Might is right? So terrorism should work?
Terrorism: Good Strategy or Crime against humanity?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Might is right? So terrorism should work?
Yes, ultimately, might makes right. Especially in the arena of international relations. If the Nazi's had won WW2, for instance, Hitler would be considered a hero rather than one of the most evil men to ever walk the planet. But that doesn't mean terrorism should work. Terrorism is a strategy of the weak, not the strong.
But terrorism could be used to make the strong weak. Which would then decrease their might. So would it be a legitimate strategy if you have a trillion dollar army to fight against? After all, history shows us that nothing brings down might as much as overextending its capacity to sustain itself.
When has terrorism ever worked? It has a huge PR problem. Look at Iraq. The terrorists once had free reign there, but the people became disgusted by them and sided with the Americans. Terrorism is, ultimately, a self defeating strategy because any winning strategy requires the support of the people; and targeting women and children is simply not the way to engender that support. Can it hurt the enemy? Yes. But each blow a terrorist strikes is also a blow against himself.
Iraq never had any terrorists, not in all the years that Saddam reigned, now its a recruiting haven. People have joined more militant groups in Iraq in the last five years than in the 500 before that. They've beaten the LTTE [which is employed in terror tactics since the 70s] in suicide bombings. So, it apparently seems to be pernicious enough that people will consider it a viable option. Long enough for the US to remain there for several years, or if it collapses [as it will, in the next decade], to become a recruitment ground for the next decade, creating more and more "enemies" to fight against. So, not a self defeating strategy, but a self fulfilling one.
He's a terrorist, the highest form of civil disobedience, you think he cares about consequences?
He's a terrorist, the highest form of civil disobedience, you think he cares about consequences?
And he didn't have any other forms of dissent, either! Whenever someone did something he didn't like, he killed whole villages and entire families!
See? Sadman knew how to treat terrorists! The Israelis should maybe learn that lesson, huh?
Baron Max
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Saddam used to execute terrorists...now Iraq is a breeding ground for them.
When has terrorism ever worked? During the american revolution...the founders were considered terrorists by the British.
The Americans never resorted to terrorism in the revolution. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it.
Baron Max
Sure. They revolted against the British.
No, they were Patriots weren't they.
No terrorism involved, though. We used an army against their army, plain and simple.
Baron Max
Army? You mean illegal insurgents? You were under British law, remember?
Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Yup, it fits.
Baron Max: "The Americans never resorted to terrorism in the revolution."
Atrocities are a fact of all wars, even ours. Google up "Bloody Ban" Tarleton. I live a few miles from Cherry Valley, New York. Google up what happened 'round here 230 years back. Check also just down the road, check in Schenectady, and learn what happened there. Learn all about the "indian fighting" that went on in the colonies and beyond, and you can learn what they're still teaching inThe School of the Americas WHINSEC.
Atrocities are a fact of all wars, even ours. Google up "Bloody Ban" Tarleton. I live a few miles from Cherry Valley, New York. Google up what happened 'round here 230 years back. Check also just down the road, check in Schenectady, and learn what happened there. Learn all about the "indian fighting" that went on in the colonies and beyond, and you can learn what they're still teaching in
Insurgents? Yeah, but we didn't resort to terrorism ...the use of deadly force or coercion through violence against civilians. The American insurgents fought the British armies .....NOT any civilians!
Baron Max
Washington burned down 20 villages, I believe. Thats why the Iroquois call the POTUS town destroyer or devourer of villages, even to this date. Bet they never thought it would apply to all of them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon's_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon's_Rebellion
More allegations and accusations without legal, substantive evidence, Hype? How did I know you'd do that? ...LOL!
Baron Max
Actually, SAM, they did that often! But burning down villages isn't the same thing as killing all the people in terrorist acts. Hell, we used to burn down villages in Vietnam that housed Viet Cong fighters ...but we didn't burn the villagers with it! ...LOL!
Baron Max
Sure. And you knew that, SAM, why act surprised? And it was sanctioned by the South Vietnamese government.
Baron Max