what's GOOD about terrorism?(for once)

[Skyblade]

Actually, as they are not wearing uniforms, they are engaged in espionage, but I don't think that they're terrorists. Terrorists are the ones who target and kill innocent civilians.

[Cloud No.9]

guerrila warfare doesn't use uniforms anyway. makes the whole thing easier. so murdering us soldiers is perfectly fine?

[Skyblade]

guerrila warfare doesn't use uniforms anyway. makes the whole thing easier. so murdering us soldiers is perfectly fine?

Sure it does. Nothing about guerilla warfare specifies that uniforms are absent. It's all about hit and run tactics, surprise attacks, and not staying for a slugging match because you can't match the enemy's firepower.

[DMKA]

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

[Skyblade]

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

You want to argue quotes? Fine.

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country."

Terrorists (most notably suicide bombers), can't win, so they can't be patriots. Happy?

[Cloud No.9]

nelson did.

lots of deaths have created change in history. william wallace for example. (i hate scottish history). sands in ireland changed alot.

[Skyblade]

nelson did.

lots of deaths have created change in history. william wallace for example. (i hate scottish history). sands in ireland changed alot.

Odd, no one called DMKA on the stupidity of his quote, but I get called on mine.

The fact is, neither was very valid. I was fighting an invalid quote with an invalid quote. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a patriot, but as that point had already been made, and DMKA ignored it, I decided to try a different tactic.

[wall]

Hi guys, terrorism in my opinion brings about little positive effects if any at all. Thus I would vehemently oppose to it in no matter what the cause may be. But the real question isn't whether terrorism is good or bad, it's been pretty well established that it's the latter. Rather we should ask "Is terrorism justified?" Let's take a look at a few things.


Definition of terrorism

There's been a confusion so far on deliberating what qualifies as a terror organisation, is it freedom fighters? or simply people who kill civilians? The fact of the matter is that in many cases the line between fanatic terror and revolutionary terrorism is blurred. Americans and the Western world is more famaliar with the former, as they've seen in Columbine or Mc Veign and it is humanly to affiliate such domestic crime with the new threat they face... i.e. 9/11.

The distinguishing factor between these two cases is the fact that extremist islam is driven by an ideology, and is comparable to other organisations such as GAM in Indonesia, Checnyians in Russia and even enviornmental terrorsim. So what we must recognise is the distinction between the ideology and the action. Extremist Islam is NOT terrorism but the way JI and Al Qaeda profess this ideology is a terrorist act. The intifada in Palestine is an ideology, and Hammas suicide squad is the terrorist act. Thus i'd conclude that terrorism is the action of casuing a tangible harm(not necessarily loss of life, mind you) in an attempt to express a certain ideology.

JUSTIFICATION FOR TERRORISM

This concept by no means hold true in a general context. The evaluation of whether violence in the name of expression varies in the immediate climate in which such an act occurs. Let's move away from the political comforts of America, Europe or any 1st world nation for that matter, and try to understand situations in lesser developed nations. Countries like Zimbabwe, where Zanu-PF rules with an iron fist, or provinces like Aceh where violence is tolerated in the name of liberation. What we see in these places is a lack of avenue for citizens to express their disatisfation towards the government, where pillers of human dignity is ignored and human rights distorted as a Western philosophy unfit for the local citizens.

That's where modern terrorism is bred, and they have darn good reasons to practise it. Because tangible harm directly affects the economy of a nation and let's be realistic guys, foreign nations really don't give a rats ass about the oppression in certain countries unless it's of economic value to them. look at Burma and how the West has never really been bothered to bring about some kind of a change. But that's where terrorist attacks act as a beacon that something is seriously wrong and sends a wake up call not only to the government but also to the rest of the world. In a case of oppressed groups of people, terrorism is justified.

IS TERRORISM RIGHT THEN?

Personally i think not so but that's another story to tell another day.
Btw while i'm at it, it's called rules of engagment and must be practised in times of war. And regarding America's stand on terrorism i've got two things to point out.

"Operation Condor"

"Bay of Pigs Invasion"

Cheers.

[ThroneofDravaris]

Odd, no one called DMKA on the stupidity of his quote, but I get called on mine.

Technically, didn't you pull him up?

[Strider]

Violence only begets more violence. Some solution.

[udsuna]

Well, if we're in for more-or-less invalid quotes... how about "Liberty is a fickle mistress who must be courted upon the bodies of her suitors."

I don't know who said that one, but I like it. It contradicts the whole "violence begets violence" B.S. well enough, I think. Violence ends the moment one side gets the message and quits ****ing with the other side.

Oh, and terrorism certainly DOES work. Or did you not get the news that Israel is pulling out of Palistine?

[DMKA]

Odd, no one called DMKA on the stupidity of his quote, but I get called on mine.

That's because YOU did...funny of you to mention "stupidity".

And my quote isn't stupid...it's true. You just don't like it.

[bipper]

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country."

I think what sky was saying, is that he did thought your quote was in fact, not applicatable. He shot out one that met somthing different, but had as much berring to the subject as yours. I did see the irony. I mus say I do agree. A terrorist fights a war with terror, while a patriot has a wide range of weapons to use. They can have a war (The revolutionary WAR) or they can fly plains into buildings to scare citizens and spread panic accross the country.

There is deffinatley a difference between a patriot, and a terrorist. If you are gonna fight, use better weapons than terror.

Bipper

[Skyblade]

"The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is who wins."

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country."

I think what sky was saying, is that he did thought your quote was in fact, not applicatable. He shot out one that met somthing different, but had as much berring to the subject as yours. I did see the irony. I mus say I do agree. A terrorist fights a war with terror, while a patriot has a wide range of weapons to use. They can have a war (The revolutionary WAR) or they can fly plains into buildings to scare citizens and spread panic accross the country.

There is deffinatley a difference between a patriot, and a terrorist. If you are gonna fight, use better weapons than terror.

Bipper

Yay! Thanks for explaining that Bipper. Here, have a cookie.

The point is, DMKA, that your quote was invalid, incorrect, and idiotic (Whee! Alliteration!). As I tried to point out (and, thanks to Bipper, possibly succeeded in pointing out), is that quoting someone else doesn't make you correct. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a patriot, besides who's victorious. It is also possible to win a war by dying for your country, as long as you take enough of the enemy with you (of course, that goes into the second part of the quote, which I didn't bother to put in). The fact is, neither of our quotes were valid, yet they are both well known and have endured for a long time. That doesn't mean that they're always true.

[DMKA]

The point is, DMKA, that your quote was invalid, incorrect, and idiotic (Whee! Alliteration!). As I tried to point out (and, thanks to Bipper, possibly succeeded in pointing out), is that quoting someone else doesn't make you correct. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a patriot, besides who's victorious. It is also possible to win a war by dying for your country, as long as you take enough of the enemy with you (of course, that goes into the second part of the quote, which I didn't bother to put in). The fact is, neither of our quotes were valid, yet they are both well known and have endured for a long time. That doesn't mean that they're always true.

And you just, once again, reinforced what I just said: my quote was true and you just didn't like it.