Can someone please tell me what 'Terrorism' is?

[ScreamingEagle]

People are being killed all around us and liberals stand there and want a definition

 

[Comrade]

So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.

Intention is what defines terror.

And as correllary to that simple rule, terrorism can only be waged upon a Democracy.

You can pretty much rely on this as a golden rule, in fact.


We certainly terrorized the people of Imperial Japan, but their fear and suffering was not a means to an end itself.

The only people who we wished to influence were the top brass in the Junta, and the Emporor who 'technically' ruled them. The point was to shock and demoralize them, not their own people. Only their reaction matterd.


Beyond that, you should know it when you see it.

 

[Zhukov]

So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not

They attacked us, we responded. They started it, we ended it. Furthermore, we didn't drop nuclear bombs on small villages of ignorant peasents out in the country. We dropped nuclear bombs on two major industrial centers that were in the process of building trucks, munitions, arms, and ships of war, and in so doing SAVED Japanese lives. We killed a 100,000 in two broad strokes to prevent the inevitable deaths of 10's of millions during the protracted invasion and occupation that was being planned.

or carpet bombing cities?

The carpet bombing of cities was because our bombs were not accurate enough. If we could have sent in individual smart bombs to simply take out key industries we would have. The proof of that is evidenced by the way we wage war now. We were reluctant to bomb civilian targets (again, they started it), and these days we bend over backwards to prevent civilian casualties. The proof to that is evidenced by the fact that we don't simply annhilate our enemies and everyone and everything around them with all the nuclear weapons we have lying around.

And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.

How do you figure? Our enemies want to use WMD against us but can't. We can, but don't. That is the difference between day and night, good and evil, us and them.

Besides today we and the terrorists are playing by two different rules. That's half the point of the war: we don't like their rules.

If they played by our rules they would have met us on the field of battle and been summarily crushed by the best trained, most professional, most proficient destructive force the world has ever known.

 

[Merlin1047]

Would the definition apply to the Contras, the Bay of Pigs invaders, the Mujahedeen and the IRA, the ANC, the maquis, the chechens, the russians in chechenia, the serb paramilitaries, blablabla?

Who is a terrorist? Who is a freedom fighter? I honestly don't know. I think all of them must be both.

Tell you what - why don't you try reading the latest news coming out of Beslan Russia.

Then try reviewing the events on Sep 11, 2001.

If you still can't figure out what terrorism is, then you have to be one of the most incredibly stupid people on the face of the planet.

 

[MrMarbles]

The world is a battleground between competing visions of how the world should be. Some of the visions are mutually exclusive, hence why we can't just "all get along". You focus on the violence without thinking about which vision you support. Actually you know which vision you support, global socialism. This is equal to global tyranny and those of us who disagree with it will fight to the death to stop you and your ilk from instituting it. Your intellectually dishonest defenses of your totalitarian worldview and ignorance of the unintended(?) consequences of socialism are not convincing. Go ahead, side with the terrorists if you hate America that much. But you will ultimately fail, because the truth will out and good always wins.

If you were oppressed, you would make the best terrorist!

You need a defintion, you need a line to seperate you from them, otherwise take a good look in the mirror, and you will find that you have a lot in common with those who knocked your buildings down. When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.

 

[Comrade]

If you were oppressed, you would make the best terrorist!

You need a defintion, you need a line to seperate you from them, otherwise take a good look in the mirror, and you will find that you have a lot in common with those who knocked your buildings down. When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.

I don't understand, you mean we shouldn't be so high up? But we also can't sink to their level either. Se we're stuck at our current altitude and I assume we can't land.

And we can't level the cities or remain undetectable, because they win.


All I can think of is to bail out and engage them hand to hand?

:funnyface

 

[Zhukov]

When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.

I don't see them celebrating.

I don't see a leveled city.

A plane would have to be in heaven to be "so high up it's undetectable".

losing some buildings

Hopefully, someday you'll grow up and become a decent human being.

 

[Annie]

So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.

Mr Marbles, when the US attacks a country which was not a danger to us, you will see the majority of our country throwing off our government. In the meantime, what in the world do you think we pay our defense taxes for? I know that you would rather go peacefully into whatever, Americans are different.

For the record, I don't have a whit of guilt over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I wish the Japanese had made different decisions, they didn't. Thus the stronger combatant won.

