Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?

Correct, but it didn't get its name until the early 1800's from Spain. But, suffice it to say, this type of fighting long predates skirmish lines.

Also correct, but terrorism existed in all of them, and the British have always sited the blowing up of civilian targets as one of the prime reasons for growing tired of Ireland. And even without Ireland, Algeria, Eritrea & Madrid were all resounding successes, whether intended or not.

True, but nobody can say that terrorism is not effective.

I'm leaning towards LUCK. The attacks were intentionally set off to effect the election, but it wasn't sure which way it would cause Spain to vote. As it turned out, it benefited the terrorists.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Terrorism is relative. Me standing in the area in front of your front door everyday, leering at your door, would in no way terrorise me. Perhaps I just want your door. Fucking waterbags have no known option but to kill each other off for whatever reason. Humanity is the crime against humanity. Death to waterbags!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.daveross.com/binladen.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for the link, I've never seen the whole thing before.

 

No.
Because they all knew they were committing acts of treason against their government and that it was punishable by death.

 

War is not terrorism; terrorism is when countries (with people in them) kill each other, but call it "a war".
Wars are excuses, for dirty tactics. Necessarily, propaganda of one 'side' labels the other side 'a group of terrorists', which the other side also does in respect of the actions of the first side.

It's all about finding a reason to kill someone, really.
It's easier to 'take' something like land when you've cleared it of the verminous terrorists first. You kill all the nasty terrorists since they are not 'human', or 'kind and compassionate', so they deserve nothing - no land, no water, no buffalos, no life.

 

HAHAHA!

I just caught that.

I am not necessarily saying the founding father were terrorists, but that's just ridiculous.

In other words, it doesn't matter what they did - they could do no wrong.
We should base our guage of right and wrong on their actions.

You are arguing from a forgone conclusion, which essentially makes your argument as meaningless as any apologist's.

Any argument aginst the existence of God is invalid for my God.
There! I just proved the existence of God. I should get a Nobel Prize for that.

Any definition of slavery that includes the founding fathers actions is so broad as to be meaningless.
How's that?

 

Any definition of terrorism that does not include the founding fathers is too narrow as to be meaningless.

How valid is that argument?

 

But it wasn't terrorism!!

Baron Max

 

Not very valid. Because if nothing else, the definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

Hell, if it was that broad, terrorism would include hard, fast, reckless driving in rush-hour traffic!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

It's a label.
It means what the person using it thinks it means. It's so general as to be all-encompassing.
When it comes to any military exercise of any kind or political end whatsoever 'terror' is employed, which generally is equivalent to 'fear'.

How many politicians never use fear, to promote their political ends? How many wars have been fought that never used terrorist tactics? How about: "absolutely none"?

 

What the Revolutionaries did to the Loyalists was terrorism under any definition that includes the Algerians and Tamils. What the Revolutionaries did in fighting the British was terrorism under any definition that includes the IED planters from Fallujah.

The estimates are based on evidence: including actual counts of kills, bills presented by the professional hunters, the physical alterations of the landscape and ecological adjustments, eyewitness observations by experienced biologists, the organization of mass hunts, the scale and intensity of the nomadic civilizations dependent on them, and so forth.

The killing of the buffalo on the Plains was as deliberate an act as Stalin's starving of the kulaks. And quite similarly motivated. This was usually called "terrorism", in the latter 20th century, when Stalin was under discussion.

 

But who was occupying whom? Even the "Patriots" were occupying the native Americans. So it was basically a part of the occupation fighting another part of the occupation using terror tactics for the purpose of coercion.

 

All right, settle down . It's true, I do sort of idolize the founding fathers. When someone calls them terrorists, I may tend to react a bit like SAM when someone criticizes Muslims. May I refer you to Fraggle's more dispassionate definition of terrorism and how it does not apply to the founding fathers.

 

But we're not judging anything by the rules of its day, are we? The definitions of today apply retrospectively, or do you redefine everything based on time and space?

 

Whether Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets is a matter of controversy.

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Bombing_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

The bombings were incredibly indiscriminant, though. But I guess that's the nature of all bombings, including the firebombing of areas of Imperial Japan, and the bombing of Dresden.

 

It works about as good as any human infection works.

 

Arguably it played a contributory role in the establishment of Israel, or was the King David Hotel explosion a novel approach by Conrad Hilton to dealing with competitors?