Is Terrorism Ever justified?

Oh, really? If you know that there are rules, then perhaps you can ennumerate them for us? I konw I'd be interested, and I'm sure that many others would be. Please list them for us ..and it would be helpful to provide a list of the nations of the world that agree with them, too.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hmm aparently not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How about this, escalation leads to escalation and force will be met with force? Didn't we spend about forty or fifty years afraid of the domino effect and mutually assured destruction? If war is nothing more than kill kill kill to the best of your abilities without all the complexity and pussyfooting then how does anything more complex grow out of it? How are we still alive when nations control the means to destroy everything just the way you all claim war is supposed to be fought. Fact is if you want to protect South Vietnam you don't glass it (although you do apparently saturate it with toxic defoliants). If you want to defeat the USSR you don't blow them the fuck up, you have to do it economically and diplomatically because that war would destroy the world. If you want to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's before an insurgency does you don't arbitrarily decide to begin a pogrom of torture and rape in their prisons. But heck, isn't Iraq our enemy, shouldn't we just kill them all? But then how does that help us in our alleged crusade to democratize the middle east (A plan so sound its the result of numerous revisions tested and tried for the reason we went to war in Iraq)?

But what do I know, just silly rules. I'm sure we would be living it up in an anarchocapitalist utopia shooting trespassers and grinding up the poor for nutrients, reading Ayn Rand and drinking whatever drink is perceived to be most manly out of whatever bottle is perceived to be most phallic if only the US had nuked all the foreigners in some war or other. Grenada or the Falkland Islands maybe. Enemies that fierce deserve nothing but full force!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They're both human, and they are both expendable. I see no difference, other than one has certain clothing on.

 

Expendable is a management term referring to a resource that can be allowed to be used until it is expended. A soldier is expendable to a commander, because that soldier is a resource at that manager’s disposal. The civilian is unaffiliated and hence not expendable if you believe in the western concept of ownership.

 

Key word in your sentence is "IF".
I believe in my concept of war: win by any and all means possible. Everything but myself is expendable for victory.

 

So then with this total war paradigm that you, being so manly and unimpeachably macho, have do you resent Anime? Japanese animation should, by rights, not exist, am I correct? We should have obliterated Japan completely and had our victory over the aggressors, yes? Instead of making namby pamby peace accords and expending our resources to reconstruct and reshape their nation and society?

What about German industrial rock, shouldn't they be laying in a smoldering ruin of untouched firebombed cities instead of living in a functioning free society? Shouldn't we have destroyed Central and South America by now for peddling all of those nasty drugs that we hate, but just can't help but stuff ourselves full of?

 

Terrorism was originally a term which used to describe a practice of the government to "terrorise" its own people into a state of fear and complacency!!

So by that previous definition the US government and its media is guilty of "terrorism" against its own people!

 

huwy: the exclamation points convinced me. now can you provide some facts so i can argue the point successfully?

 

:bugeye:
I do not see what the concept of total warfare has to do with anime, rock, and drugs...
My opinions on total war just involves defeating a country in war, not exterminating thier culture...

 

Whether or not terrorism is bad depends on whome you are asking.For example, the Okalahoma City Bombing. In McVeigh's eyes, he was demonstrating a point and trying to relay a message. He felt the need to create terror within individuals in order for them to receive that message. Same with the Uni-Bomber, Al Qeida, any one who uses terror to demonstrate their feelings. It's useful for them, yet it's tragedy for others.

 

in war, objectives are important. our objective has never been to annhilate a culture--this objective has existed in the past, however, especially prior to the advent of civilisation. it was common practise for barbarians to exterminate a conquered people entirely, and usually enslave the women and children--but the culture died. but more recently, wars are being fought with less total objectives. our objectives do not support total destruction.

and regarding escallating force, one objective of war is nearly always 'do not be destroyed'.

 

Anime, Industrial rock, and some drugs all come from countrys that America has been at war with in a time when America could have destroyed these nations entirly rather than mount more traditional military campaigns. Why expend the extra effort, if we are using your ruthless manly war tactics, when we can or could have simply nuked them off the face of the planet?

 

I never said nuke them, all I said was use whatever tactics NECISARRY...bombing the infrastructure, military and industrual centers, and some cities...at least, that's what I was implying. Total obliteration is possibly effective, but it's overkill. Overkill is too much. Underkill is not enough.
Find equilibrium with it- like how we did in WW2 against the Axis.

