page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 33 total items
I don't know about you, but i don't see terrorist as absolutely bad guys.
I just think that they are just a person with a strong ideology, bad attitudes, and wrong sense of perseption.
The Terrorist itself arise after 9-11. Sorry to add 9-11. I think terrorism in other country are about the same.
Making themself proud.
They think that they are their own and all others god of death. They said it's bravery, but whats the point of ruining yer' own country? What do u think?
Hmm... I recall this game I once played with my friends on Starcraft... For those of you who don't know what it is, it's like Warcraft III, Command and Conquer, etc., just your average real-time strategy.
It was 3v5 computers I think, and we thought we could handle whatever the computers dished out... we've done it
before, so we could do it again, right?
My friend goes to nuke one of the computer's bases... after that happens, the computer's base is pretty much
dead (if I remember right, the ghost that nuked died in the process... Suicide bomber? XD). Afterwards, the other four
computers send a massive force first to my ally'd base that nuked, then to my other ally, and then to me. We were
flat-out OWNED.
Why'd we get owned? We thought we could take down the enemy, even though we were out-numbered.
The only difference between my game of Starcraft and real life is the nukers lost in my game. Since the suicide bombers
won in real life, it encouraged more of them.
The only thing worse than a person with a strong ideology, a bad attitude, and a wrong sense of perception is one person
like that that encourages others to be like him... T.T *is sounding really mean*
*ends post*
I think it's the sense of injustice. Most terrorists say they strike in revenge for some perceived harm done to their identity group. Religion unifies people across huge expanses of land and preceived oppression of people in one part of the world fosters a sense of injustice in people in another part of the world.
That is of course, because religion knows no geographical boundaries. The sense of identity can arise from other sources as well, like patriotism/nationalism, race, or even familiy ties, however these are, by nature, often localised.
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Terrorists have the same idealogy as normal foot soldiers. Be proud in what you believe in. However, since terrorists can't fight head-on with your average military, they use more tactical and subtle measures to achieve their goals.
Terrorists can't really be defined good or bad. But I guess terrorists who play with civilians rather than the military are bad. It's just humanitarian rights.
Right now, I think that the Israeli militants are committing too much war crime against humanity. They cut off food supply for Lebanon, prevented innocent civilians to evacuate by bombing airport, and just plainly bombing down cities. They've killed more civilians than soldiers.
Quote by ChronicXTerrorists can't really be defined good or bad. But I guess terrorists who play with civilians rather than the military are bad. It's just humanitarian rights.
But isn't someone who goes after civilians as well as military part of the definition of "terrorist?" The whole point of their tactics is to induce fear or terror, if you will, to weaken their enemies on more than a strictly military front.
As to their motivations, there are a lot. It's tantamount to asking what are the motivations for people to go to war. Basically, I think terrorists do what they do because either they can't stand up to their enemy with a frontal assault or they hope to achieve their goals by having the common people that they scare achieve their goals for them. For example, if I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons for 9/11 was to convince the West to butt out of international affairs. By killing innocent people, they hoped to make us force our government to follow the terrorists' instructions.
Personally (if I'm going too far with this, someone let me know), I see all terrorists as bad guys, if not downright evil. No matter what your goal is, you should not involve innocent people. I don't care if somebody's military actions have killed your people, your children. Doing the same, only on purpose will not bring back the ones you've lost, nor will it in anyway bring justice to them. It's just adding to the death and misery that wars/conflicts cause. Terrorists are either cowards for being unwilling to stand up to a superior force or barbarians for not taking innocent lives into consideration.
"It is especially important to encourage unorthodox thinking when the situation is critical: At such moments every new word and fresh thought is more precious than gold. Indeed, people must not be deprived of the right to think their own thoughts. "
-Boris Yeltsin
If you take in the view that groups that harm civilians are terrorists, then couldn't you imply that every military is a terrorist? If a certain bomber has dropped a missile down a urban area, and many people are killed, then in your terms, is that a terrorist? If the military had warn them that if that certain area has to take measures so they would NOT drop the missile, if they did that, then would that stop them from being a terrorist?
