ethics on terrorist warfare

[redpawn89]

ok so since 9/11 in the U.S. people have began to notice one of the news forms of warfare that being terrorisim and though i belive it is just as fair and useful as all the other tactics so call it shameful and cowardness. becaues they don't fight face to face with the enemy yet at the same time those people (Americans) for get that the reason they have a home is becaues their country was never based on honor. in the revolutionary war there was the "minute men" in the mexican american war there was explotation in WWII there was the a-bomb and now they scream cowards?!? This is just a spark I wanna hear the different points of veiw they every member has.

[Fidelbrand]

If a country is invaded or bullied, and this country doesn't have enough "weapons" or "wealth" to wage a war, I'll then think terrorists who give up their lives to revenge is deemed heroic.

However, the down side is that: Any good man can be killed in a terrorist attack.

Solution: Don't bully or invade or insult other people's country. If this is done, then terrorism can be officially labeled as "cowardly", as it is less justified and forgivable.

[redpawn89]

if that is so then what about terrorist like the jackel? and not only that but the truth is that the stronger goverments will always pick on the weak ones so its not so much about the objective but is it moraly ok to kill innocent people for your cause. your can't say its for "the greater good" cuz we know that "good" and "evil" are relative to the observer

[Hit The North]

The problem here is that the term 'terrorism' is totally relative. For a start there's the old cliche about "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Secondly, there's an assumption that there is a difference between someone blowing up a shopping mall with a home-made bomb and a state-sponsored air-force dropping a bomb on a market from 5,000 feet. They are equivalent acts.

The real question for us as revolutionaries isn't whether terrorism is moral, but whether it is effective in achieving our goals.

The answer, in most cases, is no.

[redpawn89]

well you can't dismiss it just like that becaues Guerrilla warfare uses certain forms of terrorism and you must remember that terrorism is about spreading terror above all else so it includes methods besides just killing innocent ppl. ever since the munich olimpic massacre in 1972, terrorism became more then just a suicide bomber. and as we know right after munich Mossad also became familiar with terrorism or at least it was publicly noted. I think it can work just not alone the PLO is an "ok" exaple since they have the power but have never fully tapped their potential.

[cumbia]

State Terrorism, It happens all the time.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:48 pm
well you can't dismiss it just like that becaues Guerrilla warfare uses certain forms of terrorism and you must remember that terrorism is about spreading terror above all else so it includes methods besides just killing innocent ppl. ever since the munich olimpic massacre in 1972, terrorism became more then just a suicide bomber. and as we know right after munich Mossad also became familiar with terrorism or at least it was publicly noted. I think it can work just not alone the PLO is an "ok" exaple since they have the power but have never fully tapped their potential.
I can barely decode what your uncapitalized, unparagraphed runon sentences say, but your basic point is flawed.

"Official" warfare is just as effective at spreading terror as "terrorism". Often, its the goal.

To hell with "morality". Effectiveness is what's important.

[redpawn89]

........ are u saying i'm imature just cuz of how i write. seeing as this is my second language i think i'm doing fine but for someone one with the Name of "MrDoom" to tell ME i'm imature is just funny comeon don't u have a dooms-day device to make? besides if you ignore morality you can never gain support, and to make my point just tell me the # of friends u have and name them by name.

[Felicia]

Hmm.

Firstly, 'terrorism' and words like it are highly subjective, and are terms I dislike to use, most people will not consider actions to further their aims to be terrorism. To the original post, 'terrorism' (ugh) is not a new warfare, if this is something Americans are just noticing... well, they've been committing it knowingly or unknowingly for some time now. The only 'face to face' warfare imho is conventional warfare, standing in a line with yer muskets firing straight across yourself at your enemy. Nothing is face to face these days. Guerrilla warfare thrives in being concealed from the 'enemy', is this cowardly? I don't believe so. Cowardice I believe is a motivator behind your actions. The selfish human desire for self-preservation when faced by threat. If your hiding in the bush because you're afraid to die, that's a cowardly action, if you're hiding in the bush because it's a tactical maneuver to sneak up on your enemy, that is not cowardly. A soldier/guerrilla is of no use if s/he is audacious. I think 'terrorism' begins when a force invades on the sovereignty or autonomy of another nation/tribe, etc with selfish desires. Needlessly killing innocent civilians is a no-no, that's why I have little respect for the suicide bomber who detonates himself in a coffee shop, or a hospital, or a resort, does this really further their aims? If their aim is to be seen as a coward, someone who targets civilians instead of a more direct representation of what their fighting (ie military, government, etc) but these people can also be argued as 'innocent', but I'm not up for playing devil's advocate today, so I'm done with this post for now..

if you guys want to get into 'morality' we need to define it. Is it something socially constructed, and by which society (east, west) or is it personal morality. In my opinion, socially constructed morality is for the weak. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's benefits (putting away child molesters). Getting deep into a concept can be a daunting task :P

redpawn, mrdoom. come on now guys. MrDoom, if you can get to the point he's making, why the need to insult? I found what he wrote to be easily understood. :)

[redpawn89]

See thats the response i was looking for. thx Felicia you got somegood points. But what i wanted to know was "is it right or wrong based on personal opinion" but you right about been a coward.

also all I was saying about it beening new was that terrorist orginizations become very common since the 70's. Thats why Munich was a disaster becaues no one expected someone to attack the olimpic games (which were seen as a symbol of world peace) soon after that you see a huge increase in orginizations and new tatics being used. i don't know if you understand what i'm trying to say

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I see what your trying to say, although it is rather difficult to read. But I think terrorism is a relative term. I think it is fucking shameful to go into a public area and kill a bunch of innocent civilians because of a problem that you have with their government or their way of living. I think it is just as fucking shameful when we (Americans) do it and call it a military attack. If your killing innocent people for a cause or purpose that doesnt specifically involve the people you killed you should be labeled a terrorist. When we dropped an a-bomb on innocent people in hiroshima it was an act of terrorism, it was really no different than September 11th.

