the americans did not draft the constitution.
one must remember famous terrorists. gerry adams, nelson mandella, ghandi, the suffragettes, the french resistance, the mujahaden in afghanistan, the fighting in nepal.
if done correctly and performed like normal military action is dictated with the preservation of civillian life and destruction of military targets in an urban geurrilla environment is there a problem?
That's basically my stance on that. No real good can come from terrorism, because by its very nature whatever ends come from it came about through violence and intimidation.Originally Posted by Behold the Void
I mean, I understand that whomever can hate America, but do you really want to side with the Iraqi insurgents who behead our soldiers in Allah's name?That's not terrorism.
blowing up military convoys, killing heads of state, lobbing a few grenades into barracks, mortaring military airstrips. killing a few more leaders and minister/senators. i would think that was terrorism.
Not necessarily. Sounds more like war to me. I mean, just look at the definition of terrorism. There is a difference between revolution and terrorism. Just because the other side might call it terrorism doesn't make it so.
so is there blowing up of military convoys and personell in iraq, war or terrorism?
Last edited by Cloud No.9; 09-05-2005 at 09:27 PM.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here, but the underground Iraqi fighters against Americans aren't terrorists (currently), no.
okay just so we're cleared up for any other debate on such actions.
Ok, what the hell is wrong with you? Nelson Mandella, Ghandi are considered terrorists? From what I know, didn't both use NONVIOLENCE for their causes? Terrorists rely on terror, and some of the "terrorists" you listed can not be terrorists at all. You LOSE, GOOD DAY sir!
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
actually mandella was in (i think he led it) an organisation which had a quite nasty habit of blowing up women and children.
ghandhi was labeled a terrorist by the british government at the time.
Just going to comment on two "famous terrorists" here.
First of all, Gerry Adams. What has he achieved of any worth other than helping to create a climate of mass fear in Northern Ireland and many hundreds, if not thousands of families mourning loved ones?
As for the Suffragettes, (this is in Britain, I don't know about America) in my opinion they actually delayed women getting the vote, as the government were likely to give it to them anyway, but they couldn't be seen as giving into these tactics as it would mean anyone who wanted anything would start smashing shop windows and blowing up empty property (The 1910's equivalent of terrorist attacks). It was the lobbying and persuading of MP by the non-violent supporters of the cause that enabled women to become franchised in Britain, not the violent supporters.
gerry adams helped bring about the good friday agreement and peace in northern ireland.
and the suffragettes gained the vote from the war.
Last edited by Cloud No.9; 09-05-2005 at 09:59 PM.
Really? Well that changes everything rofl xDthe americans did not draft the constitution.
Freedom in Northern Ireland? I'm confused, were the people there unwilling slaves or something?
If they hadn't used terrorist tactics I'm confident the vote would have been gained before the war.
Anyway, this is a thread about the positives of terrorism, so I'll say that terrorism can be an effective measure to bring about radical and important changes (Although those who are successful are called "Freedom fighters") in some circumstances, like with Gandhi or the French Resistance, but in some, like the suffragettes, it only serves to make a bad situation worse.
I don't see terrorism as a means to solve anything. Terrorist even though they may be fighting for what they believe is the best for their country do not represent the country at all. They have no allegiance to that country's military therefore they are not protected by the Geneva Convention. This is translated into... the moment you are taken as prisoner? Depending on who's captured you, it could be absolute hell. And there is noone to save you. Law is not on your side.
Terrorism doesn't utilize smart military planning either. Americans only attack mosques or hospitals when they have fluent information that supplies for enemies or arms are being stored there. Terrorist attack and us civilians or the public as shields to carry out their demands. Which eventually fails because with the no negotiation policy in tact. People die, and they do too.
I don't respect it and I've yet to see it successful.
the geneva convention while it does not apply to terrorists the human rights acts do.
Posting Permissions
