What's wrong with terrorism?

[cHeal]

Seriously I don't understand what the essential problem people have with terrorism, is. For me, terrorism is the best means by which an under-resourced militant group can operate. It seems obvious to me that in a democracy, the targeting of commercial or civilian areas can be very effective, and in a situation where one has few other options open to it, military targets being far too hard to hit, I don't see that it is morally incomprehensible that such targets would be hit, especially when one considers that in a democratic nation, civilians, normal people have the power to change government and policy.

I think terrorists, the same as any military organisation should take what steps it can to avoid civilian death, but clearly Hamas, using the weapons they are have no means of doing this. Shooting rockets at mountains would achieve nothing and be a waste of resources so they must shoot them at build up town or cities.

Please refrain from using "terrorist" in an emotive context. Please see the definition of the word and use it in the sense that it is defined. Terrorists and terrorism doesn't always aim to physically injure or destroy civilians. Looking to the North, many many IRA operations (not all) were carried out with the express wish to avoid civilian deaths, but to cause commercial damage.

And if we deem terrorism a wholly immoral means by which to fight a conflict, what other method can be used by those who do not have the resources of a well funded state? Not everyone is a Ghandi, some people may have to fight to make a change, so if not by terrorist methods, how?

[FrankSpeaks]

Seriously I don't understand what the essential problem people have with terrorism, is. For me, terrorism is the best means by which an under-resourced militant group can operate. It seems obvious to me that in a democracy, the targeting of commercial or civilian areas can be very effective, and in a situation where one has few other options open to it, military targets being far too hard to hit, I don't see that it is morally incomprehensible that such targets would be hit, especially when one considers that in a democratic nation, civilians, normal people have the power to change government and policy.

I think terrorists, the same as any military organisation should take what steps it can to avoid civilian death, but clearly Hamas, using the weapons they are have no means of doing this. Shooting rockets at mountains would achieve nothing and be a waste of resources so they must shoot them at build up town or cities.

Please refrain from using "terrorist" in an emotive context. Please see the definition of the word and use it in the sense that it is defined. Terrorists and terrorism doesn't always aim to physically injure or destroy civilians. Looking to the North, many many IRA operations (not all) were carried out with the express wish to avoid civilian deaths, but to cause commercial damage.

And if we deem terrorism a wholly immoral means by which to fight a conflict, what other method can be used by those who do not have the resources of a well funded state? Not everyone is a Ghandi, some people may have to fight to make a change, so if not by terrorist methods, how?

Are you for real, you have justified the actions of every nutcase that ever existed with this nonsense.

[hopi watcher]

Are you for real, you have justified the actions of every nutcase that ever existed with this nonsense.

Say's he who is elsewhere justifying the terrorism of the Israeli state.

[Mazzy Maz]

Seriously I don't understand what the essential problem people have with terrorism, is. For me, terrorism is the best means by which an under-resourced militant group can operate. It seems obvious to me that in a democracy, the targeting of commercial or civilian areas can be very effective, and in a situation where one has few other options open to it, military targets being far too hard to hit, I don't see that it is morally incomprehensible that such targets would be hit, especially when one considers that in a democratic nation, civilians, normal people have the power to change government and policy.

I think terrorists, the same as any military organisation should take what steps it can to avoid civilian death, but clearly Hamas, using the weapons they are have no means of doing this. Shooting rockets at mountains would achieve nothing and be a waste of resources so they must shoot them at build up town or cities.

Please refrain from using "terrorist" in an emotive context. Please see the definition of the word and use it in the sense that it is defined. Terrorists and terrorism doesn't always aim to physically injure or destroy civilians. Looking to the North, many many IRA operations (not all) were carried out with the express wish to avoid civilian deaths, but to cause commercial damage.

And if we deem terrorism a wholly immoral means by which to fight a conflict, what other method can be used by those who do not have the resources of a well funded state? Not everyone is a Ghandi, some people may have to fight to make a change, so if not by terrorist methods, how?

You won't think terrorism is so great when I come over and break all your fingers.

Not having the resources of a well funded state, I feel I have no other means available to me in the fight to put an end to your posting on this site. It's not that your posts are bad, I just disagree with them. That mightn't sound like much of a justification, but hey that's terrorism baby!

[blacbloc]

Terrorists = those who resist our violent attacks on them

Self defence = murderous attacks on those who have resources we'd quite like to own ourselves

[cHeal]

If you can't engage in a real debate, feel free to give me bad rep or whatever gets you off, but please refrain from posting, as others may wish to debate this and your posts are just spam.

Frank, I'll answer your post at lunch.

[FrankSpeaks]

Say's he who is elsewhere justifying the terrorism of the Israeli state.

If you were an Israeli I suppose you would sit there and wait for the rockets to hit you. Nations are entitled to defend themselves.


See this quote from wikipedia.
Legal issues related to the wars

International law recognizes that there are legal reasons to go to war. For example, states have the right to defend themselves against overt external aggression, in the form of an invasion or other attack. A number of states assert that this principle extends to the right to launch military actions to reduce a threat, protect vital interests, or pre-empt a possible attack or emerging threat. As a practical matter, these distinctions may not matter much: once a war breaks out, the efforts shift toward ending it and preventing it from starting again rather than hashing out legal distinctions.

[markeys]

Whats wrong with terrorism?

Terrorism for me in its true form means the minority refusing to accept the will of the majority and attempting to achieve their aims via the use of terror against the population. Hence 95% of Irish people viewed the IRA as terrorists.

Hamas is often fudged in this regard. It carries out terror attacks, but I wouldn't quantify it as terrorists in the same category as the IRA - mainly because it has won the support of the people in the most recent elections. Does that mean I agree with its methods? Absolutely not. I think its methods have done nothing but drive world opinion away from support of the Palestinian cause.

There can be no excuse for engaging in terror tactics, whether you are a 'qualified' terrorsit or not.

[turdsl]

Invading somewhere and killing as many people as it can is also terrorism and they will stiill have to talk in the next few days

[TradCat]

Markeys

In that case you could argue that the IRA were not terrorists in West Belfast where Gerry Adams got most of the votes. Or Fermanagh-South Tyrone.

I don't think it's that easy to define it.