Is terrorism an effective way to advance one cause?
Options
Comments
-
yeah, on a personal level it doesn't get better unless you somehow can balance why it happened with the actual event ... which i imagine the average guy can't really do.DarcSkies777 wrote: »But if Iran launched a drone strike to ? the guy next door to me and my 10 year old daughter (that I dont have BTW lol) got killed. I wouldnt give a ? how sorry they were about it and "we didnt mean to" wouldnt make me scream "Death to Iran!" any less loudly.
given how you're not referring to anything specific, what doesn't seem to make sense is this post.one_manshow wrote: »Janklow your reasoning makes no sense at all.
either you're claiming some argument about the military personnel of the world being innocent of the crimes of their nations that they fight to defend (which i doubt) or you're claiming military forces throughout history have ONLY fought innocent people, which is just ridiculous.the military has always fought against innocent people that was the case during rome and now as well.
this analogy doesn't work, because you can clearly NOT ? innocent people in wartime. especially in the context we're talking about.saying they are not intentionally killing innocents is like saying war is peacefull
well, again, i did not draw the initial difference between those examples, but between someone who intentionally kills innocent victims and someone who does NOT.....hell what is the difference between a brainwashed soldier and a brain washed extremist? one drops ? ? /cluster bombs in 'residantial areas' causing 'colletaral' damage, the other blows himself up in 'residential areas' causing 'innocent victims'. -
The Boston Tea Partywas a terrorist act. The reality is that it has its place. Freedom is not free.
-
the word terrorism itself is a somewhat difficult word to use. remember it all depends on what side of the fight you are on.
-
Somehow I missed this response.
Surely if I am to call something "one of the largest single acts" of anything, I will only refer to individual events. Not an extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts, as those would be more of a series of attacks rather than one large attack. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because of the short duration of each attack, the total death toll, and notoriety.it's implied because it's the only bombing you mention. to continue:
the US conventionally bombed other cities in Japan (not to mention Germany) for the same reason. however, for some reason, you did the default internet outrage thing, which is to rage about the ? NUCLEAR BOMBINGS and not comment on the bombings that did the exact same thing you're complaining about while not being nuclear. this in turn implies your outrage is for effect (such as being a cool internet rebel hatin' on the US or being a cool internet rebel hatin' on nuclear weapons) rather than sincere -
this is not really a valid argument. let's use Tokyo, for example. was it bombed more than once? sure. however, we're really talking about the March raid (which was an individual event) that killed 100000+ or so people, surely including civilians, in a short period of time. and for that matter, your issue with the atomic bombings isn't how necessary they were or what they targeted, but how short their duration was? come on. if you're worried about civilian deaths, you're worried about civilian deaths. the fact that it took slightly longer to drop the bombs that burned Tokyo in March 1945 versus the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima is irrelevant ... and just highlights that this is all about the standard ? NUCLEAR internet noise.fiat_money wrote: »Somehow I missed this response.Surely if I am to call something "one of the largest single acts" of anything, I will only refer to individual events. Not an extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts, as those would be more of a series of attacks rather than one large attack. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because of the short duration of each attack, the total death toll, and notoriety.
also, if you want to eliminate something like "coordinated strategic bombing efforts," you should eliminate the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because it's not like they were committed in a vacuum somehow. -
Although it is true that there were other attacks by the United States that rivaled or even surpassed the atomic bombings in death tolls, it does nothing whatsoever to disprove my point. I never said "the atomic bombings were the largest single acts of terrorism in the Earth's history", I said they were "probably one of the largest single acts of terrorism in the Earth's history", this means that there may be comparable acts which rival them. Furthermore, the March raid on Tokyo took hundreds of planes to carry out, for this reason, its impact on the world--in terms of terror--wasn't as big as that of the atomic bombings. Sure it was deadly, but it was also fully conceivable at the time that hundreds of planes could be used to ? many people. So despite its possibly winning in death tolls, due to what I perceived to be a lack in comparable terroristic impact, I chose not to use attacks such as the various Tokyo bombing raids as an example.this is not really a valid argument. let's use Tokyo, for example. was it bombed more than once? sure. however, we're really talking about the March raid (which was an individual event) that killed 100000+ or so people, surely including civilians, in a short period of time. and for that matter, your issue with the atomic bombings isn't how necessary they were or what they targeted, but how short their duration was? come on. if you're worried about civilian deaths, you're worried about civilian deaths. the fact that it took slightly longer to drop the bombs that burned Tokyo in March 1945 versus the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima is irrelevant ... and just highlights that this is all about the standard ? NUCLEAR internet noise.
also, if you want to eliminate something like "coordinated strategic bombing efforts," you should eliminate the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because it's not like they were committed in a vacuum somehow.
