Is terrorism an effective way to advance one cause?

[DarcSkies777]

well, in fairness, there IS a difference between a bomb not aimed at civilians that accidentally kills them and a bomb that INTENTIONALLY targets civilians

I dont think the US has intentionally targeted innocents directly but surely have targeted them indirectly. Not caring if you kill 50 civilians to get one guy that MIGHT be hiding in a particular apartment building is just as bad (in my view).

Obama just stopped that practice of just Predator Droning the shit out of places before you know what the civilian casualties will be.

"hey we were aiming at the guy next door" doesnt mean much to Muhammad Al Shaheed or whatever who simply sees his dead Mother as an Act of American terrorism against Muslims.

but there IS a difference.

...just not a huge one.

 

[janklow]

I dont think the US has intentionally targeted innocents directly but surely have targeted them indirectly. Not caring if you kill 50 civilians to get one guy that MIGHT be hiding in a particular apartment building is just as bad (in my view).

i agree it's bad, although i'm still going to split hairs in that it's not a choice between "intentionally killing civilians" and "killing civilians intentionally, but for a greater good." sometimes it IS accidental.

Obama just stopped that practice of just Predator Droning the shit out of places before you know what the civilian casualties will be.

actually, this is not accurate: under McChrystal, drone strikes have actually INCREASED. what he's big on cutting back on are the more conventional airstrikes, which help cause the civilian casualties.

"hey we were aiming at the guy next door" doesnt mean much to Muhammad Al Shaheed or whatever who simply sees his dead Mother as an Act of American terrorism against Muslims.

true. and it's a very good reason to take care in using drone strikes or bombings or what have you. but from the perspective where you know the civilian deaths to be accidental, it's unfair to say that's the EXACT same thing as intentionally killing civilians.

 

[DarcSkies777]

Fair enough. And I should have said he drew back on the CIA drone strikes because they didnt get them cleared with him before they attacked. I erred when I implied that it was drone strikes period. My bad.

Otherwise, fair enough on your other points. But if Iran launched a drone strike to kill the guy next door to me and my 10 year old daughter (that I dont have BTW lol) got killed. I wouldnt give a fuck how sorry they were about it and "we didnt mean to" wouldnt make me scream "Death to Iran!" any less loudly.

 

[one_manshow]

Janklow your reasoning makes no sense at all.

 

[Alkindus]

i agree it's bad, although i'm still going to split hairs in that it's not a choice between "intentionally killing civilians" and "killing civilians intentionally, but for a greater good." sometimes it IS accidental.

actually, this is not accurate: under McChrystal, drone strikes have actually INCREASED. what he's big on cutting back on are the more conventional airstrikes, which help cause the civilian casualties.

true. and it's a very good reason to take care in using drone strikes or bombings or what have you. but from the perspective where you know the civilian deaths to be accidental, it's unfair to say that's the EXACT same thing as intentionally killing civilians.

Intentions always differ, I mean we have a group of people that recieve heavy training using the greatest weapons on the planet, trained to kill. the military has always fought against innocent people that was the case during rome and now as well. saying they are not intentionally killing innocents is like saying war is peacefull....hell what is the difference between a brainwashed soldier and a brain washed extremist? one drops fucking napalm/cluster bombs in 'residantial areas' causing 'colletaral' damage, the other blows himself up in 'residential areas' causing 'innocent victims'. they both might feel they are doing it for the greater cause....both might feel those innocents aren't innocent. Never lose your insight jank, you probably know some us soldiers and feel their intentions are good/are great fellas, you forgot that those they are fighting could be cool dudes with 'noble' intentions as well. perception is key

 

[janklow]

But if Iran launched a drone strike to kill the guy next door to me and my 10 year old daughter (that I dont have BTW lol) got killed. I wouldnt give a fuck how sorry they were about it and "we didnt mean to" wouldnt make me scream "Death to Iran!" any less loudly.

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.

Janklow your reasoning makes no sense at all.

given how you're not referring to anything specific, what doesn't seem to make sense is this post.

the military has always fought against innocent people that was the case during rome and now as well.

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.

saying they are not intentionally killing innocents is like saying war is peacefull

this analogy doesn't work, because you can clearly NOT kill innocent people in wartime. especially in the context we're talking about.

....hell what is the difference between a brainwashed soldier and a brain washed extremist? one drops fucking napalm/cluster bombs in 'residantial areas' causing 'colletaral' damage, the other blows himself up in 'residential areas' causing 'innocent victims'.

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.

 

[plocc]

The Boston Tea Partywas a terrorist act. The reality is that it has its place. Freedom is not free.

 

[bbwthick23]

the word terrorism itself is a somewhat difficult word to use. remember it all depends on what side of the fight you are on.

 

[fiat_money]

Somehow I missed this response.

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 OMG 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

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.

 

[janklow]

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.

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 OMG 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.

 

[fiat_money]

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 OMG 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.

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 kill 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.

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?

 

[janklow]

...it does nothing whatsoever to disprove my point.

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?

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, 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.

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.

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.

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?

weird arguments about them flood the internet.

 

[fiat_money]

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.

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).

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.

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".

 

[janklow]

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).

you're saying this as if the US government had made no statements ever before implying that Japan should surrender.

also, are we saying that cities who had been bombed before had no warning they might be bombed again?

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".

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?

 

[nathan57]

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

 

[And Step]

Ask the Native Americans.

 

[rav098]

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.

 

[The_Jackal]

Bump. Does it still hold true in 2016 that terrorism is effective? On a local and global level

 

[rodneyskinner]

Answer how did the Jews take back Israel? The King David Hotel Bombing anyone.

 

[zzombie]

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