Believe it or not, even westernised countries use those "terrorist" tactics against well, countries who
can't even organise themselves. Remember the Vietnam war and Gulf war? How about Korean war? In fact, ever since
World War II, in your terms, everyone became a terrorist. They attacked innocent lives. They played with innocent lives.
Only terrorists kidnap and spy? No. All sorts of military does that.
Let's focus on the current Israel and Lebanon war. Israel refused to hand out two lebanese prisoners back to
Lebanon. Lebanon retaliates by kidnapping Israel soldiers. Israel found a reason to bomb out a country that it's
been hostile with. Now, Israel bombs southern Lebanon, where there are hundreds of not only Lebanese CIVILIANS, but
non-lebanese, part-lebanese TOURISTS. And this is not an act of terrorism, this is from a full goverment controlled
military.
And, in no doubt you know, in World War II, Nazi have ON PURPOSE killed jewish people and children. Are Nazi's terrorists? Despite that time they had one of the biggest and strongest military in the world? So you really think it's fair when over 2 million of your fellow people were horribly killed, and the others scarred for generations? How about America? Over 5000 buildings razed, for reasons that wasn't valid, you've lost your home, and your country, only to be taken over foreign nations, and worst of all, you can't do anything about it. Is that justice?
Think about it.
Quote by ChronicXIf you take in the view that groups that harm civilians are terrorists, then couldn't you imply that every military is a terrorist? If a certain bomber has dropped a missile down a urban area, and many people are killed, then in your terms, is that a terrorist? If the military had warn them that if that certain area has to take measures so they would NOT drop the missile, if they did that, then would that stop them from being a terrorist?
Believe it or not, even westernised countries use those "terrorist" tactics against well, countries who can't even organise themselves. Remember the Vietnam war and Gulf war? How about Korean war? In fact, ever since World War II, in your terms, everyone became a terrorist. They attacked innocent lives. They played with innocent lives. Only terrorists kidnap and spy? No. All sorts of military does that.
Let's focus on the current Israel and Lebanon war. Israel refused to hand out two lebanese prisoners back to Lebanon. Lebanon retaliates by kidnapping Israel soldiers. Israel found a reason to bomb out a country that it's been hostile with. Now, Israel bombs southern Lebanon, where there are hundreds of not only Lebanese CIVILIANS, but non-lebanese, part-lebanese TOURISTS. And this is not an act of terrorism, this is from a full goverment controlled military.And, in no doubt you know, in World War II, Nazi have ON PURPOSE killed jewish people and children. Are Nazi's terrorists? Despite that time they had one of the biggest and strongest military in the world? So you really think it's fair when over 2 million of your fellow people were horribly killed, and the others scarred for generations? How about America? Over 5000 buildings razed, for reasons that wasn't valid, you've lost your home, and your country, only to be taken over foreign nations, and worst of all, you can't do anything about it. Is that justice?
Think about it.
Actually, if you look back at my post, I said that people who go after civilians, specifically, are terrorists. I'm not talking about collateral damage. That's a totally separate thing. What the people involved in 9/11 did was go after ONLY civilians, for the purpose of demoralizing the country and to scare us into inaction.
You seem to have the impression that I'm arguing for the United States (or perhaps the West in general). I'm not. Shit we pulled in, say, the Bay of Pigs was inexcusable. I'm not saying the U.S. has never done anything wrong. Far from it. As I said in my previous post, terrorism is wrong, if not downright evil. If we have ever done anything akin to terrorism, I do not condone it.
By the way, what the Nazis did was not terrorism. They didn't do it for political or societal gain. They did it under the command of a crazy motherfucker who decided to purge the world of non-Aryans, starting with the Jews.
Also, no matter what someone has done to me or my country, I will NEVER condone attacking innocent people in retaliation. I will advocate war, assassination of a government official, or whathaveyou to take down the government that decided to kill all those people. But never would I say it's alright to kill people who have nothing to do with it in order to pressure their government into giving in to my demands.
