Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Mar 29th, 2010, 11:24 AM        Moscow Metro suicide bombings
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8592190.stm

Quote:
At least 38 people have been killed after two female suicide bombers blew themselves up on Moscow Metro trains in the morning rush hour, officials say.

President Dmitry Medvedev:

"We will continue operations against terrorists without compromises and to the end," he said.

Does anyone see that as an extremely stupid and morbid thing to say? Putin followed it up with something just plain disturbing:

"Terrorists will be destroyed."

Certainly not one to mince words. Terrorists; yes, words; no.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
10,000 Volt Ghost 10,000 Volt Ghost is offline
SKATASTIC
10,000 Volt Ghost's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Old Mar 29th, 2010, 11:32 AM       
I believe Putin could have found more appropriate words.
__________________
God speed you meddling kids.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 29th, 2010, 01:28 PM       
It makes sense, they increase or maintain their military action against the Chechens without attempting to resolve the issue peacefully and the Chechens will stop fighting back. It worked in Afghanistan for Russia and the United States.

Oh, wait...
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 12:46 AM       
Actually, call me a cynic, but I think it's working perfectly for them. America and Russia.

They keep people scared, their attention focused on a never ending war, willing to look the other way or actively support the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security, and no patriot would dare ask questions about anything.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 12:38 PM       
I wasn't talking about that aspect, I was clearly focusing on actually "destroying" terrorism. Which is impossible.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 12:52 PM       
Well fine then.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 01:12 PM       
Yeah, that's right.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Kitsunexus Kitsunexus is offline
Turrican't. :(
Kitsunexus's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 02:45 PM       
Terrorists WERE destroyed, that's kind of the point of suicide bombing.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 03:47 PM       
You're kind of an idiot.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Kitsunexus Kitsunexus is offline
Turrican't. :(
Kitsunexus's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 04:05 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
You're kind of an idiot.
Said the man with the Lady Gaga DOOM sig.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 04:11 PM       
1. I didn't say it, I typed it.

2. I don't listen to Lady Gaga but I'm not surprised that you do.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Dimnos Dimnos is offline
LOVES the tubal ligation!
Dimnos's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Baseball Town, TX
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 06:39 PM       
Im sure he has had that sig since before that tranny did whatever it is you are referring to.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esuohlim View Post
Exactly. Life's too short to not be ejaculating as often as possible
Reply With Quote
  #13  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 30th, 2010, 06:43 PM       
I'm assuming that they're lyrics in one of her songs or something. Apparently the phrase did not exist prior to then.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Old Mar 31st, 2010, 01:24 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Actually, call me a cynic, but I think it's working perfectly for them. America and Russia.

They keep people scared, their attention focused on a never ending war, willing to look the other way or actively support the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security, and no patriot would dare ask questions about anything.
I really don't understand your point? Is the russian government really the ones keeping people scared you think(I'm not subject to their media so I have no real idea)? My point is that the govt doesn't need to keep people in fear because they have legitmate reasons to be afriad provided by the chechen fighters. I'm pretty sure suicide bombings and schools being taken hostage will have that effect of frightening citizens. The Russian government hasn't made up these Chechen extremists or do you think they have? I don't even understand how "terrorists will be destroyed" is disturbing especially taken into context that it was said after two people blow themselves up on a subway! Unless you believe that one person's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter but I think its fair to say people who blow themselves up on subways to kill civilians are not legitmate freedom fighters. "We will not destroy those who blow up our civilians on subways and actually start a peace process with the chechen freedom fighters" sounds even more disturbing to me. I understand the russian govt will use these evnts in their favor but does that really take away from the seriousness of the situation? If I was a russian citizen I'd be pretty concerned about there being people technically within your own borders that are basically left to their own devices to continue planning and executing acts of violence against mostly civilians. I know the russian government isn't innocent in all of this but I'll never understand how anyone can side with people(no matter how bad their plight is or how much they have been taken advantage of by other groups) whose main form of resistance is to kill civilians . I am sure there are plenty of decent chechens out there who obviously should not become scape goats but I find it hard to understand that you wouldn't want your govt to try to prevent these people from commiting these types of crimes. And how is this even being compared to afghanstan? this is in what is internationally recognized as russia terroritory. I mean it sucks these people have been displaced and oppressed for so long but blowing up civilians and committing other acts of what most would call terrorism is a pretty good way to get most of the world to not be on your side.