 

[Annie]

I think 8236 and Psychoblues are one in the same.

They are not.

 

[HGROKIT]

They are not.

]
WOW! Scary to think there are TWO such as those around.

 

[Annie]

]
WOW! Scary to think there are TWO such as those around.

:

 

[freeandfun1]

So if blowing ones self up in a crowded civilian area in the name of their beliefs is terrorism, how is nuking japan not, or carpet bombing cities? And if these are the 'rules we play by' they seem a little slanted in your favour.

See, you miss the point. When a group attacks a MILITARY target, I could consider that a valid target. During WWII, we were not bombing those cities to "terrorize" we were bombing them because they were the centers of industry that were manufacturing the weapons of war. The factory workers, etc. then become "targets". Furthermore, war has "progressed" (damn, even I hate saying that) so indiscriminate bombing is not needed any longer. In WWII we would have to drop 1,000's of bombs just to hit one target.

Anyway, in Iraq, the problem is that MOST of the "insurgents" are not Iraqis. They are outsiders trying to ferment a revolution that the MAJORITY of Iraqis do not want. Therefore, you cannot call them ANYTHING but terrorists. They are trying to use TERROR as a weapon to convince the Iraqis to turn against us. They cannot win on turn them on THEIR merits, so they try to terrorize them into turning to THEIR ways.

In Israel, attacking a bus station or eatery is nothing but TERRORISM. When they kill Israeli soldiers then I say, "ok, that is a legitimate target". I sometimes even say that when settlers of the disputed lands are attacked. However, when the Islamic chicken-shits attack civilians sitting in an eatery, then I say "BULLSHIT that is nothing more than TERRORISM."

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Sorry, you try your link yourself.

No shit, moron. You missed the point
:crutch:

 

[MrMarbles]

See, you miss the point. When a group attacks a MILITARY target, I could consider that a valid target. During WWII, we were not bombing those cities to "terrorize" we were bombing them because they were the centers of industry that were manufacturing the weapons of war. The factory workers, etc. then become "targets". Furthermore, war has "progressed" (damn, even I hate saying that) so indiscriminate bombing is not needed any longer. In WWII we would have to drop 1,000's of bombs just to hit one target.

Anyway, in Iraq, the problem is that MOST of the "insurgents" are not Iraqis. They are outsiders trying to ferment a revolution that the MAJORITY of Iraqis do not want. Therefore, you cannot call them ANYTHING but terrorists. They are trying to use TERROR as a weapon to convince the Iraqis to turn against us. They cannot win on turn them on THEIR merits, so they try to terrorize them into turning to THEIR ways.

In Israel, attacking a bus station or eatery is nothing but TERRORISM. When they kill Israeli soldiers then I say, "ok, that is a legitimate target". I sometimes even say that when settlers of the disputed lands are attacked. However, when the Islamic chicken-shits attack civilians sitting in an eatery, then I say "BULLSHIT that is nothing more than TERRORISM."

So out of the 80,000 - 100,000 that died outright, how many would have been at an eatery, or going for a stroll in the park, or kids attending school? People who opposed the war? Japan compitulated under the threat or 'terror' of all their cities being hit by this weapon. Japan was containd and could not put up an aggressive campaign, she was beat.

I don't support violence, and war is wrong, it can be needed sometimes, but then it is still wrong. The problem is you need to know that when fighting an enemy, you are not just a different version of the same animal.

For Iraq, right or wrong, there are way to many questions on conduct and motives to allow going to war, the UN saw this, and so does a lot of the world.

For Israel, it is a state born out of terrorism. Both sides are wrong. The recent bombings of buses are wrong, but in the last 5 months of what was considered a 'quiet time' 300 palestinians have died at the hands of Israel. Hows right?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So out of the 80,000 - 100,000 that died outright, how many would have been at an eatery, or going for a stroll in the park, or kids attending school? People who opposed the war? Japan compitulated under the threat or 'terror' of all their cities being hit by this weapon. Japan was containd and could not put up an aggressive campaign, she was beat.

I don't support violence, and war is wrong, it can be needed sometimes, but then it is still wrong. The problem is you need to know that when fighting an enemy, you are not just a different version of the same animal.

For Iraq, right or wrong, there are way to many questions on conduct and motives to allow going to war, the UN saw this, and so does a lot of the world.