"It is especially important to encourage unorthodox thinking when the situation is critical: At such moments every new word and fresh thought is more precious than gold. Indeed, people must not be deprived of the right to think their own thoughts. "
-Boris Yeltsin
hmmm... i dunno... wat they believe in n stuff... that didnt help at all did it?... O_o...
Quote by ka5umihmmm... i dunno... wat they believe in n stuff... that didnt help at all did it?... O_o...
That's the best way to sum it up XD
Quote by songprayeryuna
Quote by ka5umihmmm... i dunno... wat they believe in n stuff... that didnt help at all did it?... O_o...
That's the best way to sum it up XD
really? ... lol... :D i finally got sumthing correct... YaY! ... in yur face! ... *cough*... ummm... o_O *waks away silently*
You can't group terriorists as being all alike, some do it because they are misguided and think its right, others do it for more sinister reasons.
There is no short answer to this question, it all depends on the situation.
Quote by viktorvonrussia
Quote by ChronicXIf you take in the view that groups that harm civilians are terrorists, then couldn't you imply that every military is a terrorist? If a certain bomber has dropped a missile down a urban area, and many people are killed, then in your terms, is that a terrorist? If the military had warn them that if that certain area has to take measures so they would NOT drop the missile, if they did that, then would that stop them from being a terrorist?
Believe it or not, even westernised countries use those "terrorist" tactics against well, countries who can't even organise themselves. Remember the Vietnam war and Gulf war? How about Korean war? In fact, ever since World War II, in your terms, everyone became a terrorist. They attacked innocent lives. They played with innocent lives. Only terrorists kidnap and spy? No. All sorts of military does that.
Let's focus on the current Israel and Lebanon war. Israel refused to hand out two lebanese prisoners back to Lebanon. Lebanon retaliates by kidnapping Israel soldiers. Israel found a reason to bomb out a country that it's been hostile with. Now, Israel bombs southern Lebanon, where there are hundreds of not only Lebanese CIVILIANS, but non-lebanese, part-lebanese TOURISTS. And this is not an act of terrorism, this is from a full goverment controlled military.And, in no doubt you know, in World War II, Nazi have ON PURPOSE killed jewish people and children. Are Nazi's terrorists? Despite that time they had one of the biggest and strongest military in the world? So you really think it's fair when over 2 million of your fellow people were horribly killed, and the others scarred for generations? How about America? Over 5000 buildings razed, for reasons that wasn't valid, you've lost your home, and your country, only to be taken over foreign nations, and worst of all, you can't do anything about it. Is that justice?
Think about it.
Actually, if you look back at my post, I said that people who go after civilians, specifically, are terrorists. I'm not talking about collateral damage. That's a totally separate thing. What the people involved in 9/11 did was go after ONLY civilians, for the purpose of demoralizing the country and to scare us into inaction.
You seem to have the impression that I'm arguing for the United States (or perhaps the West in general). I'm not. Shit we pulled in, say, the Bay of Pigs was inexcusable. I'm not saying the U.S. has never done anything wrong. Far from it. As I said in my previous post, terrorism is wrong, if not downright evil. If we have ever done anything akin to terrorism, I do not condone it.
By the way, what the Nazis did was not terrorism. They didn't do it for political or societal gain. They did it under the command of a crazy motherfucker who decided to purge the world of non-Aryans, starting with the Jews.
Also, no matter what someone has done to me or my country, I will NEVER condone attacking innocent people in retaliation. I will advocate war, assassination of a government official, or whathaveyou to take down the government that decided to kill all those people. But never would I say it's alright to kill people who have nothing to do with it in order to pressure their government into giving in to my demands.
Really? I thought that in your previous post that you were implying that people are terrorists as long as they harm innocent lives. I think I better look back then.
Terrorism is as bad as any offensive army. That's what I think. And like, any offensive army, it really depends on your motives whether to judge if you are good or bad.
