i can justify the use of terrorist tactics!!!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
O.K. Did you read what I said?

Fear is not a strategic weapon! It wears off quickly. Heres another book.
Anything buy Von Clauswitz.


Forget morality. Strategically terror does not work. If you just wanted to start a discussion then you should have said so. If not, go back and study before talking again.




posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joseph Knecht
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.

It doesn't matter if it's their purpose. It's unjustifiable. Fine, I can see it from their side, but that doesn't make a difference. I know that they think their doing a great service to Allah, but that doesn't make it any less unjustifiable and reprehensible. If they only attacked military targets, fine. But they blatantly attack civilians who have nothing to do with the military, or who are actually trying to help them, or are their OWN PEOPLE (in the case of Iraq). What good is that? It's ridiculous, and it's not an act of war. It's an act of cowardice, like I said.


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.


Well the military doesn't strictly attack civilian targets because they are civilian targets. There will always be civilian casualties of war, and that's horrible, but it's a fact of war. But those civilian deaths are a side affect of a military action. Terrorists MEAN to attack innocent civilians.

As for what an innocent is. Those Iraqis minding their own business walking around in their free country are innocent. The people who were working on September 11th, 2001 were innocent. Nick Berg was innocent (he was a non-military civilian working to help Iraqis) along with the others who were beheaded. I am innocent.

Attacking people who have nothing to do with the military is utterly and morally wrong.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Stop it.

Have you taken leave of your senses, people?
STOP with the name calling and insults.
If you don't agree with what TSA has said, tell him so WITHOUT calling him names or insulting his family.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
BUT he's got a valid point... as much as I hate the point, he does have it.
Think about it... Hate me for the application of logic if you will, and as much as I despise it, it reeks of truth.


The problem is that it only works in the short-term. Look at the bombing of the trains in Spain. People freaked and the incumbents were voted out.

Also read some of the comments in the threads involving Berg and Johnson. They range from outright hate/kill 'em all to we need to get our troops and civilians out ASAP.

Then look to areas where the targeting of civilians is common-place. Israel/Bosnia/Africa. There is an almost matter of fact attitude that develops, unless the terrorism is done in a unique or particularly grotesque way. If I remember correctly Israelis' actually were participating in betting pools on where the next suicide bomber would strike.

Time and frequency have a tendency to numb people to these horrors.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Yes, that was my point. I do not condone nor do I support any thing that these sick human be... er, animals are doing to innocent people. But from their perspective, the acts are justifiable as it furthers THEIR agenda.

Please don't try to find a moral equivalency between war and terrorism... there isn't really any good argument for it. They are both atrocious. The difference being that "Western" civilization has attempted to mask the atrocities with civil rules of engagement.

Again, I HATE and DEPLORE these cretins, their tactics and methods and their over all cause. However, what we think and how we feel is of no consequnce to them... unless it instills fear and outrage... their desired goal.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just like Osama, because everyone has one. an opinion, that is...
that being said....

Now, what terrosits do is incorrect in that the attacks are on purely civilian targets. There is a big diff between collateral damage and a planned attack. Amass an army and attack our milatary. Why not, because they would be destroyed.
That is how the balance is kept, with fear. The cold war kept the US and Russia at bay for fear of nuclear holocost. It was a pissing contest.
This is not the case now. we are fighting an invisible enemy which could be a immigrant from Saudi or your local high-school principal planning to blow up the local Wal-Mart.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Now, what terrosits do is incorrect in that the attacks are on purely civilian targets. There is a big diff between collateral damage and a planned attack.



Ok, Which category do you put Nagasaki and Hiroshima into?

Quit trying to pass a moral judgement on a people who do not have the moral capabilites as a society to understand the difference in our arguments.

YES... deplorable, reprehensible, atrocious, awful and any other colorful adjective that you would like to use is applicable to their cowardice, however, condemnation never won a war... decisive action does and that is what they think they are taking.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
No one is saying anything. Relax.

There is no justification for terrorism...on a moral, tactical or strategic level.

What I was saying is that the original thread was a very uninformed statement that had an emotional foundation and not a logical foundation.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Ok, Which category do you put Nagasaki and Hiroshima into?

I would put that into a mistake that the US made, but something which ended a war and probably saved countless more lives.


YES... deplorable, reprehensible, atrocious, awful and any other colorful adjective that you would like to use is applicable to their cowardice, however, condemnation never won a war... decisive action does and that is what they think they are taking.

Have you read anything that people have said? Terror won't win anything. People will become numb to terror. Terror hasn't given the Palestinians Israel, and it won't win anything for Osama and the gang. It's merely a scare tactic and scare tactics wear off. It's not like they're attacking things that could hurt the military, they're attacking targets that while are majorly important (i.e. innocent lives) they aren't within the military and won't end up stopping the military machine. And I say those things thinking about it logically, and not morally.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
the original thread was a very uninformed statement that had an emotional foundation and not a logical foundation.


Sorry CRM... it's all in the perspective. It would have a logical foundation on the part of the terrorists.

Now, what I think that you are trying to say is that it has no foundation in reality as terrorsim has proven time and time again to strengthen the resolve of the enemy... correct?



