War on Terrorism, What is Terrorism?

[Psychoblues]

I've literally been all over the world. Have I seen or heard of potential acts of "Terrorrism" against the USA? Absolutely!!!!! Were they casual or were they serious? Were they justified or were they not? Bottom line, were they dangerous to me or were they not? Fortunately, most if not all were what we might refer to as bar room bullshit. But some credense must be given to their arguments. My suggestion is that we pay better attention to the details of our foreign relations. Understandably, as the Republicans often do, a reluctance to appreciate the opinions of others is a national deficit but is no excuse. WE, Americans, are not an island. But I'm only assuming that you can dig it.

Psychoblues

God Bless America

 

[dilloduck]

I've literally been all over the world. Have I seen or heard of potential acts of "Terrorrism" against the USA? Absolutely!!!!! Were they casual or were they serious? Were they justified or were they not? Bottom line, were they dangerous to me or were they not? Fortunately, most if not all were what we might refer to as bar room bullshit. But some credense must be given to their arguments. My suggestion is that we pay better attention to the details of our foreign relations. Understandably, as the Republicans often do, a reluctance to appreciate the opinions of others is a national deficit but is no excuse. WE, Americans, are not an island. But I'm only assuming that you can dig it.

Psychoblues

God Bless America

you think other countries would be willing to be more aware and sensitive to the special needs of America too?? I have a dream---------

 

[krisy]

you think other countries would be willing to be more aware and sensitive to the special needs of America too?? I have a dream---------

We don't deserve special needs. We are just here to bail everyone else out

Psycho- I don't think terrorism is ever justified.

 

[wade]

We don't deserve special needs. We are just here to bail everyone else out

Psycho- I don't think terrorism is ever justified.

Certainly terrorism is justified against a totalitarian regime. It is the responsiblity of the people to fight such a regime in whatever manner is most effective.

Lets say that Bush declared martial law, suspended the constitution, delcared himself president for life, and proceeded to turn the USA into a police state, and delcared himself president for life. The only response would be terrorism, as there is no way the people could fight back on the field of battle.

Wade.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Certainly terrorism is justified against a totalitarian regime. It is the responsiblity of the people to fight such a regime in whatever manner is most effective.

This action would not be terrorism then, it would be either rebellion or revolution.

Lets say that Bush declared martial law, suspended the constitution, delcared himself president for life, and proceeded to turn the USA into a police state, and delcared himself president for life. The only response would be terrorism, as there is no way the people could fight back on the field of battle.

Terrorism is defined as violence against a civilian population, NOT a government body.

 

[Merlin1047]

Certainly terrorism is justified against a totalitarian regime. It is the responsiblity of the people to fight such a regime in whatever manner is most effective.

Lets say that Bush declared martial law, suspended the constitution, delcared himself president for life, and proceeded to turn the USA into a police state, and delcared himself president for life. The only response would be terrorism, as there is no way the people could fight back on the field of battle.

Wade.

So, to put it another way, you're saying that if Pres. Bush acted as you describe, then I would be justified in shooting you and blowing up your neighbors. Have I got that right?

P.S. Please send me your address.

 

[wade]

So, to put it another way, you're saying that if Pres. Bush acted as you describe, then I would be justified in shooting you and blowing up your neighbors. Have I got that right?

P.S. Please send me your address.

Well, no, but if it were necessary to blow me up in order to hurt the illegal regime then yes. Lets suppose I worked at an oil refinery, or a newspaper that supported them, or was in a bar frequented by stormtroopers... then yes.

But terrorism is usually not directed toward your own countrymen. Lets say that the aformentioned regime then conquered Canada. Yes, then Canadians would be justified in blowing up any Americans they could reach - as it is our responsibility not to allow our government to become evil, and if it does we are responsible for its actions.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

Well, no, but if it were necessary to blow me up in order to hurt the illegal regime then yes. Lets suppose I worked at an oil refinery, or a newspaper that supported them, or was in a bar frequented by stormtroopers... then yes.

But terrorism is usually not directed toward your own countrymen. Lets say that the aformentioned regime then conquered Canada. Yes, then Canadians would be justified in blowing up any Americans they could reach - as it is our responsibility not to allow our government to become evil, and if it does we are responsible for its actions.

Wade.

I disagree. There is no justification for terrorism (in my opinion). I define terrorism as it has already been defined previously in this thread: an act of violence that specifically targets civilian populations. Rebellion and revolution are both legitimate in my view. That does not mean I side with rebels and revolutionaries... that would depend on the circumstance.

 

[wade]

I disagree. There is no justification for terrorism (in my opinion). I define terrorism as it has already been defined previously in this thread: an act of violence that specifically targets civilian populations. Rebellion and revolution are both legitimate in my view. That does not mean I side with rebels and revolutionaries... that would depend on the circumstance.

I agree, within your own country, assuming it is homogenous. Now what about if it's not. Lets say the USA were to go totalitarian and started massive oppression of blacks and hispanics. Lets say they could not eat in restaruants, use public bathrooms, attend public schools or goto college, participate in the political process, and were commonly beaten and killed w/o consequence. Under such circumstances, terrorism against any and all whites would be justified, since all whites are benifiting from the policies. Restricting targets to military and government installations only would make it nearly impossible to achieve any level of success. It depends largely on what the goal is - in this case it would be to make the whites rethink their policies by making them pay a signficant price for them.

