• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Shocked about Terrorism?? Why?

Mr. D

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Oxford American Dictionary:

Terrorism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Terrorism is as old as man's conflict, yet we act shocked when it is used against us! Vlad the Impaler (of Dracula legend) hung the Muslim invaders on pikes alive to terrorize Muslims and weaken their resolve to attack Transylvania! The American Indian in a desperate attempt to save his land and way of life from white invaders whose treaties could not be trusted turned to terrorism in attacking settler families without warning! Obviously it failed! Certainly it has been accepted by most historians that the fire bombings of both Liverpool by the Germans and Dresden by the Allies were much more for the purpose of terrorizing and intimidating civilians than to destroy military targets. The German V2 rockets also were more about terrorism than hitting military targets. It's difficult avoid the reality that the world's greatest use of terror was the use of the A-Bomb on Japan. Its purpose was to kill large numbers of non combatants so to create such terror and intimidation as to gain the political aim of a unconditional surrender without having to fight the Japanese on their homeland and lose more soldiers. It can be argued that it was the right call for our military, but it was still clearly terrorism. Triangular shaped “fleshettes” that were used as antipersonnel fragments in bombs dropped by our Air Force on Hanoi's civilians were brought back to the U.S. as proof. The Condor program of Latin America in which death squads trained in the United States by the CIA used extraordinary rendition exchanges. Latin American countries traded each others leftist rebels to be tortured and murdered in foreign countries was and is terrorism that still goes on today by our own government!

A bomb dropped from a F16 on a civilian area killing an entire family is simply collateral damage, not terrorism to those killed! A shell from a Israeli tank hitting your home probably kills as well as a car bomb! Only the bomb in a car or strapped to a person’s body is a terrorist act! As a Palestinian fighter said, “When the U.S. gives us F16’s like it does Israel, we’ll fight a conventional war!”

The side that wins a war always explains its own terrorism as an unfortunate, but necessary part of war caused by those that were actually terrorized. The losing side is branded as degenerate, criminal terrorists, while as always the winner writes the history to his own benefit!

Terrorism is as old and as common as warfare, so why do we act as if it is a new phenomenon! Maybe simply because it was used against our homeland this time! I hate terrorism as much as anyone does, but let's not pretend it is new, or our hands are clean!
 
Certainly it has been accepted by most historians that the fire bombings of both Liverpool by the Germans and Dresden by the Allies were much more for the purpose of terrorizing and intimidating civilians than to destroy military targets.
They didn't care a lot about the military targets in Dresden. There were not a lot and these who were there like a military school have not been targeted. British and American terrorists focused on these parts of the city, where they hoped to hit the most civilians and which would burn well, even with firebrigades were active, this was especially the old town. They made plans about this.

It's difficult avoid the reality that the world's greatest use of terror was the use of the A-Bomb on Japan. Its purpose was to kill large numbers of non combatants so to create such terror and intimidation as to gain the political aim of a unconditional surrender without having to fight the Japanese on their homeland and lose more soldiers. It can be argued that it was the right call for our military, but it was still clearly terrorism.
This was terrorism. The war was at the end at this time. It can not be argued, that this was the right call for American military, it can be argued, American terrorists hurried up to drop these bombs before the war was over, so they could show the world their new weapon.

Terrorism is as old and as common as warfare, so why do we act as if it is a new phenomenon! Maybe simply because it was used against our homeland this time! I hate terrorism as much as anyone does, but let's not pretend it is new, or our hands are clean!
The US harbors terrorists and they never stopped using terrorism, that's why this declaring war on terrorism was nothing but a propaganda trick.
 
Agree competely with this piece Mr D, well said.

I especially like the quote,

As a Palestinian fighter said, “When the U.S. gives us F16’s like it does Israel, we’ll fight a conventional war!”
 
Ok. Then let's drop ALL pretense at civility in that case. He who can unleash the biggest, baddest dogs of war with the longest, sharpest fangs and claws, killing the most people will most likely win.

OK. Let's go.

And by the way here's how Winston Churchill felt about certain prohibited weapons of war or WMD's.

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier.


▪ Statement as president of the Air Council, War Office Departmental Minute (12 May 1919); Churchill Papers 16/16, Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge.

Many argue that quotes from this passage are often taken out of context, because Churchill is distinguishing between non-lethal agents and the deadly gasses used in World War I and emphasizing the use of non-lethal weapons; however Churchill is not clearly ruling out the use of lethal gases, simply stating that "it is not necessary to use only the most deadly". Reportedly "non-lethal" gas killed many young and elderly Kurds and Arabs when the RAF used mustard gas in 1920 against rebelling villages in Iraq during the British occupation.
Winston Churchill - Wikiquote
 
They didn't care a lot about the military targets in Dresden. There were not a lot and these who were there like a military school have not been targeted. British and American terrorists focused on these parts of the city, where they hoped to hit the most civilians and which would burn well, even with firebrigades were active, this was especially the old town. They made plans about this.