Oh and BTW using bad grammar and punctuation doesnt make you immature it just makes you look uneducated, but seeing as it is your second language it can slide.

[La Comédie Noire]

We must not forget "innocent" is another highly subjective term. Just throwing that out there. But why use terrorism? The goverments of the world get weak in the knees from us just organizing.

[Felicia]

redpawn, I understand what you're getting at. the seemingly spring up of 'terrorist' organizations, but if you want to get technical, every militant organization is a terrorist to the government their fighting. The July 26th movement included :P

These 'new tactics' being? Insideous? Low? Pathetic? :D


Ack, Pow R. Toc H. (power touch?), education is not a sign of intellect, I dispise the term 'uneducated', it can be very misleading. :(

edit: Floyd... yes yes, it is! that why I'm not playin devils advocate to stick up for soldiers and governemnt workers in my previous post :P

[BurnTheOliveTree]

In the right context, yes. But it's very unlikely that such a context will arrive any time soon.

If terrorism, in the long term, minimised suffering, for definite, then it would be morally okay. Perhaps even imperative.

-Alex

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:38 pm
Ack, Pow R. Toc H. (power touch?), education is not a sign of intellect, I dispise the term 'uneducated', it can be very misleading. :(

I wasnt saying that education is a sign of intellect, but someone who hasnt been educated on the correct the use of punctuation and grammar and therefore doesnt use them correctly would look uneducated in the use of the language. Im sure I would look just an uneducated, if not more, if I tried to write a paragraph in fluent german. Ive only been learning it for a few months so Im pretty uneducated in the language's grammar and punctuation.

Oh and my name is my favorite song of Piper at the Gates of Dawn.

[redpawn89]

Yeah I can speak it quite well acually just english has so many damn grammer rules. but the reason i hardly ever capatolize is that i've found it's much easier to type quickly in school then to be double checking my post. Besides i belive the purpose of language is to pass an idea from one person to the other. If you understand my basic idea that i'm attempting to pass across then my words have served their purpose

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:00 pm
........ are u saying i'm imature just cuz of how i write. seeing as this is my second language i think i'm doing fine but for someone one with the Name of "MrDoom" to tell ME i'm imature is just funny comeon don't u have a dooms-day device to make? besides if you ignore morality you can never gain support, and to make my point just tell me the # of friends u have and name them by name.
I never said anything about maturity, nor was it a fairly consequential topic. If anyone was mature here, they'd take constructive and honest criticism and correct themselves, not talk about who has friends and who doesn't.

:rolleyes:


besides if you ignore morality you can never gain support

I'm not interested in gaining the support of liberals and Bible-thumpers. Death and dictatorship to the bourgeoisie.

[Kia]

Im sure someone may have said this already so im sorry if I've restated what they said (not enough time to read every post).
Is Terrorism morally correct? Yes.
(I will use the general definition of terrorism that most people know today...not the specific exact definition. Terrorism is when someone or a group goes around bombing, hijacking, or killing another person(s) in an attempt to inflict fear and damage to its enemies.)
As I think someone stated earlier that it all depends on whos eyes your viewing it from. For example..imagine you live in a country that has recently been invaded by another countries military. You have very little weapons to combat the invading force and your army is crushed. You wish to resist the military force and stop them from taking over your country..what do you do? Easy you BOMB them..you shoot them, you destory their supplies, you kill their soldiers, you attack their puppet government, etc.. etc... Are you a terrorist in the eyes of your fellow countrymen? Probably not. Are you a terrorist in the eyes of your enemies? Of course. One side will see it morally just and the other a horendous act against huminaty.
Some "terrorists" target symbols of what the deem to be their "enemies" other target their enemies directly....The unethical thing about it is alot of the time they target people who are not really their enemies at all but just unlikely bystanders in the greater conflict of right and wrong.

As revolutionaries we need to evaluate every act of terrorism individually and look at a few important facts: Who are the "terrorists"? What did they target? Did they have justification for their act? Do we support these people? Do we support the people hurt or the symbol/property damaged?


Ill use quick and obvious examples to explain (the answers will be my opinion but i think youll get the point). Take 9/11. Do I support the people who bombed the towers? No. Why? Because I do not deem them to be revolutionary of fighting for their country or the better good of mankind. Was the 9/11 a justifiable target? No. Why? Because it was a symbol and it caused MASS death that i find unjustifiable. If no one had been in the world trade centers and no body harmed then yes...it would have been simple symbolic property damage. Did they have justification for their actions? No. Etc.. Etc...
Another example: Take the bombings of the military in Iraq. Do I support the acts? Yes. Why? Because theyre fighting an invading force and trying to gain back their country. Are military tagrets justifiable? Yes. They are the enemy to the people. This however doesnt mean i support the bombings of markets, cafes, school, mosques, etc....or the kidnapping of civilians etc....many times i do not agree with the reasons why they do it.



In all....context matters...look at each individual case and think to yourself why.

(hope i didn't spell anything wrong..shesh you english language nazis :D )