i can justify the use of terrorist tactics!!!

a couple of months ago Osama bin Laden made a speach and in his speach the part that to me stuck out the most was the part when he said something along the lines of "we (the terrorists) do not have tanks, planes, armies etc. so the ONLY way to fight our enemies is to use terrorist tactics"

well ATSers he is 100% right!!!

the terrorist want to fight their enemies (it doesnt matter who the enemy is for this discusion) but their enemies have better technologies (sp???) than them so the ONLY way for them to be able to do any damage to the enemy is using these terrorist tactics

it doesnt matter HOW you fight, it matters only that you fight...

in the speach, Osama bin Laden later said "call the way we fight terrorist tactics or terrorism but this is the ONLY way we can fight. You call it terrorism because it's a different way of fighting that you are not used to."

does the fact that terrorism is a different way of fighting make it wrong???

a war is a battle between one country and another right???

everyone in those two countries are targets!!!

it doesnt matter HOW you fight, it matters only that you fight...


if you have any questions or you just want to scream at me or call me an idiot do so here...

Idiot




The thing is though....they use these tactics purposly on civilians and civilian targets. That's not justified no matter how you look at it.

Wow!

If you are that short sighted as to say that terrorism i.e. beheading innocent civilians, suicide bombings of civilian buses, is ok then, well,

you have that right.

You must save a ton on birthday cards with your mother and father being brother and sister. Fewer to buy.

No the fact that terrorism targets innocents and non-military targets is wrong.

Beheading and blowing up innocent civilians will never be justifiable. Perhaps if the terrorists used their tactics against military targets you might have a leg to stand on. But they don't. They murder innocent people who have nothing to do with the war, that my friend, is not a justifiable act of war.

In reality, Osama bin Laden was 100% wrong.

Good point. It's one thing to be take captive a military person as a POW and have "terroristic tactics" performed on you (still not right). But it's a different story when you are taking people who are not fighting against you (quite the contrary in that Berg was helping rebuild their own cellular capabilities) and perform those same acts on them.

Idiot

[edit on 22-6-2004 by mpeake]

I have to say that what you are doing, attempting to justify use of terrorism against innocents, is completely wrong. Innocents should never be legitimate targets in any war or conflict and going after innocents because they are a 'soft' target is wrong - as is agreeing with anything Osama Bin Laden says.

So, it's ok to do that. Ok, lets behead binny boys parents and family-just using his tactics. Lets blow up every mosk we can find-they hid men and weapons there as well as using it as a place to shoot from-just using his tactics. Lets start kidnapping their clerks and beheading them-it's only using his tactics.
It simply comes down to this, if it is ok for them to do it, it is ok for us to do it. If it is not ok for us to do it, it is not ok for him to do it-period.

They, this is not ment as a personal attack on you, only on what you said.

The closest thing to justification is if they only attack military targets.

drastic times call for drastic measures...

isnt that what they say???

they (the terrorists) HATE the enemy so much that their killing innocent ENEMIES...

do you see what i am saying???

shure they are INNOCENT BUT they are still the ENEMY!!!

what do you do if you have extreme hate for an ENEMY???

you get the picture...

REMEMBER they are not innocent in the terrorists eyes...

Unlike the people calling you an incestuos idiot, I think this deserves consideration.

If you had an army of say twenty thousand, and you wage a war on the world's most advanced superpower, how would you go about fighting that war? You certainly couldn't match soldiers, firepower, or technology. You have to come up with different means.

As despicable as the acts are, they do have strategic merit, i.e. american workers are now leaving Saudi Arabia.

The only thing I might be able to call justifiable/strategic is their suicide attacks on military targets. Attacking innocents, whether or not they are the enemy, is wrong. Has always been wrong. And will always be wrong. A fact of war is that there will be civilian casualties, but outright attacking civilians is unjustifiable no matter how you look at it. It serves no purpose.

Americans are leaving SA because they're scared, ok... But our military isn't going anywhere, is it? It's not having an affect on the military by any means (well maybe on morale) but in the big scheme of things its only the civilian populus that is affected and that is not a justifiable act of war. That's an act of crime and murder.

