Is terrorism an effective way to advance one cause?

[kingblaze84]

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.

The Israelis would not have been able to keep and hold the land if it wasn't for Israeli soldiers and settlers using terrorism and hostile acts against civilians over and over again. Israeli soldiers and high ranking military officials have admitted repeatedly that if it wasn't for the terrorizing of Palestinian civilians, they would not have been able to hold the land they wanted for their state. You can pretend Israeli soldiers didn't TARGET Palestinian civilians, but historical records show they did.

There are literally hundreds of links of this, including from American officials admitting this as well.

What you described is not terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence used to bring about political change IT'S USED to bring oppoents to the bargining table. The IDF KILLING INNOCENTS is bad but it does not fit the definition of terrorism in the pure sense

A truly horrible post from you. The IDF did use terrorism to bring about political change, the political reality of Israel being able to dominate and rule its neighbors in a way so fierce and terrifying that many Palestinians would become refugees and chased away from their homes. Allowing the Israelis to bring in more Jewish settlers to colonize the land even more, and worse.

israel does not rule it's neighbors. DOES Israel rule Egypt,Jordan or Lebanon???? The palestinians do not have a state yet so they do not qualify as neighbors. The land in west bank is still in political limbo because it does not really belong to anyone except who can hold it.

is the west bank and gaza part of a nation??? that has not been settled yet. The palestinians were chased away because they lost the fucking wars

Israel definitely rules over the Palestinians, they have an air and land embargo on them. They control what comes to their shores, and even the land they hold. They also are in control of Palestinian water, which they steal from constantly.

And you are once again overlooking how Israeli soldiers PURPOSELY bombed out Palestinian civilian areas and machine gunned Palestinian areas that were entirely filled with civilians and farmland. It wasn't just Palestinians losing wars, it was also them having their children and families be burned and shot down in 1948. Once enough Palestinians were driven away, Jewish settlers took over much of the land and farms. This is firmly established in history.

 

[kingblaze84]

Hitler 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.

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.

You don't know what terrorism is

Ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized, silly fool.

They got conquered there is a difference

Another troll post from you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

In its broadest sense, terrorism is any act designed to cause terror.[1]

In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[13]



--American soldiers and settlers murdered innocent men, women and children during the Native American battles to intimidate them into giving up their land and resources. Terror tactics were used repeatedly, and I emphasize the innocent people American soldiers often gunned down, even when many were not fighting back. Native Americans have wrote books on the TERRORISM American soldiers inflicted on them. They noted how TERRIFIED their children and others were of American govt and soldiers, and that terror is one reason the Native Americans eventually gave up and lost. Read up some more and sound less ignorant on history next time, k?

Only idiots use wide definition so that they can stuff anything they want to under a meaning under your meaning every act of violence is terrorism which is fucking stupid

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.

The Israelis would not have been able to keep and hold the land if it wasn't for Israeli soldiers and settlers using terrorism and hostile acts against civilians over and over again. Israeli soldiers and high ranking military officials have admitted repeatedly that if it wasn't for the terrorizing of Palestinian civilians, they would not have been able to hold the land they wanted for their state. You can pretend Israeli soldiers didn't TARGET Palestinian civilians, but historical records show they did.

There are literally hundreds of links of this, including from American officials admitting this as well.

What you described is not terrorism. Terrorism is an act of violence used to bring about political change IT'S USED to bring oppoents to the bargining table. The IDF KILLING INNOCENTS is bad but it does not fit the definition of terrorism in the pure sense

To use terror is to TERRORIZE. To frighten and to intimidate. Israel, with direct American support, has been very successful using terrorism as a successful tool to succeed in its means. Just as Islamic State, American government and others have used terrorism successfully.

 

[zzombie]

if you cannot see the distinction between terrorism and outright conquest then i don't know what to say to you

 

[kingblaze84]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter-ror-ism

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

 

[zzombie]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter-ror-ism

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

another out of context cherry picked definition. why did you use the [2] definition because you know both 1 AND 3 are the proper in context meanings

 

[kingblaze84]

if you cannot see the distinction between terrorism and outright conquest then i don't know what to say to you

The United States of America used terrorism and terror tactics to achieve its goal of dominating and taking over the land of Native Americans. A fact that you hilariously are trying to deny, even though Native Americans have wrote books on the TERROR that was inflicted upon them. I can bring up several books that call what Americans did to the Natives terrorism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter-ror-ism

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

 

[zzombie]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

 

[kingblaze84]

A Native American said it best after 9/11.......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2349138

Tim Giago: Indian people Mark 500 years of Terrorism

The Indian people never knew what act of violence or terror would befall them from the invaders. But death did come. It came in the form of biological warfare when small pox tainted blankets were distributed to the unsuspecting victims.

It came to them from the muzzles of guns that did not distinguish between warriors, women, elders or children. It came to them in the ruthless name of Manifest Destiny, the American edict that proclaimed God as the purveyor of expansion Westward.

Indian people were often slaughtered like animals often while waving the American flag in pitiful efforts to convince their killers that they were not bad people.

