[redivivus]

"Terrorism is a smart method in fighting against an enemy too powerful to directly engage."

Dont know who said this, but do you agree?

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by redivivus

"Terrorism is a smart method in fighting against an enemy too powerful to directly engage."

Dont know who said this, but do you agree?

Err, not really. In the scenario where one faction is being actively "wronged" by another much larger faction, the head of each faction should meet in the nearest car-park (AKA "parking lot") and slug it out. The faction whose leader is still standing after a "reasonable" time period is then "the winner".

The same method should also be applied to all elections as it would save loads of time and money. In a 3-party system such as the UK, this would effectively equate to a "triple threat match".

peace out (despite your sig),
bomb

[Paquadez]

Probably best espoused in two sentiments, red.

The purpose of terror is to terrorise.
Lenin

One man's terrorist: another man's freedom fighter.
Anon.

Your idea has some merit, Bomb: I can fantasise about Prescott to-to-toe with Anne Widdecombe. Or Ruth Kelly facing of against Betty Boothroyd! The mind boggles............

Paq

[Chicon]

Originally Posted by redivivus

"Terrorism is a smart method in fighting against an enemy too powerful to directly engage."

Dont know who said this, but do you agree?

I will call it active resistance in the case the enemy is a military force of occupation, for example, the French resistance during WW2.

And the 9/11 and 7/7 subanimals had nothing to see with active resistance.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by redivivus

"Terrorism is a smart method in fighting against an enemy too powerful to directly engage."
Dont know who said this, but do you agree?

Hmmm, I am reminded of a paper I wrote whilst in college on Guerrilla Warfare.

In Asia, maybe China, there is the story of the Monkey and the Princess of the Iron Fan, or something like that. The idea of defeating the enemy was to do it using the inside-out method, i.e. by getting inside and eating away the entrails.

Seems like the main attibutes of subterfuge, guile and stealth are far more effective than terrorism, and you can choose the time and place when you stike. Of course, like any operation, you need a large support network behind you to carry out such a plan, and need to have both an exit strategy and followup to assure victory - both of which terrorism lacks, unless you are foolish enough to believe in 72 virgins waiting for you after your untimely demise as a terrorist! Even Usama bin Ladin could not believe after 9/11 how gullible some of his minions who carried out the attack had virtually no understanding that they would die.

-- Tom

P.S. For the story of how Sun Wu-kung, the Monkey, changed himself into a tiny insect, found his way into the stomach of the Princess of the Iron Fan and thus defeated her, see the Chinese novel, Pilgrimage to the West, Chapter 59 Ref: http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...4/mswv4_58.htm

[sy2]

Originally Posted by redivivus

"Terrorism is a smart method in fighting against an enemy too powerful to directly engage."

Dont know who said this, but do you agree?

Not at all, and that was from the Loose Change 911 revisited thread.

Guerilla warfare is one thing, but purposefully targeting civilians for murder is reprehensible and without justification.

My response to the original poster of that comment was something along these lines: me and you get into fight, but you're huge - you can kick my ***. Looking at my situation, I decide that direct confrontation would be pointless, so instead I beat your grandmother down with an aluminum baseball bat. What else can I do? You've forced me into this position and I need to make my point somehow, right?

Please....

[LANMaster]

Targeted, deliberate killing of innocents is NEVER an acceptable means for fighting a war.
All those engaged in such depraved activity should be executed with no mercy.

[WarC]

He probably meant asymmetric or guerilla war.

Terrorism can be differentiated from those terms because of its reliance on spreading fear through primarily targetting civilians.

There are scenarios when you don't want to do that, cuz it pisses people off. And if your in a situation where your going to be outgunned, the last thing you want to do is stimulate the populace of that country into further pursuing a war...

Someone could argue that terrorism is a function of war done by organizations or groups of people inside of witting or unwitting countries, defining it more by its state of existence than its method of operation.

[redivivus]

You are all looking at it from the perspective of a wealthy white american living comfortably with a nice white collar job and a big house, good computer, etc etc.

From their perspective is it right?

And if you sincerely believed in a religious ideal that called, would you become a martyr for it?

[sy2]

Originally Posted by me

me and you get into fight, but you're huge - you can kick my ***. Looking at my situation, I decide that direct confrontation would be pointless, so instead I beat your grandmother down with an aluminum baseball bat. What else can I do? You've forced me into this position and I need to make my point somehow, right?

If I were to throw rocks at you from a tree, that would be guerilla warfare. There simply is no justification for killing someone completely innocent who serves in no military capacity whatsoever, no matter what POV you want to look at it from.

Just because it's "from their perspective" does not make it right. It's still the intentional targeting and killing of civilians.

[Chicon]

Originally Posted by sy2

...
Just because it's "from their perspective" does not make it right. It's still the intentional targeting and killing of civilians.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were native Saudis. 'Fom their perspective', they should have bombed the saudi royal palace and/or the Mecca if they had not been brainwashed. The poverty of Saudis (I mean the average people) is not the American fault.

[redivivus]

Originally Posted by sy2

If I were to throw rocks at you from a tree, that would be guerilla warfare. There simply is no justification for killing someone completely innocent who serves in no military capacity whatsoever, no matter what POV you want to look at it from.

Just because it's "from their perspective" does not make it right. It's still the intentional targeting and killing of civilians.

First of all, how are we 'innocent civillians?' In democracy, or atleast in theory, the choice of the majority governs the country. They way that the terrorists look it is that if all of the 'innocent civilians' did not want to attack them, bush would not be the president.

Also, perspective has lots to do with understanding it. It wont make it right necessarily, but maybe it is not their fault.

Originally Posted by Chicon

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were native Saudis. 'Fom their perspective', they should have bombed the saudi royal palace and/or the Mecca if they had not been brainwashed. The poverty of Saudis (I mean the average people) is not the American fault.

'Brainwashed' is a dangerous term. What is it? How do you know that you were not brainwashed into believing that they were brainwashed? Do you know the intricate workings of their brains well enough to pronounce them brainwashed?

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they were brainwashed. They live a completely different life with different education and different ways of thinking. Maybe they are brainwashed, but one of the questions here is whether or not they are right to terrorize from their position/perspective in life.

[WarC]

Red makes a good point: the whole justification behind Bin Laden's attacks on civilian targets was that as a democracy, American citizens (no matter their affiliation or beliefs) are directly responsible for the actions of their government...Since in theory we have the capability to change leadership based on the vote.

[Chicon]

They have been brainwashed like people victims of sects. They have been brainwashed, just enough to commit a collective suicide.

[redivivus]

Originally Posted by Chicon

They have been brainwashed like people victims of sects. They have been brainwashed, just enough to commit a collective suicide.

I think i have figured out the problem! Chicon was brainwashed! He doesnt realise that collective suicide against the enemy reaps the greatest awards from Allah in the afterlife! Quick... let us sacrifice ourselfs to take him out before he can spread it and brainwash more people!

Are they really brainwashed? Or are we? Who knows.... If you really believed in a cause that morally obligates you to suicide, you would probably do it too.