For Israel, it is a state born out of terrorism. Both sides are wrong. The recent bombings of buses are wrong, but in the last 5 months of what was considered a 'quiet time' 300 palestinians have died at the hands of Israel. Hows right?

Your moral relativism will be the death of civilization. Yes. Yours personally. You're that important!

 

[MrMarbles]

Your moral relativism will be the death of civilization. Yes. Yours personally. You're that important!

Okay there.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you were oppressed, you would make the best terrorist!

You need a defintion, you need a line to seperate you from them, otherwise take a good look in the mirror, and you will find that you have a lot in common with those who knocked your buildings down. When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.

Look MonsierMarbells, the terrorists are not willing to play by the rules of the modern world. They don't have to. Their nonparticipation can be arranged. capiche?

 

[Annie]

So out of the 80,000 - 100,000 that died outright, how many would have been at an eatery, or going for a stroll in the park, or kids attending school?

How about some source for your numbers? From all we can tell, there have been few outside of Falluja hit with missiles since the war began its holding pattern.

People who opposed the war? Japan compitulated under the threat or 'terror' of all their cities being hit by this weapon. Japan was containd and could not put up an aggressive campaign, she was beat.

Japan had NOT been contained. Even after the war there were elements of the army that continued to fight. After Hiroshima, the Japanese refused to capitulate, which is why there was a Nagasaki.

I don't support violence, and war is wrong, it can be needed sometimes, but then it is still wrong. The problem is you need to know that when fighting an enemy, you are not just a different version of the same animal.

Hmm, can't imagine when you would think it was ok for war. We are always the same animal-human. We don't forget, does that mean that you do?

For Iraq, right or wrong, there are way to many questions on conduct and motives to allow going to war, the UN saw this, and so does a lot of the world.

Do you mean Iraq or Saddam?

For Israel, it is a state born out of terrorism.

I assume you mean by the Nazis?

Both sides are wrong. The recent bombings of buses are wrong, but in the last 5 months of what was considered a 'quiet time' 300 palestinians have died at the hands of Israel. Hows right?

I'll assume your last question was meant, "How's is that or this right?" Most of the Palestinians killed were either terrorists or suicide bombers. At the same time, Israel continues to target the centers of bomb making activity and hidy holes of the leadership of Hamas/Hizbohollah. In the crowded conditions of the territories these 'strikes' may result in innocent civilian casualties. However, it's always difficult to say about 'innocent' since the Palestinians persist in putting children in harm's way.

 

[Merlin1047]

If you were oppressed, you would make the best terrorist!

You need a defintion, you need a line to seperate you from them, otherwise take a good look in the mirror, and you will find that you have a lot in common with those who knocked your buildings down. When you level a city from a plane so high up it's un-detectable as retailiation for losing some buildings you are sinking to their level, and they win.

We don't care all that much about the buildings. It's the 3,000 plus that died in them that makes us furious. It's the people murdered on board those airplanes that gets us stirred up. Why won't you talk about our PEOPLE that were murdered? I'll answer that - it's because you can't sanitize the blood of thousands of innocents with a few equivocating phrases. The airplanes and the buildings are ultimately inconsequential, but the people deserve to be avenged.

Your attempt to equate the attack on this country with the subsequent retaliatory strikes is totally absurd. The attacks on 9-11 were acts of murder, plain and simple. The attackers knew that the damage they inflicted on the buildings would result in only a minor and temporary inconvenience for the banking and business world. So their aim was to murder as many people as they could. They sought the deaths of many thousands more than they actually succeeded in killing. They did this for no other reason than to prove that they could. They murdered thousands simply to put on a show for the moslem world.

We strike back with guided weapons which take out specific military targets while taking great pains to avoid collateral damage, even if it means increased risk to our troops. And yet you are still not satisfied. You still seek to equate our acts of self defense with those of the terrorist attackers.

How pitiful. How totally lacking in perspective, vision and maturity.

Terrorists rely on apologists like you. Because without people like you, terrorists can never win. You are the tool which Al-Qeda, Hamas, the Taliban etc plan to exploit in order to achieve victory. That's right, people like you. People who are incapable of discerning the difference between an act of terrorism and an act of self-defense.

Fortunately those like you are far from becoming a majority here in this country.

 

[Annie]

Merlin, all that and more! I back you 110%!