Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?

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

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    We aren't arguing about rules; we're arguing about effectiveness.

    The Revolutionaries terrorized the Loyalists, behaved toward the Brits much as the Fallujans behaved toward the US, etc. The question is whether it worked.

    And the answer is not simple. Sure they won - but some even at the time thought they won despite, rather than in consequence, of the terrorism.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Unfortunately, with language when people try to 'define' it and make certain words mean 'only one thing', it doesn't work. The word 'terror' is fairly obvious in meaning, so getting all antsy about its military use, political meaning, whether or not this or that group deployed tactics against civilians in clear breach of international laws (that have existed briefly, given our history), is a little precious.

    The Romans used it effectively - Tiberius was believed to have crucified tens of thousands when he conquered Syria/Damascus. This was his way of saying "Hi, we're here now, so get used to the idea".

    He would be looking at indictments from the Hague, nowadays. But the tactic was effective at quelling ideas of revolt or insurgency - by instiling fear of course.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    All we need is consistency, so we are comparing apples to apples.

    If you don't want to call the Revolutionaries "terrorists", no problem - but then you can't call the Fallujans "terrorists" either, if you are discussing the effectiveness of terrorism.

    Another example. So far so good. State terrorism - by far the most common kind, historically - has often "worked", depending on what you want.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Are burglary, robbery, rape, ...., and a whole slew of such crimes "terrorism"?

    Because from your posts, I'm guessing that almost anything is terrorism. You seem to have a very loose definition of the term.

    It would also be nice if you could give us your definition instead just post things that are or aren't so labeled.

    Baron Max
     
  8. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    I agree with Fraggle's run-down.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So you believe a "universal western tenet" is applicable to all peoples? What about the "universal <insert time, people, space> tenet"? Does it apply to western peoples?

    If what the founding fathers did in their time is not terrorism, can we redefine our time so that nothing we do today is terrorism regardless of what the western universal tenet espouses?
     
  10. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    No.
    Look what I was responding to.
    He was referring to what Fraggle said in the Linguistics forum...

     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Ah yes, I agree with Fraggle too. So the founding fathers were not terrorists?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I'm willing to go with any definition you choose, applied consistently.

    My preference would be Fraggle's or very like it, of course (I'm not sure the WTC in the context of its attack counts as terrorism, but will concede the grey matter in return for such an elegant and useful rule of application),

    but take your pick.
    Washington in the Indian Wars, not the others.

    Some factions of the Revolutionaries were, definitely - the huge flood of refugees fleeing the Revolution were not fleeing the British, by and large.
     
  13. G. F. Schleebenhorst England != UK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,213
    That was hardly a terrorist attack, unless you took your facts from the film with ben affleck.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    What refugees?
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Loyalists moving to Canada.

    ~String
     
  16. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Not during the Revolutionary War, no. Their attacks on the Indians could be considered "terrorism".
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Also, the West Indies and Britain itself.

    Across the north Atlantic in winter, by the thousands.
     
  18. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    Regarding the subject of the thread...
    Does it necessarily have to be either/or?
    Can it be both?
     
  19. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Explain. From the viewpoint of a single individual, how could it be considered both good strategy ...AND... a crime against humanity?

    I don't see how that's possible ...unless the person simply hates all humanity, perhaps.

    Baron Max
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I see what one_raven means

    "Crime" is subjective. Terrorism has a strategic goal, the collateral damages are irrelevant.
     
  21. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Then why do you get your knickers all in a knot over the collateral damages from the U.S. and it's strategic goals, but seem fine with the Terrorist and the Collateral damage they cause in their drive to inflict their strategic goal on the world?

    So in your own words.....the collateral damages are irrelevant......exactly.

    Thank you for confirming that point of Islam, and Jihad, it their Strategic Goal that make the collateral damage irrelevant.
     
  22. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    That's not at all what I mean - quite the opposite, actually.
    Collateral damages are supremely important, but sometimes unfortunately necessary for the greater good.

    I am saying that someone can mourn the loss of people who died at his own hands.
    He can appreciate their deaths while recognizing the necessity.

    For example, if the US were under occupation by a nation of people who were mistreating and torturing her citizens, and they demolished our military and any hope of us beating them in conventional warfare, I would certainly resort to terrorism if I saw it as a viable option.
    Even though I find terrorism an appalling, vile option and I would mourn the loss of the citizens who died by my actions, I would still resort to what I find disgusting to save my fellow citizens and do what I see as serving the greater good.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    If they are "unfortunately necessary" then they are irrelevant, would it matter who died if you blew up an hotel? If there were workers from your country, would that stop you from targeting soldiers from another. e.g. the Chaurichaura police station bombing was a significant event in the Indian fight for independence and I'm sure much of the local constabulary was Indian.
     

Share This Page