Is it ever ok to commit terrorism???

[Jennifer.Bush]

well?/ is it and when is it:firing:

 

[MissileMan]

well?/ is it and when is it:firing:

If you are talking about the intentional targeting of just civilians, nope, it's not justified, ever.

 

[Mr. P]

well?/ is it and when is it:firing:

What do you think?

 

[Nuc]

The Brits probably thought the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.

 

[Nuc]

If you are talking about the intentional targeting of just civilians, nope, it's not justified, ever.

For example when the U.S. dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities?

 

[Annie]

For example when the U.S. dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities?

That wasn't terrorism, that was war, pure and simple. Uniforms and plane markings. Never forget, the second would not have been dropped if not for Japan's reaction.

 

[manu1959]

define terrorisim and will tell you

 

[Annie]

define terrorisim and will tell you

Terrorism: attacking civilians for political purposes.

Note, not for strategic reasons. That's what was done in WWII, to stop FURTHER killing.

 

[manu1959]

Terrorism: attacking civilians for political purposes.

Note, not for strategic reasons. That's what was done in WWII, to stop FURTHER killing.

then no

 

[Annie]

The Brits probably thought the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.

However, they did lay out why they had a problem with the political, if memory serves it was called the Declaration of Independence, which the largest ink was spilled to spell out the grievious injuries done to the colonists.

Mind you, this was after years of trying to get the king and parliament to hear their cries.

 

[Hobbit]

The Brits probably thought the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.

More annoyance than anything else. If all the terrorists were doing was dumping McDonald's and Coca-Cola into the ocean, I wouldn't be so quick to want to kill them. Terrorism, at the least, must involve killing.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Nuc
For example when the U.S. dropped atom bombs on Japanese cities?

Very controversial issue, Nuc... to say the least.

Terrorism is generally defined as violence directed at non-military targets to achieve political goals and practiced by indivividuals who do not belong to any recognised armed forces.

When the targetting of civilians is commited by members of a recognised state/armed forces most experts prefer the term “war crime”.

As far as the act being practiced is concerned, it’s pure semantics.

Aside: just ignore Kathianne's super patriotic crap, the firebombing and nuking of Japan had a clear political goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan.

 

[onedomino]

Very controversial issue, Nuc... to say the least.

Terrorism is generally defined as violence directed at non-military targets to achieve political goals and practiced by indivividuals who do not belong to any recognised armed forces.

When the targetting of civilians is commited by members of a recognised state/armed forces most experts prefer the term “war crime”.

As far as the act being practiced is concerned, it’s pure semantics.

Aside: just ignore Kathianne's super patriotic crap, the firebombing and nuking of Japan had a clear political goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan.

Jose always seems to use the phrase "super patriotic" when he wants to defame someone. He's used it on me before. I guess his imagination is limited. The "unconditional surrender" of Japan was the often repeated war goal of the United States. Isn't that right Jose, super patriotic student of history. Unless of course you are referring to the tired von Clausewitz cliche that "war is the continuation of politics by other means."

 

[Annie]

Very controversial issue, Nuc... to say the least.

Terrorism is generally defined as violence directed at non-military targets to achieve political goals and practiced by indivividuals who do not belong to any recognised armed forces.

When the targetting of civilians is commited by members of a recognised state/armed forces most experts prefer the term “war crime”.

As far as the act being practiced is concerned, it’s pure semantics.

Aside: just ignore Kathianne's super patriotic crap, the firebombing and nuking of Japan had a clear political goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan.

Sorry Che jr., but it's all part of a historical record. Warning. Drop 1. Warning. Drop 2.

 

[Nuc]

Very controversial issue, Nuc... to say the least.

Terrorism is generally defined as violence directed at non-military targets to achieve political goals and practiced by indivividuals who do not belong to any recognised armed forces.

When the targetting of civilians is commited by members of a recognised state/armed forces most experts prefer the term “war crime”.

As far as the act being practiced is concerned, it’s pure semantics.

Aside: just ignore Kathianne's super patriotic crap, the firebombing and nuking of Japan had a clear political goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan.

Well, Missile Man said "If you are talking about the intentional targeting of just civilians, nope, it's not justified, ever."

And I thought that's what happened in Japan. I agree with the definition that terrorism is from people who are not soldiers. Personally I think the dropping of bombs by military is war whether or not civilians are targeted. Unfortunately that's the only way to get things done sometimes.

Terrorism is called terrorism because it's designed to strike terror into the average Joe (or Jose or Chang). Usually civilians don't deserve it.

 

[MissileMan]

Well, Missile Man said "If you are talking about the intentional targeting of just civilians, nope, it's not justified, ever."

And I thought that's what happened in Japan. I agree with the definition that terrorism is from people who are not soldiers. Personally I think the dropping of bombs by military is war whether or not civilians are targeted. Unfortunately that's the only way to get things done sometimes.

Terrorism is called terrorism because it's designed to strike terror into the average Joe (or Jose or Chang). Usually civilians don't deserve it.

Weren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki targeted for their contribution to Japan's war fighting capability (Weapon's manufacture, etc) also? They had significant military strategy value, no? That differentiates them from say a bus load of tourists.

 

[theHawk]

Well, Missile Man said "If you are talking about the intentional targeting of just civilians, nope, it's not justified, ever."

And I thought that's what happened in Japan. I agree with the definition that terrorism is from people who are not soldiers. Personally I think the dropping of bombs by military is war whether or not civilians are targeted. Unfortunately that's the only way to get things done sometimes.

Terrorism is called terrorism because it's designed to strike terror into the average Joe (or Jose or Chang). Usually civilians don't deserve it.

I don't think the civilians themselves were targeted, but the infrastructure had to be destroyed. The factories, the ports and the Naval bases. It might be hard for us to comprehend but when you're in a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties it probably gets to a point where you don't care what kind of "collateral damage" the enemy takes, you do what it takes to win the damned war you never wanted.

 

[glockmail]

Terrorism: attacking civilians for political purposes.

Note, not for strategic reasons. That's what was done in WWII, to stop FURTHER killing.

War is politics by force. That being said, I don't think that dropping two A-bombs on WW2 Japan was terrorism, as these acts, although they caused great fear and terror in the Japanese people, served to convince them that their goal of world domination would not be reached. It also saved countless Japanese and Amercian lives.

In contract, Islamic terrorism is by a small force that cannot possibly win, therefore senseless disregard for human life, acting without warning, and to further their goal of worldwide domination.