What brings people to terrorism?

[bradly1101]

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You fight back with whatever you have. I imagine most on this board would do that if invaded, think Red Dawn.

Technically weren't some of our founders terrorists ..... or freedom fighters?
http://terroristvsfreedomfighter.blogspot.com/2011/10/was-american-revolution-act-of_03.html


Btw, I'm not condoning terrorism, but it is easy to understand how and why it starts.

I wonder how we'd react if countries other than our own tried to violently change our destiny and built military bases here. Would we fight back by any means possible?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

there isnt really any such thing as "terrorism". is what "terrorists" do really worse than incinerating a city with bombs from a b-52 or blowing up people with a shell from a tank? is chopping someones head off with a sword really worse than injecting them with burning chemicals? what the us gov calls "terrorists" are just people with a beef with america, and who dont have the military power to do anything about it, so all they can do is "terrorist" acts. im sure those people would be more than happy, if it were possible, to fight the usa with fighter jets, tanks, missles etc... rather than suicide bombs.

 

[blastingcap]

There is a lot of stupidity on this thread. If you target civilians intentionally that is completely different than targeting military (and sometimes having unintentional civilian casualties due to reasons like fog of war, mistaken identity, etc.)

 

[OBLAMA2009]

There is a lot of stupidity on this thread. If you target civilians intentionally that is completely different than targeting military (and sometimes having unintentional civilian casualties due to reasons like fog of war, mistaken identity, etc.)

they do that because they dont have the military means to fight the american army. give them aircraft carriers, icbm's, tanks, etc.. and im sure they would be happy to just target american forces. and do you think america doesnt know its killing massive numbers of civilians when they fire cruise missles and carpet bomb cities?

 

[JumBie]

It's quite simple: poverty, unemployment and lack of education. All you need then is a group or individual who offers a reward here and promises one later.

Or maybe because you bomb their home lands, steal their land, their oil, kill their mothers, fathers and children and then lie about it in the news. Nah, that has nothing to do with it. Notice how terrorism was not even an big issue before Bush decided to trick the world into believing Saddam caused 9/11.

 

[blastingcap]

Notice how terrorism was not even an big issue before Bush decided to trick the world into believing Saddam caused 9/11.

Did you just seriously say that terrorism was not a big issue prior to 2003 (Iraq invasion)?

 

[biostud]

There is a lot of stupidity on this thread. If you target civilians intentionally that is completely different than targeting military (and sometimes having unintentional civilian casualties due to reasons like fog of war, mistaken identity, etc.)

So the bombing of cities in WW2 were terrorism?

 

[Sulaco]

they do that because they dont have the military means to fight the american army. give them aircraft carriers, icbm's, tanks, etc.. and im sure they would be happy to just target american forces. and do you think america doesnt know its killing massive numbers of civilians when they fire cruise missles and carpet bomb cities?

You're such an idiot.

Because you don't have the means to strike a military target you blow up civilians instead?
If you actually listened to and read the statements put out by these organizations and individuals, they are not shy about wanting to kill and maim as many civilians as possible. That's where the TERROR comes in, you fucking imbecile.

Stick to trolling OT and posting your shit that gets you banned every other week.

 

[blastingcap]

So the bombing of cities in WW2 were terrorism?

Depends on the intent. Also, you seem to think all WW2 bombings were carpet bombings or something, judging by the way you phrased that q. That is patently false.

 

[biostud]

Depends on the intent. Also, you seem to think all WW2 bombings were carpet bombings or something, judging by the way you phrased that q. That is patently false.

Dresden springs to mind. I know that there were lots, if not most, bombings with a military goal.

 

[mizzou]

Weak minds and able bodies.

 

[Omar F1]

Depends on the intent. Also, you seem to think all WW2 bombings were carpet bombings or something, judging by the way you phrased that q. That is patently false.

History is always written by the victors.

Did you just seriously say that terrorism was not a big issue prior to 2003 (Iraq invasion)?

Of course it was, and again from both sides of the conflict, but the fact is that the region was much more stable and secure before 2003.

Even if you happen to know a soldier/Marine or SF who served in Iraq both in early 2003 and 2004/2005, he could tell you how safe it was in 2003 right after the invasion, compared to subsequent years.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

You're such an idiot.

Because you don't have the means to strike a military target you blow up civilians instead?
If you actually listened to and read the statements put out by these organizations and individuals, they are not shy about wanting to kill and maim as many civilians as possible. That's where the TERROR comes in, you fucking imbecile.

Stick to trolling OT and posting your shit that gets you banned every other week.

combatants do whatever they have to do. at hiroshima and nagasaki the us gov clearly was attempting to kill as many civilians as possible, so under your definition that was the biggest act of terror in history

 

[JumBie]

Did you just seriously say that terrorism was not a big issue prior to 2003 (Iraq invasion)?

Absolutely, and by terrorism we are talking about the mainstream belief that terrorism is only committed by Muslims. Prior terrorist attacks were far and few inbetween, now every single day the news mentions "terrorist attacks" in places all over the middle east, at home and abroad.

Depends on the intent. Also, you seem to think all WW2 bombings were carpet bombings or something, judging by the way you phrased that q. That is patently false.