I never said I had an issue with the bombings or their durations, nor did I say I was "worried" about anyone's deaths.
Also, I said nothing of eliminating "something like 'coordinated strategic bombing efforts'", the terms I used were "extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts". This wording, unlike your partial quoting, implies that what is being referred to are several bombing efforts which took place over an extended period of time. It's not the same as two individual bombs being dropped mere days apart from each other.
For whatever reason, it seems you have something against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being referenced in a negative manner. Why is that? -
what disapproves your point is acting like they're special... unless it's all about them being nuclear. what's the objectionable part of the bombings that makes them terrorism in your eyes?fiat_money wrote: »...it does nothing whatsoever to disprove my point.
well, this is admittedly sort of subjective in that we don't know what's "more terrifying" to people out there, but i'm not convinced that the increased amount of planes involved somehow makes the bombings of Tokyo less terrifying.fiat_money wrote: »Furthermore, the March raid on Tokyo took hundreds of planes to carry out, for this reason, its impact on the world--in terms of terror--wasn't as big as that of the atomic bombings.
well, you did; this is the quote:fiat_money wrote: »Also, I said nothing of eliminating "something like 'coordinated strategic bombing efforts'", the terms I used were "extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts". This wording, unlike your partial quoting, implies that what is being referred to are several bombing efforts which took place over an extended period of time. It's not the same as two individual bombs being dropped mere days apart from each other.
"Not an extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts, as those would be more of a series of attacks rather than one large attack"
the March raid on Tokyo was, in fact, one large attack. a battle that involves a pile of tanks isn't a series of tank fights, it's one large attack. and again, it's weird to claim any raid is part of "coordinated strategic bombing efforts" and the atomic bombings were not when they were ALL carried out by the same air forces from the same nation against the same target nation.
weird arguments about them flood the internet.fiat_money wrote: »For whatever reason, it seems you have something against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being referenced in a negative manner. Why is that? -
After the two bombings, which were both unexpected--due to the lack of any warning which was given to other Japanese cities before bombing them--and devastating, the president of the United States conveyed this message to Japan "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.". This was textbook terrorism (the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion).what disapproves your point is acting like they're special... unless it's all about them being nuclear. what's the objectionable part of the bombings that makes them terrorism in your eyes?
well, this is admittedly sort of subjective in that we don't know what's "more terrifying" to people out there, but i'm not convinced that the increased amount of planes involved somehow makes the bombings of Tokyo less terrifying.
The March 10th bombing raid was preceded by another raid just 6 days prior, and was one of several bombing raids on Tokyo over an extended period of time (around 6 months). Hence the wording, "an extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts".well, you did; this is the quote:
"Not an extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts, as those would be more of a series of attacks rather than one large attack"
the March raid on Tokyo was, in fact, one large attack. a battle that involves a pile of tanks isn't a series of tank fights, it's one large attack. and again, it's weird to claim any raid is part of "coordinated strategic bombing efforts" and the atomic bombings were not when they were ALL carried out by the same air forces from the same nation against the same target nation. -
you're saying this as if the US government had made no statements ever before implying that Japan should surrender.fiat_money wrote: »After the two bombings, which were both unexpected--due to the lack of any warning which was given to other Japanese cities before bombing them--and devastating, the president of the United States conveyed this message to Japan "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.". This was textbook terrorism (the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion).
also, are we saying that cities who had been bombed before had no warning they might be bombed again?
the March 10th raid was one event. and again, if you're talking about the fact that bombing Tokyo more than once is part of "coordinated strategic bombing efforts," then we should be noting that ALL these bombings were "coordinated strategic bombing efforts." again, ALL carried out by the same air forces from the same nation against the same target nation. what removes the atomic bombings from that?fiat_money wrote: »The March 10th bombing raid was preceded by another raid just 6 days prior, and was one of several bombing raids on Tokyo over an extended period of time (around 6 months). Hence the wording, "an extended series of coordinated strategic bombing efforts". -
Terrorism has been around for as long as their have been people on earth. It is not a new experience. The only difference is that it is publicized and emphasized more these days - www.americaninquirer.com
-
Ask the Native Americans.