Well... yeah we did. That's pretty much by conclusion from looking at what happened in Dresden. However in terms of bad things that happened in WW2, that's depressingly far down the list.

The label of terrorists is a bit cheap, everyone was terrorising someone in WW2 and Germany was doing it to a far higher degree than everyone else. I would simply leave that label out of WW2

Did you catch Mr Kaczynski's comment from the other day :)
 
Well... yeah we did. That's pretty much by conclusion from looking at what happened in Dresden. However in terms of bad things that happened in WW2, that's depressingly far down the list.

The label of terrorists is a bit cheap, everyone was terrorising someone in WW2 and Germany was doing it to a far higher degree than everyone else. I would simply leave that label out of WW2.

Did you catch Mr Kaczynski's comment from the other day :)
Do you mean that he wants more votes for Poland because so many Polish people have been killed in WWII?
 
Do you mean that he wants more votes for Poland because so many Polish people have been killed in WWII?

Yeah, a jibe aimed at Germany, seeing how you guys killed most of them.

Was that terrorism?
 
Yeah, a jibe aimed at Germany, seeing how you guys killed most of them.
During the 6 years of German occuppation from 1939 until 1945 during 5.675.000 Polish civilians have been killed. There have been 3.474.000 Polish people who were Jewish. They made about 10 % of the Polish population. Only about 10 % of the Polish people which were Jewish survived.

Was that terrorism?
Yes, this was terrorism.
Hostages have been taken and they have been killed when there were resistance activity. This is terrorism to me.

Another element was, Germans wanted to become the majority in these areas and they wanted to steal land and houses and property.
 
Yes, this was terrorism.
Hostages have been taken and they have been killed when there were resistance activity. This is terrorism to me.

Another element was, Germans wanted to become the majority in these areas and they wanted to steal land and houses and property.

Personally I wouldn't term what happened during WW2 "terrorism".

Terrorism has a new and different meaning, war crimes, mass murder and Genocide would be more apt.
 
Agree competely with this piece Mr D, well said.

I especially like the quote
As a Palestinian fighter said, “When the U.S. gives us F16’s like it does Israel, we’ll fight a conventional war!”
In Sri Lanka it's the other way around like in Palestine. The original population, the Sinhalese people, has a state and the immigrants, the Tamil people, want one.

The Sinhalese have fighter planes and the Tamils blow things up.

Some of the Sinhalese fighter planes are actually Israel made Kfir jets.
 
Personally I wouldn't term what happened during WW2 "terrorism".

Terrorism has a new and different meaning, war crimes, mass murder and Genocide would be more apt.
This is what this thread is about.

Terrorism has been around for so long. Didn't the Scots want to blow up the English parliament long ago? Why is it different?
 
Yes terrorism is for the most part just one of range of options that all forces or groups will use when they have it at their disposal. If it happens to be just about the only option then it will more than likely be used. There's not a terroist in the world who wouldnt rather have an army instead.
 
Well then maybe we should take Scheur's advice and admit that we're at war with Islam and start slaughtering them in mass with no concern for women and children, we can win this war over the weekend, let's make some ****ing glass!
 
Hmmmm...thats exactly what Hitler thought.

And yet you profess to be against fascism?
 
Hmmmm...thats exactly what Hitler thought.

And yet you profess to be against fascism?

I was being facetious apparently you along with the OP believe that terrorism against civilians is a normal part of warfare and that it should not be judged any differently than that because killing innocent civilians is the only means these Islamic Fascist fuc/ks have at their disposal.
 
Again with this ****..is there a facking playbook for this stuff??

Here we go again...bad stuff/immoral stuff happens in the past, and somehow that excuses the current brand of terrorism as completely fine and normal. I guess we should be more tolerant of people repeating history's mistakes......

Weak.
 
Wouldnt it be better to ask me what I think instead of telling me?

My point is in any case that terrorism is an option few will / have passed up so it makes little sense to pick on Islamic ****s when everyone has had a hand in it..

Unless you happen to something particularly against those people.
 
Again with this ****..is there a facking playbook for this stuff??

Here we go again...bad stuff/immoral stuff happens in the past, and somehow that excuses the current brand of terrorism as completely fine and normal. I guess we should be more tolerant of people repeating history's mistakes......

Weak.

Ill tell you whats weak pardner. Going on and on about those oh so bad terrorists and how theyre out to get us, they hide under the table, behind the curtains and never stop their fiendish plotting to destroy our freedoms.

Followed by 'Let Freedom Ring'.

Is there a playbook for that ****?
 