Fortunately for us there is a very simple and easy answer for the way to defeat people(terrorist) who use these types of tactics. Wipe them off the face of the earth (we all know how that can be done too). And if "innocent" people go with them, well, so be it if we are using your logic. At least thier deaths will not be as painful as having your head sawed off by a dull machete.

[edit on 22-6-2004 by mpeake]

If you have so much hate that you're willing to kill innocent people who are trying to help you, then you have some serious mental problems. Would you give a mental patient a gun?

Again NOTHING justifies killing innocents. If they're not innocent in your eyes then fine, take them to court. But they did not shoot at you and show you no ill will, so why the ***k would you kill them??




Did you even read this thread. They're not going up against an advanced army...they're attacking civilans.

SUN TSU. Read him.

Terror only works for so long. Then people become numb. They don't care for anything but revenge.

Firebombing Dresden did not shorten WW2. It pissed off the Germans.
Bombing London did not affect the English. It strengthened their reslove.

There is no strategic value to terrorism.

Hit and run. Guerilla war. That is something that is tried and true. Killing civilians does not work. Read a book.

9/11 was an attempt by the terrorists to effect the enemies economy by means of fear...

fear is used as a weapon in this way and is justified by the fact that physical / mental / religious weapons are used in war...

the beheadings were an attempt to use the victims as a way for the terrorists to get something (they were using the victims as ransoms) and IF the enemy gave in to the demands this would help the terrorists so this is justified because sometimes you must do drastic things to get what your side wants...

any other terrorist attack can be justified by the terrorists using fear as a weapon...

questions???

Exactly, and this attacking innocent civilians crap doesn't equal hit and run tactics. It equals cowardess.

Attacking the WTC and Pentagon didn't break our country down, it strengthened us and brought the country together better than anything that I can remember (I'm only 20) or think of. What happened because of 9/11? Our military went out and got things done, we ruined terrorists in Afghanistan. So much for those "tactics" working.

Yeah, what he is saying is deplorable and my initial response would be to address his post with some mindless ad hominem attack on him, BUT he's got a valid point... as much as I hate the point, he does have it.

Now, modern warfare has been governed by the Geneva Accord to ensure that military conflicts remain just that... military in nature while attempting to protect civilians and the innocent. However, the Geneva Accord is an agreement entered into by GOVERNING bodies, not militant groups and individuals ergo they are not subject to it's mandates. These extremists are so passionate about their cause that they are prepared to do anything to further it... right, wrong or indifferent.

Why do we have the Geneva Accord? Nagasaki and Hiroshima! Over 100,000 dead civilians. We're not innocent either. Although our nuclear atrocity ended WWII and probably saved 250,000 lives, did the end really justify the means? Some argue that it may have... and I would suspect that those would be members of the Allied nations... Just as those members of the terrorist nations would believe that their ultimate end justifies their means.

Think about it... Hate me for the application of logic if you will, and as much as I despise it, it reeks of truth.

Terrorism is wrong no matter how you look at it. People have already said it.... terrorism causes "TERROR". It targets the innocent for "shock" value.

Not having the "weapons" to fight your enemy is a BS excuse for terrorism. The counter to not having the right tools for the job is called "guerilla war". The NVA did it... they didn't have as sophisitcated (sp?) weapons as the US durring the Vietnam war... but they used guerilla tactics to fight what they considered the "enemy". Sure.. alot of crazy, sick and messed up things went on durring that war but im just trying to state a point that you don't need to kill civilians to fight an enemy.

Derek

If there is a point out there, He does not have it. A point could and already has been made for the use of such tactics against those that are fighting against you. But, the use of beheading non-threatoning, non military people to further you bogus religion is not the "point".

Faisca

The point is not whether it is right or wrong, the point is that if you look at it objectively as I think THEY see all is doing, then you understand that through the eyes of the enemy, the military and the 'innocents' ARE the enemy!

Hence, what may seem morose to you or I, is in their reality the art of war. And yes attacking civilians does serve a purpose... THEIR purpose.

Also, out of curiosity... Who is innocent and how is that qualifiable? Is someone who builds planes that drop bombs innocent? When militaries strike targets KNOWING that civilians will be killed along with the enemy, is that an innocent act because the target was the enemy? It gets very murky here.