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
well lets see here.

ask yourself one thing.

if america went around doing this how would you react? (this question goes to everyone reading this thread)

since everyone viewed what happened to iraqis prisoners as bad why is it ok to behead civilians? why is humiliation wrong but kidnapping and killing someone who is not military personnel ok?

and can someone tell me why someone would hold on to THIS ass backwards logic? taking life is ok but embarassing someone isnt?

this is not to say i am defending what the miltary has done but lets put things into perspective here.

there is a vast difference between humiliating and embarassing someone and taking a persons life who isnt in the military. the embarassed person gets to continue living, how about the beheaded?

so if america and the american military gets bashed for humilating prisoners i cant only imagine how you all would act if the miltary started using suicide bombers on buses. you'd all go nuts and have a field day on bush and america.

while i do think that war doesnt make sense and nothing is truly fair if we're going to say its ok for one side to do this that or the other why not the other side as well?

since the objective seems to be winning at all costs and some have suggested then why cant everyone else go all out for their side to win as well?

goose and gander.

terrorists are using guerilla based tactics but they arent targeting JUST military personnel, they're targetting anyone who isnt one of their own. there lies the difference. this isnt "lets kill the occupying force" this is "lets kill everyone who is in the occupying force and everyone else who doesnt see things our way"



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Please take a moment to review my posts more carefully. I agree with you, terrorsim will NOT work. However, OUR enemy can't see that because they don't have the history that we have to teach them that.

Now... NAGASAKI AND HIROSHIMA... A MISTAKE??? No, flying (2) 5,000 nuclear bombs over thousands of miles to carefully planned, strategic targets, dropping them and killing over 100,000 innocent civilians WAS NOT a mistake. It was both strategic AND tactical and served our purposes well... it ended the war with Japan. But it specifically targeted the civilians on the Japanese mainland to achieve our objectives. By today's terms, that's terrorism.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I am not passing judgement, it is not my place. Sorry if that how it sounded. Those bombings (WW2) occured and more lives were saved for the ones that were sacrificed I would believed. A war was ended...but back to the point.


Could the Boston Tea Party be considered a terrorist act these days??? They were fighting for the beliefs they had and I know a few people died.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Very simply put... because we're playing by two completely different sets of rules. Most Americans believe that we have some moral code to follow while waging war (And I do agree to an extent) but they also want to project our moral code upon the enemy (Part of the reason that we're in this war to begin with) which is a joke.

Until people begin to understand that we are approaching this war from two very different perspectives, we will continue to fight this one with our collective hands tied behind our backs while the enemy runs amok slapping at us at their will.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Outstanding Prank.

Yes i am saying this rational has been disproven in history. Terrorism strengthens the enemies resolve.

And I will tell you someting. If Korea fails to station their troops they are signing the death warrant of the other hostages because it will encourage more killing.

Terrorism works if you let it. Plain and simple.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I'll respond to you, kozmo, by saying that we didn't make a mistake as in an error with our plan when we dropped the bombs. But I personally think it was a moral mistake to kill all the civilians. Yes, I can see that as an act of terrorism. But that is in our past and we're trying to move on...

I like the way TPM put it... And right now I'm not sure if I can bring anything else to the table, but I'll keep up with this thread.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Very simply put... because we're playing by two completely different sets of rules. Most Americans believe that we have some moral code to follow while waging war (And I do agree to an extent) but they also want to project our moral code upon the enemy (Part of the reason that we're in this war to begin with) which is a joke.

Until people begin to understand that we are approaching this war from two very different perspectives, we will continue to fight this one with our collective hands tied behind our backs while the enemy runs amok slapping at us at their will.



i agree completely.

i do feel we should play by a certain st of rules and standards. i feel its wrong to purposely target civilians or to use them as "ground cover". however fighting a unconventional foe wth conventional tactics isnt working. i'm not suggesting we use terrorists tactics but guerilla tactics.

wear what they wear, live how they live. be sneaky and underhanded. use the weapons they use. in other words be like them EXCEPT!!!!!! target them specifically. this makes it harder for them to find you, just like we have a hard time finding them, this at least increases your odds of survival and it gets you into their mindset which makes it easier for you to find them and kill them. when you think like them you can predict their moves easier. playing this crap out in a warroom and using computer simulations is pointless worthless and wastes everyone;s time and soldiers lives.

i'm not a fight fire with fire kind of person but its painfully obvious that playing by the rules and being hamstrung as a result isnt working for us.

so why not get down and dirty? if its ok for one side its gotta be ok for the other. the ultimate goal is to win, not to see who can play by the rules the most. in fact this is what terrorists want, it makes their job easier in a lot of ways including finding ways of making us look bad.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
As far as i can see these people would resort to terrorism even if they did have technological alternatives.The whole martyrdom thing is more about mindset than opportunity, at the end of the day we are dealing with a barbaric group of people.How else can you explain the choice of beheadding over firing squads? they chose the more shocking option because they wanted to not because they had to.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
TPM-
Isn't this exactly what the Israelis are attempting to do now? For so long their incursions into the West Bank/Gaza did nothing more than result in the death of rock-throwing children. Now it would seem they are attempting to target the heads of various militant factions. What is Hezbollah on now - their 3rd leader in a matter of months?



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Whether you agree with it, like it or hate it.... terrorist attacks are effective. They do exactly what the attacker intended. It breeds fear. It is a psychological war. Remember what happened when we invaded Baghdad? Vehicles were approaching our tanks and getting wiped out before they could even get close. So trying to execute suicide attacks against military positions for the most part is stupid. It does nothing more than equate to your own death. Roadside bombs are effective to a degree but it doesn't take long for the enemy to figure out that he only needs to check ahead to make sure the road is clear.

If you are going to fight an enemy that greatly outnumbers you and is far more armed than you then you need to make other plans. You hit them where they least expect it. You hit them in a way where they cannot defend themselves against the attack. In this case it happens to be civilian contractors who are not armed.

Whether it is right morally. Whether you like it or not. This is how a smart war is waged. Attacking your enemy's strength is stupid. Attacking the weakness is smart.





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join