My point is in any case that terrorism is an option few will / have passed up so it makes little sense to pick on Islamic ****s when everyone has had a hand in it..

.

There are several billion people on Earth who have decided not to engage in terrorism. Not everybody has had a hand in terrorism by along shot.

You are simply looking for any excuse to justify it in order to further your pro-terrorist position.

Since you justify terrorism at every turn here, once again I will remind you that according to your very own rationalizations, your own life is forfeit. You justify your own murder along with those of the strangers you so casually disregard in these rationalizations.
 
Ill tell you whats weak pardner. Going on and on about those oh so bad terrorists and how theyre out to get us, they hide under the table, behind the curtains and never stop their fiendish plotting to destroy our freedoms.

Followed by 'Let Freedom Ring'.

Is there a playbook for that ****?

When did I ever say that??

I was responding to the OP, what exactly are you responding to?? Or are you just being an obtuse ***, yet again.....
 
When did I ever say that??

I was responding to the OP, what exactly are you responding to?? Or are you just being an obtuse ***, yet again.....

You didnt say that. However you did go on about a weak playbook for using the past to justify current terrorism.

This playbook is a text I dont seek to use as I use the past not to justify terrorism but to explain it in its broader context of violence.

Therefore I was simply responding in kind to your comment.

Anyway..me? Obtuse? Im happy to give a clear opinion on a subject if asked. However, if someone wishes to make argument I reserve the right to respond as I see fit.
 
There are several billion people on Earth who have decided not to engage in terrorism. Not everybody has had a hand in terrorism by along shot.

You are simply looking for any excuse to justify it in order to further your pro-terrorist position.

Since you justify terrorism at every turn here, once again I will remind you that according to your very own rationalizations, your own life is forfeit. You justify your own murder along with those of the strangers you so casually disregard in these rationalizations.

Absolsute bunkum. People vote every few years or give support across the world for governments and smaller groups that engage in/ support such acts. How on earth do you suppose these terrorists get clothed fed and shletered?
For example, Northern Ireland. Very few actual terrorists on either side. However, how did they manage it all those years, magic? No, they were supported by the populace.
I think youll find in this analysis your several billions becomes a significantly smaller number.
 
Semantic nonsense.
Attacking the Pentagon was an act of war. Placing IED's along a road in Baghdad is an act of war.

Bombing a hotel, pizzeria, nightclub, etc, are acts of terrorism.

Sneak attacks, snipes, mines against an armed force as defense is an act of war. Bombing financial symbols, to further goals, weaken an opponent, etc., (WTC) is an act of war.

Traveling around the world and attacking civilians in resorts, hijacking a school, running a car into a line of people looking for work are acts of terrorism. Conducting attacks on your enemy from civilian areas and hiding behind civilians (Hezbollah) is an act of terrorism.

If a combatant wants to fight a war, by all means, conduct acts of war.
If a coward wants what he thinks is revenge by slaughtering unarmed, unprepared, non-combatants in situations not likely to do more than create a body count, by all means, let's call it what it is: cowardice.

To use Vlad Tepes as some sort of military example is as legit as using Ted Bundy; they were both mental cases, with cruel penchants and the absolute worst case scenario's of human beings. Nothing they did could be legitimized for any purpose. They were damaged goods.
 
Semantic nonsense.
Attacking the Pentagon was an act of war. Placing IED's along a road in Baghdad is an act of war.

Bombing a hotel, pizzeria, nightclub, etc, are acts of terrorism.

Sneak attacks, snipes, mines against an armed force as defense is an act of war. Bombing financial symbols, to further goals, weaken an opponent, etc., (WTC) is an act of war.

Traveling around the world and attacking civilians in resorts, hijacking a school, running a car into a line of people looking for work are acts of terrorism. Conducting attacks on your enemy from civilian areas and hiding behind civilians (Hezbollah) is an act of terrorism.

If a combatant wants to fight a war, by all means, conduct acts of war.
If a coward wants what he thinks is revenge by slaughtering unarmed, unprepared, non-combatants in situations not likely to do more than create a body count, by all means, let's call it what it is: cowardice.

To use Vlad Tepes as some sort of military example is as legit as using Ted Bundy; they were both mental cases, with cruel penchants and the absolute worst case scenario's of human beings. Nothing they did could be legitimized for any purpose. They were damaged goods.

Ridiculous. Its not cowardice, its tactics.
 
Ridiculous. Its not cowardice, its tactics.

Of course; the bravery of driving a car into a line of un-armed people, the gallantry of killing oneself, with a bunch of people in a cafe, where you'll never have to face the consequences of an action that won't even put a dent in the true issue's that cause strife among nations.

Bravo.:roll:

C-O-W-A-R-D-I-C-E
 
Back
Top Bottom