All bombings of those nature are called "Shock and Awe" a tactic used to force your enemy into submission. Its actually a form of terrorism because of the sheer destruction and chaos it causes, but western nations can make anything justified. Remember Dresden? A clear act of terrorism, war doesn't justify that. In fact, if one were to say that war does indeed justify those type of tactics than an attack of similar nature on western soil cannot be called a terrorist act, just an act of war, given the circumstances.

 

[blastingcap]

Absolutely, and by terrorism we are talking about the mainstream belief that terrorism is only committed by Muslims. Prior terrorist attacks were far and few inbetween, now every single day the news mentions "terrorist attacks" in places all over the middle east, at home and abroad.

All bombings of those nature are called "Shock and Awe" a tactic used to force your enemy into submission. Its actually a form of terrorism because of the sheer destruction and chaos it causes, but western nations can make anything justified. Remember Dresden? A clear act of terrorism, war doesn't justify that. In fact, if one were to say that war does indeed justify those type of tactics than an attack of similar nature on western soil cannot be called a terrorist act, just an act of war, given the circumstances.

Brother you lost all credibility in my eyes. WTC bombing, Oklahoma City, and 9/11 ring a bell?

I find it hilarious how much ink has been spilled by people over Dresden on this thread and yet not a peep over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why? Because they weren't white?

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Brother you lost all credibility in my eyes. WTC bombing, Oklahoma City, and 9/11 ring a bell?

I find it hilarious how much ink has been spilled by people over Dresden on this thread and yet not a peep over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why? Because they weren't white?

Oklahoma City was done by a member of the US military and the WTC bombing killed about as many people as a bad traffic accident you imbecile. You arguments are so terrible lol, it's hilarious to see you flounder around in this garbage can of a thread you've created.

 

[blastingcap]

Oh look who has come back for an asskicking?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37151215&postcount=310

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=37155813

And so much more. Insults are all you know how to do, go away and butt the hell out.

He's narrowing of the definition of terrorism to suit his argument, but the REAL spike was 9/11/2001, not 2003 as he claims. Take a poll of 1000 typical Americans and ask them when the watershed moment was for this country's awareness of Islamic terrorism and I will bet the house that more people say 2001 and not 2003.

And there was definitely "wow was it Islamic terrorism?" coverage for OKC before the facts emerged (and yes everyone knows it was McVeigh, that is not the point, it was seen as domestic terrorism, yes that T word)--that is addressing his "mainstream belief" comment re: Muslim terrorists; I remember how most people assumed it was Islamic terrorism until the facts came out. The Cole, US embassy bombings, WTC, etc. weren't covered as much as 2001 and beyond, but it was called terrorism back then and it still is. It's not body count it's coverage and labeling of events as terrorism that we were talking about, "you imbecile."

 

[Sonikku]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...nistration-destroyed-Iran-s-secular-democracy

 

[emperus]

I think we have to get rid of the word terrorism or define it much better. As one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter using what they can to achieve their goal.

 

[marincounty]

Bush brings people to terrorism. I'm serious. Without GWB and his major fuck ups, there would be far less terrorism in the world.
Would Isis be running wild if Saddam were still in charge in Iraq?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Bush brings people to terrorism. I'm serious. Without GWB and his major fuck ups, there would be far less terrorism in the world.
Would Isis be running wild if Saddam were still in charge in Iraq?

bush created isis. he overthrew saddam for no reason, installed an american puppet shite gov dictator, and forced the majority sunnis to assemble as isis. its nor a "terror group" as the us gov keeps trying to label it, it basically represents most of iraq

 

[Blanky]

The definition of terrorism is massive in and of itself and so anything can bring people to terrorism. Is not terrorism something the allies conducted in WW II? And the Axis as well? Directly attacking civilian infrastructure is considered today to be terrorism, yet of course Americans, British, Germans all ended up resorting to this eventually.

Most forms of violence are terrorizing. Although I am guilty of sometimes using the word terrorism as well, the truth is it's so broad as to have almost no meaning at all.

 

[nickqt]

The definition of terrorism is massive in and of itself and so anything can bring people to terrorism. Is not terrorism something the allies conducted in WW II? And the Axis as well? Directly attacking civilian infrastructure is considered today to be terrorism, yet of course Americans, British, Germans all ended up resorting to this eventually.

Most forms of violence are terrorizing. Although I am guilty of sometimes using the word terrorism as well, the truth is it's so broad as to have almost no meaning at all.

Imagine if Pakistan had flying robots with missiles patrolling US airspace.

 

[BoberFett]

Bush brings people to terrorism. I'm serious. Without GWB and his major fuck ups, there would be far less terrorism in the world.
Would Isis be running wild if Saddam were still in charge in Iraq?

marincounty causes terrorism by being such a useless twat with stupid opinions.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Imagine if Pakistan had flying robots with missiles patrolling US airspace.

america engages in extreme provocation around the world, and then when anyone fights back, the usa clobbers them and calls them "terrorists" in the media. just today the usa announced it is sending planes to ukraine, a country which is thousands of miles away from the usa and in which it has no business being