At Wounded Knee in 1890, a slaughter took place that the white man often called the last great battle between Indians and the United States Army. It was not a battle. It was one of the last heinous acts of terror against innocent men, women and children.

 

[kingblaze84]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

 

[zzombie]

if you cannot see the distinction between terrorism and outright conquest then i don't know what to say to you

The United States of America used terrorism and terror tactics to achieve its goal of dominating and taking over the land of Native Americans. A fact that you hilariously are trying to deny, even though Native Americans have wrote books on the TERROR that was inflicted upon them. I can bring up several books that call what Americans did to the Natives terrorism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter-ror-ism

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

I would never deny that america conquered the native americans but i would not categorized it as terrorism, terrorism is used when you cannot win an outright military conflict. At no time in american history do i believe such a time existed where the usa could not have won an out right all out war against native americans.

Of course the native american felt terror but as you are using the word every war was terrorism but terrorism is not just the afflicting of fear it's the afflicting of fear to get your enemy to do what you want because you cannot over come him through use of direct force

 

[zzombie]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

 

[kingblaze84]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.

 

[kingblaze84]

if you cannot see the distinction between terrorism and outright conquest then i don't know what to say to you

The United States of America used terrorism and terror tactics to achieve its goal of dominating and taking over the land of Native Americans. A fact that you hilariously are trying to deny, even though Native Americans have wrote books on the TERROR that was inflicted upon them. I can bring up several books that call what Americans did to the Natives terrorism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter-ror-ism

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

I would never deny that america conquered the native americans but i would not categorized it as terrorism, terrorism is used when you cannot win an outright military conflict. At no time in american history do i believe such a time existed where the usa could not have won an out right all out war against native americans.

Of course the native american felt terror but as you are using the word every war was terrorism but terrorism is not just the afflicting of fear it's the afflicting of fear to get your enemy to do what you want because you cannot over come him through use of direct force

You admit the Native Americans felt terror. Thanks for backing me up. The Americans used terrorism to make the Native Americans submit to American power. I have known Native Americans and they all have described American actions as terrorism.

 

[zzombie]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.

what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.

and that's the main point i am trying to make

 

[kingblaze84]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.

what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.

and that's the main point i am trying to make

The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.

Thread question answered.

 

[zzombie]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.

what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.

and that's the main point i am trying to make

The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.

Thread question answered.

The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans.

 

[kingblaze84]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.

what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.

and that's the main point i am trying to make

The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.

Thread question answered.

The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans.

The Native Americans have answered this question already. Their opinion matters too.

 

[zzombie]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.

what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.

and that's the main point i am trying to make

The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.

Thread question answered.

The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans.

The Native Americans have answered this question already. Their opinion matters too.

No on opinions matter all that matters is the facts

 

[kingblaze84]

Examples Word Origin

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.

the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

#2 is really the result of terrorism

# 2 speaks for itself.

And once again, ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized. They have told historians they were. Case closed. You can't re-write history, we all know what happened, they were terrorized beyond belief.

you are as simple as homer simpson

Blah blah blah. The Native Americans would laugh at how stupid you sound right now.

what do you expect the natives Americans to say??? they got obliterated and conquered or course they are going to say they got terrorized but that's just how they felt that does not mean the usa used terrorism as a battle strategy.

and that's the main point i am trying to make

The Native Americans should know what terrorism is, THEY WENT THROUGH IT. America ABSOLUTELY used terrorism as a battle strategy, there was no reason to murder innocent men, women and children during the campaigns except to terrorize the Natives into submission. Burning down whole villages that had nothing to do with the military campaigns was immoral and 100% terrorism to the fullest degree. The purpose was to terrorize the Natives into submission, and it eventually worked.

Thread question answered.

The question is not did the native americans feel terror WHILE fighting the "indian wars" the question is did the united states government use terrorism to defeat the native americans.

The Native Americans have answered this question already. Their opinion matters too.

No on opinions matter all that matters is the facts

And the FACT is Americans used terror tactics such as murdering innocent civilians in cold blood and burning entire villages to scare them and get them to submit.

America has been excellent at using terrorism to frighten people and getting them to submit historically. Native Americans and even White people have written books on how America has used terrorism historically, especially against the Natives. You can't re-write history, the facts are clear as day.

 

[janklow]

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.

killing innocent people and taking resources can be called a lot of other negative stuff, which you should use instead, because what's going to happen here is to insist on using the broadest possible use of the term "terrorism," stuffing everything into it, and making it meaningless.

there has to be a distinction between what you're complaining about the US doing and what you're complaining about, say, the Israelis doing.

and you're proving it with this:

Ask the Native Americans if they were terrorized

guess what: if someone drops a bomb on you in the most upstanding, morally justified war, you're going to say you were terrorized. but now you guys have had a page of argument about this instead of an actual discussion of any topic.

and the best part? because you're insisting on this ultra-broad term, we have to point out that Native Americans used terror tactics, because there are documented cases of them killing innocent men, women and children, and taking their resources. ask those people if they were TERRORIZED. hooray, terrorism versus terrorism, and the word is meaningless!

...or we could stop pretending every damn thing should be called "terrorism" all the damn time