"ALMOST every month for the past two years, Chechen suicide bombers have struck. Their targets can be anything from Russian soldiers to Chechen police officers to the innocent civilians who were killed on the subway in Moscow this week." - NY times. sounds pretty intense to me


edit: After reading more on the subject it seems the russian government is defiantly fucking with your rights alot more then the united states govt ever did with the patriot act. so i see why your so cynical
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy

Last edited by Ant10708 : Mar 31st, 2010 at 04:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Mar 31st, 2010, 11:12 AM       
First of all, the Russian government isn't fucking with my rights that much. I'm not Russian I'm Australian. I don't know if that was a mistake but I thought I should clear it up. I'm cynical about the whole thing because I know that Russia is capable of peace, they just do everything in their power to make is seem more and more distant.


It's not in the realms of fantasy to envisage that the Russian government perpetuates violence in the regions so as to effect a violent reaction from the people that live there. Yes, a bomb blowing you up on a train is a legitimate thing to be scared of, and it's a real thing, but it's something that wouldn't exist without the involvement of the Russian government, and the fear of it is used like a tool by, not only Russia, but many countries.

The Russian government hasn't 'made up' the extremists out of thin air, but they certainly have played a part in creating them.

The statement "terrorists will be destroyed" is disturbing to me for a number of reasons. On one hand it is as vague as is expected of any government; anyone can be classed as a terrorist, and the destruction of 'terrorists' can range anywhere between hanging a captured fighter to bombing a city into dust and leaving the populace to starve in the winter. Both of which have and will continue to happen. You could read into it and say that destroying terrorists means destroying the existence of terrorism through negotiation and peace, but as Medvedev has already stated, there isn't going to be any of that.

On the other hand it is very to the point. Terrorists will be destroyed. They wont get a trial, they wont be sent to prison. There are no words like 'justice' thrown into the mix, is that a relaxation on the part of the government for overusing a word that means so little, or is it a simple fact that there wont be justice? Who knows. "In retaliation for these bombings we are going to kill people", that's what I read, and of course it's going to be a lot of people, many of whom will have had nothing to do with the crime already committed.

That is why it is disturbing to me. It's means there is going to be killing and I don't see how that can be anything but disturbing. You can say that it's just being frank of what would happen anyway, but that's another reason it's disturbing, you can just come out and say that in revenge you will kill undisclosed amounts of whoever you want, and people will feel safer because you said it.

Whether the people that utilise terror tactics deserve to die is another thread. I understand that people have to die sometimes for there to be peace, but this isn't in aid of that.

Oh, and no, I don't think that he was simply referring to the fact that terrorists will indeed be destroyed by the simple fact that they blow themselves up to become a terrorist.

Please tell me how you see "we will start a peace process" as disturbing. Or more disturbing than what I said. I'm interested.

I never said I was on one side or another, actually, and I didn't think that we had to point out that we don't condone the act of killing 38 civilians, otherwise I would have said that. I think it's a disgusting act, and I don't condone killing innocent people in any way. I do, however, see that the origins of these acts are bred from circumstances caused by the Russian Government. In all honesty, the caucus is a complicated mess of morals, with both justice and terror on either side, and I'm not naive enough to say that anyone is fighting for freedom and hope, but then again I'm not stupid and blind enough to think that more fighting, and more bombing and more revenge killing and more occupation is going to stop the ... uh, fighting, bombing, killing and occupations. Certainly not in this case.

The situation is much more fucked up than "Russia is fighting for it's territory in Chechnya, and the Chechens are fighting back". If it was, it would be easier to pick sides. No, if Russia removed all troops from the region there would still be attacks in Moscow. There are Islamic extremists fighting there that are not even from any of the surrounding countries, and if it was as simple as Russia seeing the bad guys and shooting them then that would be great. I don't think I have to explain the effects of war on the population, nor the growing support for extremist Islam simply in defiance of Russian actions. It's just not so simple. Not in the Caucus, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. It's not cowboys and indians where the good guys shoot all the bad guys and then they've won. It's not easy enough to say that the Chechen fighters are the good guys, which you assumed I am. It's not easy, and rather than endless war, endless killing and endless war widows driven to blow themselves up on trains, there needs to be compromises and peace so that a solution can be worked out. The Russian government knows this, the American government knows this, but it's much more beneficial to keep the whole joke running.

