 2002)
- 3: Ferino (Oct 4, 2002)
- 4: Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron (Oct 4, 2002)
- 5: NightShade (Oct 10, 2002)
- 6: Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron (Oct 10, 2002)
- 7: Rik Bailey (Dec 11, 2002)
- 8: The Infinite God Emperor and Untimely Messiah of the republic of Nog, or just Infi (May 2, 2003)
- 9: The Infinite God Emperor and Untimely Messiah of the republic of Nog, or just Infi (May 2, 2003)
- 10: keep-it-simple (Feb 22, 2007)