What you are basically saying is that it is okay for the State to engage in terrorism, but never justified for the oppressed to respond in kind.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

I agree, within your own country, assuming it is homogenous. Now what about if it's not. Lets say the USA were to go totalitarian and started massive oppression of blacks and hispanics. Lets say they could not eat in restaruants, use public bathrooms, attend public schools or goto college, participate in the political process, and were commonly beaten and killed w/o consequence. Under such circumstances, terrorism against any and all whites would be justified, since all whites are benifiting from the policies. Restricting targets to military and government installations only would make it nearly impossible to achieve any level of success. It depends largely on what the goal is - in this case it would be to make the whites rethink their policies by making them pay a signficant price for them.

What you are basically saying is that it is okay for the State to engage in terrorism, but never justified for the oppressed to respond in kind.

Wade.

First, under the circumstance you describe, I still say that terrorism is not justifiable. Blowing up civilians indiscriminately (whether or not they have anything to do with the oppression you describe) is still wrong in my opinion.

Second, I never mentioned anything about "the State" one way or the other; I resent the fact that you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Third, why do you believe that government and military targets only would eliminate possibilities of success?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

According to Wade's logic, it is ok for rich people unfairly targetted by excessive, disproportional taxation to set welfare recipients on fire, since they benefit from this gross abuse of governmental power. Wade ain't all bad.

 

[CSM]

According to Wade's logic, it is ok for rich people unfairly targetted by excessive, disproportional taxation to set welfare recipients on fire, since they benefit from this gross abuse of governmental power. Wade ain't all bad.

That made me smile, but if we follow Wades thinking, the rich really have the right to set ANYONE on fire to bring attention to their cause. It doesn't matter if the victim is a recipient of welfare benefits or not.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That made me smile, but if we follow Wades thinking, the rich really have the right to set ANYONE on fire to bring attention to their cause. It doesn't matter if the victim is a recipient of welfare benefits or not.

True!

 

[wade]

Man you guys just lack thinking power. When you have no intelligent response, you opt for stupidity or insults every time.

 

[dilloduck]

Man you guys just lack thinking power. When you have no intelligent response, you opt for stupidity or insults every time.

it's humor---laugh!

 

[wade]

First, under the circumstance you describe, I still say that terrorism is not justifiable. Blowing up civilians indiscriminately (whether or not they have anything to do with the oppression you describe) is still wrong in my opinion.

Second, I never mentioned anything about "the State" one way or the other; I resent the fact that you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Third, why do you believe that government and military targets only would eliminate possibilities of success?

The argument was whether terrorism was justifiable under "any" circumstances. So I made up some, which fit within the term "any", and is totally fair and you have nothing to resent.

The problem with limiting targets to government and miltary only is:

1) such targets can be very hard to strike effectively.

2) the purpose is to force the public in general to demand a solution, which is less likely if only government and military are targeted.

3) it denies the culpability of the general populace for the actions of their goverment and military.

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

The argument was whether terrorism was justifiable under "any" circumstances. So I made up some, which fit within the term "any", and is totally fair and you have nothing to resent.

The problem with limiting targets to government and miltary only is:

1) such targets can be very hard to strike effectively.

2) the purpose is to force the public in general to demand a solution, which is less likely if only government and military are targeted.

3) it denies the culpability of the general populace for the actions of their goverment and military.

Wade.

problem with terrorism is that it requires appeasement to be successful.

 

[CSM]

The argument was whether terrorism was justifiable under "any" circumstances. So I made up some, which fit within the term "any", and is totally fair and you have nothing to resent.

The problem with limiting targets to government and miltary only is:

1) such targets can be very hard to strike effectively.

2) the purpose is to force the public in general to demand a solution, which is less likely if only government and military are targeted.

3) it denies the culpability of the general populace for the actions of their goverment and military.

Wade.

You justified terrorism to YOURSELF by using a hypothetical situation; as I have already indicated, your situation DID NOT justify terrorism to ME.

I still resent the fact that you tried to put words in my mouth. Fortunately for me, NO ONE can tell me how to feel.

I submit that the purpose of terrorism is to create terror.

under #3 above then, it follows that the current administration is correct then in invading Afghanistan, Iraq, and any other country that trains, harbors or abets terrorists, since it is not only the governments resposnible for terrorist acts against this country but also those nation's citizens. I do not agree with that at all.

 

[drac]

The argument was whether terrorism was justifiable under "any" circumstances. So I made up some, which fit within the term "any", and is totally fair and you have nothing to resent.

The problem with limiting targets to government and miltary only is:

1) such targets can be very hard to strike effectively.

2) the purpose is to force the public in general to demand a solution, which is less likely if only government and military are targeted.

3) it denies the culpability of the general populace for the actions of their goverment and military.

Wade.

so in order for us to win in iraq and bring peace, justice and democracy we should restore to terrorism, based on your statements.
1. cannot really attach military targets right now
2. will force general population into bowing to our desires
3. forces general public to realise that any support for islamic terrorists is bad.

did i get it right?

 

[CSM]

Man you guys just lack thinking power. When you have no intelligent response, you opt for stupidity or insults every time.

I am disappointed in you, Wade. No one insulted you and exageration of your argument is not necessarily stupid, despite the fact you do not like it. As to the amount of thinking power I may or may not have, I would dare say that it is adequate enough to get me through over half a decade of life without too much trouble. I suppose that could be the luck of the draw though.

Make that a half a century, though it did get me through the last decade as well!