Why don't the rebels/militants/Islamic extremists/terrorists stop fighting then? Well, for one, when you are attacked you fight back, two, it's beneficial to the Islamic nut jobs to have jihads too. But it's the civilians that you have to make peace with; don't give them a reason to support the 'terrorists', give them reasons to support democratic governments in Chechnya and Ingushetia that are also supported by Russia. Easy, no? Not fucking it up even worse might be a good start.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 31st, 2010, 02:57 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
I don't even understand how "terrorists will be destroyed" is disturbing especially taken into context that it was said after two people blow themselves up on a subway!
1.Focusing on military intervention is counterproductive when dealing with terrorism.
2.It demonstrates that there is no wiliness to compromise ensuring the continuing escalation of violence perpetrated by both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
Unless you believe that one person's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter but I think its fair to say people who blow themselves up on subways to kill civilians are not legitmate freedom fighters.
The idea that there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is illogical as they are both the same thing: non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
I know the russian government isn't innocent in all of this but I'll never understand how anyone can side with people(no matter how bad their plight is or how much they have been taken advantage of by other groups) whose main form of resistance is to kill civilians .
In the United States many members of the Sons of Liberty are revered, such as Paul Revere, John Hancock, John Adams, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. The Sons of Liberty destroyed property, attacked, maimed and killed British soldiers and individuals deemed to be collaborators with the British.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
I find it hard to understand that you wouldn't want your govt to try to prevent these people from commiting these types of crimes.
Because they are going to cause an escalation in violence by not allowing alternatives for Chechen terrorists other than fighting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
And how is this even being compared to afghanstan? this is in what is internationally recognized as russia terroritory.
“Foreign” occupation resulting in suicide attacks in the occupying states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
I mean it sucks these people have been displaced and oppressed for so long but blowing up civilians and committing other acts of what most would call terrorism is a pretty good way to get most of the world to not be on your side.
The only other option for Chechens who oppose the Russian occupation is to do nothing.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 01:21 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
The idea that there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is illogical as they are both the same thing: non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants to coerce individuals or governments into adopting change.
Actually, I personally see a difference. There would be no difference in these times, since anyone who is against the US/Russia/West is a terrorist, though.

You can fight a government without the use of terror tactics. Shooting soldiers, blowing up army supplies, stealing weapons etc. I see terrorism as doing something with the express aim of scaring people, with the terror the main aim, i.e bigger than the actual damage you cause. Partisans in WWII didn't cut telephone cables to scare the Germans into surrendering, they did it to cut lines of communication, still the Germans reffed to them as terrorists.

Blowing up a train and killing 14 civilians, however, has no military gain, but it causes people to be scared, supposedly so scared that they give up fighting you. Dropping an extremely large conventional weapon to 'shock and awe' the population into compliance has the same effect - a) it's a terror tactic and b) it rarely works.

The generalisation, 'Chechen rebels', are on both sides, since they fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state, and by using terror tactics both in Chechnya and in the rest of Russia.

Still, it seems that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter anymore. Officially. If you take up arms to defend yourself against the government then you are a terrorist, no matter your aims or actions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 05:02 AM       
The Leader is the exact kind of person I will never understand when it comes to issues of terrorism. How can you not tell the difference between people who blow themselves up on civilian subways and people who take up arms against the military and or goverment? It just seems very crazy to me that you see them as equal forms of resistance. The fact that some Chechens " fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state" kind of proves this point. Even if they are the same people doing both kinds of fighting, they just delegitimatize their cause when they resort to brutal attacks on innocent civilians. You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.

Just because governments have taken to misusing the word doesn't mean that real terrorism doesn't exist.
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Dimnos Dimnos is offline
LOVES the tubal ligation!
Dimnos's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Baseball Town, TX
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 11:34 AM       
Freedom fighters are terrorist that won.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esuohlim View Post
Exactly. Life's too short to not be ejaculating as often as possible
Reply With Quote
  #20  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 12:29 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
The Leader is the exact kind of person I will never understand when it comes to issues of terrorism. How can you not tell the difference between people who blow themselves up on civilian subways and people who take up arms against the military and or goverment? It just seems very crazy to me that you see them as equal forms of resistance. The fact that some Chechens " fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state" kind of proves this point. Even if they are the same people doing both kinds of fighting, they just delegitimatize their cause when they resort to brutal attacks on innocent civilians. You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.