-
given the pattern of history it definitely is effective. the only thing that seems to seal the deal is who has the most firepower to win. once you win, you can damn near rewrite as you see fit.
-
Bump. Does it still hold true in 2016 that terrorism is effective? On a local and global level
-
Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
-
rodneyskinner wrote: »Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
jews took back israel because it was given to them and then they kicked arab ass to keep and expand it -
rodneyskinner wrote: »Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
Jews ain't take ? back tho. That's ome of main grievances they were given that land -
Israel used terrorism to take Palestinian land and uses terrorism currently to take more of it.
-
given the pattern of history it definitely is effective. the only thing that seems to seal the deal is who has the most firepower to win. once you win, you can damn near rewrite as you see fit.
Exactly. America has been pretty damn good at terrorism throughout history and look at all the land it has now. ? was actually inspired by America taking land from the Native Americans in the early 1900s, especially in the west. -
rodneyskinner wrote: »Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
jews took back israel because it was given to them and then they kicked arab ass to keep and expand it
Israel used terror tactics to get that Palestinian land in 1948, Israeli soldiers have admitted to throwing live grenades into civilian houses and businesses to drive them out. The Palestinians did not willingly leave until the soldiers fired live rounds into civilian homes and scared the rest away. Sounds like terrorism to me. -
The_Jackal wrote: »rodneyskinner wrote: »Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
Jews ain't take ? back tho. That's ome of main grievances they were given that land
Naw bra go read the read the history books. The Jews Terrorize the Palestinians and the British because they wanted sovereignty of the land. Even the take over of Israel in which they were to co rule was terrorism because it broke international brokered law and kicked people out of their homes who were legal deed owners. The United States blocked Argentina for doing the same thing. -
rodneyskinner wrote: »Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
jews took back israel because it was given to them and then they kicked arab ass to keep and expand it
Given to them by the RELIGIOUS NUTS. Who after the End of World War 2 saw no prophetic fulfillment of their endtime scripture pressured the president into supporting the nation state. That's right BABYLON THE GREAT created Israel. LOL. How does that work. It wasn't ? . It was preachers who's prophecies failed. Here's the funny thing. Israel will be the Minority in Israel in our lifetime. So they will have no choice but to relinquish power. And ? will turn his back on them then like he did in Masada. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »rodneyskinner wrote: »Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
jews took back israel because it was given to them and then they kicked arab ass to keep and expand it
Israel used terror tactics to get that Palestinian land in 1948, Israeli soldiers have admitted to throwing live grenades into civilian houses and businesses to drive them out. The Palestinians did not willingly leave until the soldiers fired live rounds into civilian homes and scared the rest away. Sounds like terrorism to me.
NO acts of terrorism forced the british to give the jews that land your post is based on a fallacy.
did the terrorist acts of the jews cause the british to give the jews that land?? no there were plans to give that land to decades before any jewish terrorist bombing. -
rodneyskinner wrote: »rodneyskinner wrote: »Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.
jews took back israel because it was given to them and then they kicked arab ass to keep and expand it
Given to them by the RELIGIOUS NUTS. Who after the End of World War 2 saw no prophetic fulfillment of their endtime scripture pressured the president into supporting the nation state. That's right BABYLON THE GREAT created Israel. LOL. How does that work. It wasn't ? . It was preachers who's prophecies failed. Here's the funny thing. Israel will be the Minority in Israel in our lifetime. So they will have no choice but to relinquish power. And ? will turn his back on them then like he did in Masada.
The British had plans to give that land away decades before any president had any major say so in the middle east. Zionism is very old it didn't start with the establishment of the modern state of Israel. Once again your hatred for christanity/religion/the ? of Abraham is showing and it's making you irrational again. ? cursed the entire nation of Israel years before masada.despite what DOU has been telling you america is not Babylon
America began it's support of Israel for the same reason we supported any number of nations during the cold war. A counter weight to the Soviets
Israel is committed to being a Jewish state so the Jews won't be a minority population. There will be genocidal war before that happens and the Arabs will most likely lose like they always do when they fight Israel. -
taking land from Native Americans was not terrorism.kingblaze84 wrote: »? was actually inspired by America taking land from the Native Americans in the early 1900s, especially in the west.
-
taking land from Native Americans was not terrorism.kingblaze84 wrote: »? was actually inspired by America taking land from the Native Americans in the early 1900s, especially in the west.
Um yes it was, Americans used terror tactics to help steal and take land from them. There are documented cases of American settlers and soldiers killing innocent men, women and children over and over again, and later on taking their land and resources.
