Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by S.A.M., Nov 18, 2008.

  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    An estimated 40 million? What does that even mean and what is the significance of an estimation when no one had even counted?

    Could have been a few thousand.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    In natural history texts, 60 million Bison is often quoted as the population before the European conquest. The collapse of the "Buffalo" also meant the collapse of Plains Indian life. Do you seriously contest such figures, John99?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Obviously.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    On what basis?
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    :wallbang:
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    The basis that no one counted them.
     
  10. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    hey Baron

    i thought you said Saddam harboured and like terrorists??
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Oh, c'mon, John, you should know that when the first explorers saw those vast herds of buffalo on the plains, their good eyesight and intuitive minds could easily see that there were billions of the big, brown beasts. I mean, all of the early settlers had a good grasp of "billion", so....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  12. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    sam

    how do you mean "good"

    as in good strategy or morally good

    and as for the thread title terrorism could be argued as a good stratgey even though acts of terrorism may be crimes against humanity
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Depends on which side you are, doesn't it? I'm guessing terrorism worked very well for the founding fathers of the US. I don't see any Americans complaining about their crimes.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you know as well as anyone here that there is no one universally accepted definition of terrorism.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    We're using the FBI definition. That fits.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    The US government can't even agree on the definition of terrorism. To me, the salient points are:
    1. Intentionally target civilians
    2. Work in secrecy
    Germany bombing the crap out of London, the allies firebombing Germany, the US nuking Japan. None of those are terrorism because they were done out in the open. The country that did them stood behind their actions and was open to retaliation in kind.

    The terrorist targets civilians and works in secret. He has no return address. Therefore, he is prone to commit unbelievable atrocities that few nations would ever commit during a war for fear of retaliation.

    Benjamin Franklin said, upon signing the declaration of Independence,
    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

    Why did he say that? Because he was not a terrorist, hiding in the shadows, but a patriot, making a stand against tyrany. George Washington, rather than hiding in the mountains, faced the British on the field of battle; and ultimately defeated them. These were no terrorists. Any definition of terrorism that includes the founding fathers is so broad as to be meaningless.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Don't be silly, the US intentionally targetted civilians when they burned down the native American villages and killed the Loyalists. Secrecy? I don't suppose they were sending in notices to the native Americans. And al Qaeda always informs the west about their intentions. And since their fight is against US foreign policy, one could argue that there are no civilians, only co-conspirators.
     
  18. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    No, you're being silly. When the US army burned down an Indian village, did they sneak in dressed as Indians? Or did they ride in wearing uniforms flying the flag? And al Qaeda may surreptitiously send us a video tape, but from where? There's no return address. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they did so with their colors proudly flying. We knew just who had attacked us. We knew where to find them. They weren't off cowering in some cave, but proudly daring us to retaliate.

    The Geneva convention is nothing but a piece of paper. The only thing that really restrains each side from committing atrocities is fear of retaliation. By operating in secret, terrorists are excempt from such fear. This both frees them to engage in horrific acts of savagery, and removes any element of honor from their actions.

    An act of war is the equivalent to walking up to a guy, telling him to fuck off, then punching him in the nose. An act of terrorism is sneaking up behind a three year old child and stabbing her in the back.
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The Indians taught us how to fight using guerilla warfare. Before that, we just marched in a line towards the enemy, firing our guns.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    And is that how the founding fathers attacked the loyalists? I bet there were many instances of hidden murder, before they got enough military and arms together. Do you think, for instance, that if al Qaeda had the money, military and weaponry, they would be sending in people surreptitiously?
    And there is honor in invading and occupying a helpless country and bombing the civilians from 10,000 feet? Its just better weaponry with more casualties.

    And what is it when a guy sits far away in a plane and throws a nuclear bomb on 300,000 people? Or a rich country uses its military to ambush civilians in defenseless countries? Kinda like a WWF wrestler crushing a new born and proclaiming himself victor, eh?

    Terrorism is just guys with not enough weapons or a military.
     
  21. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Irish independence in 1921. The UK widely credits the terrorist attacks with driving the British government to wash its hands of the island and grant independence.

    Algerian independence in July 1962 from France. One of the bloodiest guerrilla and terrorist wars in this century.

    Eritrean independence in 1993. While conventional fighting did happen, the vast majority of the casualties were from terrorist attacks which exhausted successive Ethiopian governments and eventually led them to end the conflict.

    The March 2004 terrorist attacks on the Madrid subway effectively won the POSE it's position in power after the Partido Popular was expected to win another election. This change in government saw Spain pull out of Iraq and begin to alter its approach to Al Qaeda.

    I'm sure there are more.

    ~String
     
  22. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Guerilla warfare is NOT terrorism!

    And I think guerilla warfare methods were around long, long before the American revolution.

    Baron Max
     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Was that terrorism, or guerilla warfare? Big difference!

    And I think the others might be the same ...linking terrorism with guerilla warfare tactics is not correct.

    The thing in Spain just might, maybe, be a "victory" for the terrorist, but I'm not going to speculate until I know a lot more about it. In particular, was that the intent of the terrrorists, or just a happy accident?

    Baron Max
     

Share This Page