Just because governments have taken to misusing the word doesn't mean that real terrorism doesn't exist.
I'm looking at it objectively. As Dimnos wrote, freedom fighters are terrorists who have won. Just because you see things from one perspective doesn't meant that it is the absolute truth. You are basically espousing all of the fallacies that are present in the media about terrorism. Someone is a terrorist if you don't agree with them or their actions. That doesn't make sense. What you are doing is attaching stigma to the term terrorism, just like the majority of people have.

I have no idea what that last bit you wrote was about, governments misusing the word terrorism? If anything they don't use it enough, namely when referring to terrorist groups that they support.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 12:38 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Actually, call me a cynic, but I think it's working perfectly for them. America and Russia.

They keep people scared, their attention focused on a never ending war, willing to look the other way or actively support the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security, and no patriot would dare ask questions about anything.
Quote:
"Terrorists will be destroyed."
I would've also accepted "PUTIN SMASH!".

And since we're on the false flag terrorist logic train here, I would like to interject with the fact that the USA has been funding the Chechen Terrorist leader Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov for years.

Read comments below

V

Quote:
Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski “One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life”

http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-...hen-terrorism/
THE PLOT THICKENS!!!

Last edited by TheCoolinator : Apr 2nd, 2010 at 10:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 12:46 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708 View Post
You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.
I'm actually writing a paper on this aspect of terrorism right now.

And it is rational, most who support the causes are rational, the use of female suicide bombers is rational and the targeting of noncombatants is rational. It might not be moral, but the immorality of killing innocent people can easily be made moral.

Their cause is also legitimate: freedom from what they view as oppression. It may not be legitimate from where you stand, but in order to effectively combat terrorism (meaning come up with a solution or improvements) you cannot look at the terrorist's actions from your perspective alone. You have to recognize that there are legitimate grievances and if you wipe out one group of terrorists, another will likely develop because the original issues were not addressed.

I'd also like to point out that our military has done far worse things than the Chechen terrorists have, but the difference between that and terrorism is that the United States is a state actor. The term for this sort of action would be state terror, as opposed to terrorism. That's a bit of a digression but Zhukov mentioned something like this.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 12:57 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Actually, I personally see a difference. There would be no difference in these times, since anyone who is against the US/Russia/West is a terrorist, though.
Not if they're a state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
You can fight a government without the use of terror tactics. Shooting soldiers, blowing up army supplies, stealing weapons etc.
How is shooting soldiers and blowing up military depots not inducing terror?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
I see terrorism as doing something with the express aim of scaring people, with the terror the main aim, i.e bigger than the actual damage you cause. Partisans in WWII didn't cut telephone cables to scare the Germans into surrendering, they did it to cut lines of communication, still the Germans reffed to them as terrorists.
Partisans in WWII didn't just tamper with communications, the killed off duty German soldiers and collaborators (noncombatants).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Blowing up a train and killing 14 civilians, however, has no military gain, but it causes people to be scared, supposedly so scared that they give up fighting you. Dropping an extremely large conventional weapon to 'shock and awe' the population into compliance has the same effect - a) it's a terror tactic and b) it rarely works.
Here's the thing, it can have military gain. Terrorism has a almost 100 percent failure rate, historically, but suicide terrorism, especially sustained campaigns, has actually proven to be effective in some instances. The US, France, Israel, all have pulled military forces out of areas as a result of suicide campaigns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
The generalisation, 'Chechen rebels', are on both sides, since they fight conventionally against the remaining Russian forces in their state, and by using terror tactics both in Chechnya and in the rest of Russia.
. . . Ok?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Still, it seems that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter anymore. Officially. If you take up arms to defend yourself against the government then you are a terrorist, no matter your aims or actions.
There never was a freedom fighter, only terrorists. It's all rhetoric.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 01:56 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
Not if they're a state.
Well, then they are a terrorist state. Usually. Or more aptly, a 'rogue' state. I like that. Haha. Rogue from what? Rogue from doing what we think you should be doing.


Quote:
How is shooting soldiers and blowing up military depots not inducing terror? Partisans in WWII didn't just tamper with communications, the killed off duty German soldiers and collaborators (noncombatants).
Well that's where I look at aims. Are you shooting soldiers to scare the soldiers, or are you shooting them because they are shooting you, or because they will shoot you tomorrow, or because they killed your family, or because they will kill another family or friendly soldiers? It can be revenge, it can be a genuine military goal, but if your aim is anything less than inspiring terror, I personally don't think it counts. When you are killing collaborators, then you might be crossing a line, sure. Maybe you are killing them so that they don't help the enemy anymore, but more likely you are killing them because you don't want anyone else to do it. You are scaring others out of doing it.