 

SpyMoose:

I am sorely disappointed with the sheer amount of ad hominem attacking contained in this post. For the purpose of debate, I shall ignore it and reply to your valid points, but if you wish to simply be an ass, I suggest you go somewhere else.

Now. You seem to equate "human interest" with "binding rule", which in turn, confuses why MAD is a valid military principle against a relatively sane-regime such as the Soviet Union or Communist China. Why was MAD, MAD? Because we humans, specifically our rulers, follow the principle that if there is no way to survive, it is better to take out as much of the enemy as possible in retaliation, so that the victory does not end with them coming away unscathed. To put it cruelly: If fucked, fuck back. Yet at the same time, the knowledge that this is almost one hundred precent certain to occur if one were to launch the first-strike in a nuclear confrontation, prevents such a nuclear war from breaking out as neither side would desire a total end to their respective nations. It does not serve their interest. With terrorism, however, terrorists have everything to gain and nothing to lose, specifically when they deal with the West which prides itself on civilization, and thus would not do something such as sterilize the entire Moslem world to cull the threat. Terrorists also have no State, generally have few bases, and can blend in with populations which they have nothing to do with, thus making them extremely hard targets to fight back with, even if they use "WMDs". Since these policies, apparently, -work-, they are justified in war due to the fact that they are practical. All considerations in warfare are rooted in whether or not the tactic works and it furthers one's side's interests. These interests can be extremely practical, idealistic, or really anything that side wants. We have determined idealistically, for instance, that we don't want to destroy Baghdad, even if we could in a moment. We value the notion of human rights and liberties too much to do as such. We also have some practical consideration, seeing how that might turn the entire world against us, and we'd likely give the terrorists so many new recruits it would be nuts, but even so, this only goes to illustrate that it is due to self-interest the the action is made. Like all things in life, warfare then is a matter of getting away with what one can and still ending up with what one wants. The notion of "rules of war" is just a silly notion that obscures the reality of combat.

 

Could someone please xplain to me how terrorism has 'worked' giving real life examples?

 

Sniffy, I don't believe terrorism has ever actually been successful in it's perceived goals. Part of the problem in making that statement, however, is that in some cases in history, terrorism may have helped. I.e., in Vietnam, the Viet Cong were the "terrorists" that actually worked in the South Vietnamese regions directly or indirectly with the North Vietnamese military. Thus they, the "terrorists" may have helped accomplish the goals of the war. I, however, don't perceive the Viet Cong as "terrorists" simply because they were working with/for the North Vietnamese as a covert, behind-the-lines soldiers. See? It's not so easy to explain.

All-in-all, I don't believe that terrorists, independent of a national organization(s), have ever been successful ...but they sure muddy up the waters, don't they?!

One thing that's interesting: In recent past, the news media and many liberals in this country considered the Iraqi terrorists and "freedom fighters" trying to free their nation of the hated US-led coalition. But just recently, al Zarqawi, a Jordanian, actually declared open war on the Shiites, a large group of Iraqi nationals! So how can he be considered as fighting for the freedom of Iraq?

Baron Max

 

Who said anything about bombing SOUTH Vietnam? But the politicians wouldn't even let us bomb NORTH Vietnam!! We weren't "permitted" to bomb airfields in the north, yet the NV were "permitted" to fly fighter planes out of those same airfields in order to kill US airmen!! What the fuck kind of rules are those??? ....fuckin' politicians!!

We weren't permitted to bomb Haiphong harbor, where the NV got most of their supplies from China and Russia. The politicians wouldn't even let us stop the supply of weapons and ammunition into the harbor ...what the fuck kind of rules are those??? ...fuckin' politicians!!

Wars are fought AFTER you can't win hearts and minds! And why in hell should anyone think that a war is fought in order to win hearts and minds??? What kind of fuckin' rules are those??? ...fuckin' politicians!!

It's strange, however, that all those "rules" aren't being upheld by everyone in the war, yet you and many like you don't see that as an issue. It's like haviing a football game where each side makes up their own, different rules! And worse, when the spectators make up even DIFFERENT rules to score the games! Yes, it's silly .....very, very silly.

Baron Max

 

arrrrrrr didums..ya heard eveybody?!!

po Baron Maximus wasn't allowed to bomb north Vietnam! what you say we have a collection sos he can gewt the money for bombs so he can havea reeeeal good time?

 

Militant Zionists cleared enough Palestinians out of what we now consider Israel to make the way for the founding of that state using terrorist tactics. Palestinians are now trying to do the same - but it remains a fairly successful application of Terrorist tactics.