Whether you think terrorists are the ones that are after innocents lives or not, others may disagree. US has confirmed that Al-Quaeda and Hazabollah, who kidnap soldiers, not civilians are terrorists. Soldiers aren't exactly innocent to humanity are they? They've killed, not their own men, but other men, despite the fact that they are humans. Although I might agree that Al-Quaeda has been involved in the 9/11, so I can't deny that they definitely involve civilians as well.
Well, I pointed out America and the west generally because they are the power of the current age, so it's pretty much obvious I picked them.
Well, in my opinion, I would rather avoid harming civilians. But if you were in the terrorist shoes, you wouldn't
fight head on with a full-frontial force of an army. Chances are you are going to lose. As I said, they use other
tactical means to get what they want. They shake the sidelines of an army, they get them when they are least expected,
they spy. They rely on the environment, and since there is a lot less people in the group to order, you gain more
control on tactics.
Terrorists don't nessesarily harm civilians. As I said, it all depends on what type of terrorists. If you think
that all terrorists are evil, but justify that with when terrorists harms and involves innocent lives, and ALSO takes in
the fact that terrorists are cowards since they can't fight face-to-face, well, some of your justification shoots
back onto you.
Hezabollah, they have as advanced weapons as the Israelis, and they aren't afraid to fight Israel head on, yet they are labelled terrorists, your 3rd point, gone. Well, the 2nd point I can't argue with. But still, even normal foot soldiers involves civilians. And theres no point arguing the 1st point. Mao Zedong, he was actually labelled a terrorist to the then chinese government. Now, chinese people call him a matyr. Other countries may think otherwise, but Mao helped China from the aftermath of World War II, he sustained and managed to stop the economic crisis, and brought china back on its feet, and now china has one of the most strongest armies in the world. It can't be good on other democratic nations, but to them, it helped their nation get back on its feet.
Right now, I'm not arguing directly against you. I just want you to clarify your points abit more, and make sure your ideas are justified with all your points. And try to avoid using the vulgar language.
Have a think about that as well.
I think that almost everyone will fight for his convictions. I think that viktorvonrussia is right to point out that the difference between a terrorist and everyone else is that terrorists tend to specifically target civilians. It is not their convictions that make them a terrorist, it is their methods.
There will inevitably be civilian casualties in any war. But that is not the point. The point is were the civilian casualties intended?
Hezabollah can be labelled terrorist because they fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities for no purpose other than to inflict harm. Whereas Israel distributes flyers to warn Lebanese people to evacuate before they strike. Make no mistake though, I do not condone the loss of life, whatever the reason.
"Human Rights Watch stated on 18 July that "Hezbollah's attacks [on Haifa] were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes."" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
Israel can be said to be going overboard in her response in the current Israel-Lebanon conflict but others have pointed out that it can be seen as good military strategy to hit back harder than you are hit in order to deter future attacks. However, I won't go as far as to judge who is justified and who is not, for I know little about what is really happening.
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Quote by ChronicXWell, in my opinion, I would rather avoid harming civilians. But if you were in the terrorist shoes, you wouldn't fight head on with a full-frontial force of an army. Chances are you are going to lose. As I said, they use other tactical means to get what they want. They shake the sidelines of an army, they get them when they are least expected, they spy. They rely on the environment, and since there is a lot less people in the group to order, you gain more control on tactics.
Terrorists don't nessesarily harm civilians. As I said, it all depends on what type of terrorists. If you think that all terrorists are evil, but justify that with when terrorists harms and involves innocent lives, and ALSO takes in the fact that terrorists are cowards since they can't fight face-to-face, well, some of your justification shoots back onto you.
Again, when I say that terrorists are wrong to kill civilians, I emphasize that terrorists will specifically target
civilians. To my knowledge, military forces never intend to kill civilians. Yes, they do sometimes kill civilians, but
it is either an accident or not their objective. While it's still horrible, I think it's more forgivable than
doing so on purpose. And to be clear, I call terrorists cowards because they resort to attacking civilians instead of
going face-to-face with the military, not simply because they don't fight face-to-face. For example, I don't
consider the American Revolutionists to be terrorists (unless someone can give me evidence to the contrary), but they
used guerrila tactics to fight the British army.