The partisan movement during WWII was huge. Tens of thousands of ex-red army and local militia men fighting the German invaders, they often received orders from STAVKA, and in near the end of the war the 4th Belorussian front comprised of partisan units against the front lines of the German army. They weren't trying to get the German government to recognise their rights, they were just trying to hamper the military as much as possible. If that involves killing soldiers, blowing up trains, whatever, then so be it. They didn't do it to scare anyone, so I don't see it as terrorism. Did they sometimes utilise terror tactics? Sure. As you pointed out, they killed collaborators. The people who did that were terrorists.

Really, you are saying that ANY fighting is terrorism, since even shooting back at an enemy soldier is inducing terror in the now dead soldier's family back home, or the squad mates. If all fighting is terrorism then it sort of defeats the purpose of there being 'fighting' and 'terrorism'.


Quote:
Here's the thing, it can have military gain. Terrorism has a almost 100 percent failure rate, historically, but suicide terrorism, especially sustained campaigns, has actually proven to be effective in some instances. The US, France, Israel, all have pulled military forces out of areas as a result of suicide campaigns.
Well I don't know what you mean by terrorism anymore. Anyway, I don't think that the success of such operations have anything to do with the morals of them. I do think that peaceful negotiating and "ethical" armed resistance has probably done better in the eyes of history than killing civilians.

Quote:
There never was a freedom fighter, only terrorists. It's all rhetoric.
True enough.


My point to you is that if you are not aiming to terrorise, and your actions don't cause terror, then are you a terrorist? I guess you could always argue that violence will always create terror SOMEWHERE, but that's a bit silly for me.

Let's say someone blows themselves up on a transit train and kills 10 people. Scares the shit out of the population, maybe even shakes the government. That's terrorism because you have used this violent tactic to strike fear into the hearts of mere men and mortals. On the other side of things, if someone blows themselves up on a troop train sending soldiers into your occupied homeland, well were you trying to scare people or are you trying to just kill enemy soldiers? Same methods, different outcomes and aims.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Apr 1st, 2010, 02:11 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Well, then they are a terrorist state. Usually. Or more aptly, a 'rogue' state. I like that. Haha. Rogue from what? Rogue from doing what we think you should be doing.
No, read my responses to Ant. They'd be a state conducting state terror.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Well that's where I look at aims. Are you shooting soldiers to scare the soldiers, or are you shooting them because they are shooting you, or because they will shoot you tomorrow, or because they killed your family, or because they will kill another family or friendly soldiers? It can be revenge, it can be a genuine military goal, but if your aim is anything less than inspiring terror, I personally don't think it counts.
You are looking at individual's acts, not the overall goals of the terrorist group. By this definition there are no terrorists. Also I have distinguished that it is terrorism if the target is a noncombatant so engaging a soldier out on patrol would not be terrorism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
They weren't trying to get the German government to recognise their rights, they were just trying to hamper the military as much as possible. If that involves killing soldiers, blowing up trains, whatever, then so be it. They didn't do it to scare anyone, so I don't see it as terrorism. Did they sometimes utilise terror tactics? Sure. As you pointed out, they killed collaborators. The people who did that were terrorists.
Fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Really, you are saying that ANY fighting is terrorism, since even shooting back at an enemy soldier is inducing terror in the now dead soldier's family back home, or the squad mates. If all fighting is terrorism then it sort of defeats the purpose of there being 'fighting' and 'terrorism'.
They have to be targeting noncombatants: off duty soldiers or civilians. They also have to be non state actors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Well I don't know what you mean by terrorism anymore. Anyway, I don't think that the success of such operations have anything to do with the morals of them. I do think that peaceful negotiating and "ethical" armed resistance has probably done better in the eyes of history than killing civilians.
I defined terrorism previously. Morality is ambiguous, as demonstrated by your use of "ethical" armed resistance. Is it ethical for you to kill my brother just because he's a soldier occupying your homeland? From my perspective, no. What morality has to do with sucess is when a effective tactic is found but it would normally be unjustifiable, such as suicide terrorism, there can be ways to morally justify it. The Russian civilians in the subways were Russian citizens. They pay taxes which finance the Russian military who are the enemy. They are part of the enemy. Killing them is like killing a soldier.

Right there you have the justification for killing innocent people. You just have to make them not innocent.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.