Quote by ChronicXHezabollah, they have as advanced weapons as the Israelis, and they aren't afraid to fight Israel head on, yet they are labelled terrorists, your 3rd point, gone. Well, the 2nd point I can't argue with. But still, even normal foot soldiers involves civilians. And theres no point arguing the 1st point. Mao Zedong, he was actually labelled a terrorist to the then chinese government. Now, chinese people call him a matyr. Other countries may think otherwise, but Mao helped China from the aftermath of World War II, he sustained and managed to stop the economic crisis, and brought china back on its feet, and now china has one of the most strongest armies in the world. It can't be good on other democratic nations, but to them, it helped their nation get back on its feet.
Well, Persecom01 cleared up the whole issue of Hezabollah for me. About Chairman Mao: I'm not sure he can be
labeled a terrorist at all. Terrorism by definition is an unlawful act. I'm pretty sure that everything Mao did, he
had the authority to do. While there were things that he did that weren't exactly benevolent, it didn't make
him a terrorist.
Oh, and about my vulgar language. I apologize for it, but I can't express my feelings towards some things (like Hitler and the Nazis) without using less than civil language.
"It is especially important to encourage unorthodox thinking when the situation is critical: At such moments every new word and fresh thought is more precious than gold. Indeed, people must not be deprived of the right to think their own thoughts. "
-Boris Yeltsin
Those pussies think that by killing people, they will please there crack whore fuking gods & recieve a piece of so-called heaven when they die.
Well, like I said, I'm only going to judge terrorists from their motives. Mao Zedong was classified a terrorist before he arrived in power, because he was part of a guerilla organisation to overthrow the them democratic chinese government.
Well, as for Persocom's comment:
Quote by Persocom01
Israel can be said to be going overboard in her response in the current Israel-Lebanon conflict but others have pointed out that it can be seen as good military strategy to hit back harder than you are hit in order to deter future attacks. However, I won't go as far as to judge who is justified and who is not, for I know little about what is really happening.
That kinda really backfires what you stated. Israel did attack civil airport and food supply into Lebanon. Israel has invaded a country who wasn't directly involved in the whole conflict, that's what I think. Right now, some of the the fellow lebanese-australians, who is one of my friends were in danger because of that. He went to lebanese because his grandfather died there. Now they just arrived back in Australia.
I just think that fighting face-to-face is as bad, or good, as using terrorist methods, depends on their motives. A country for self-defence is good, if it is used SOLELY for self-defense. But the whole fighting thing, well, I'm just not gonna blame the terrorists more than the proper military that challenged the humanitarian rights.
I think the reasons that motivate a terrorsist to do anything are the same for any person to do anything.
1) The person believes that if they do not take action, no one will.
2) Propaganda can make even friends turn against each other. For example, rumors that innocent civilians are being
killed by soldiers is enough to motivate people into action.
3) Ambition and Choice. Perhaps by your death, you can cause a revolution.
religion
Anime lover & PSP owner
Bush
Hate.
Mene, mene, tekel, parsin
Quote by krow666Bush
Terrorism existed before Bush and will exist after them. I don't see why you even bothered posting that.
<><><>
On the other hand, I do believe the real issue is the targetting of civilians. Take Iraq, it seems to me far more attacks target random civilians than the military or officials or the army they say they want to leave. How can this help them achieve their goal, other than making the whole country afraid of them?
Of course it is more complicated than this, but I recall once reading some years ago (before 9/11 even) about one group of muslim terrorists who were questioned on the matter of killing people who have nothing to do with their ambition. The basic response is they believe it is not their fault. In their beliefs if a person dies they were "meant" to die, and thus they are not responsible, and it is good as long as it furthers their goal (or at least furthers it in their eyes). How this belief can exist side by side with all the vendetta killing and rage against the western world killing their people (justified or not) is beyond me, but it is an interesting thing to consider.
for fun
terrorist: make someones wife a widow making children orphans hurt people mentally anything that pleases them
What I hate is the thin line between terrorists and governments, sometimes.
page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 33 total items
Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.
