How do you define terrorism?

  • News
  • Thread starter Yaqout
  • Start date
  • #26
Probably the basis of the Rational-Irrational comes from seeing it from Bin Laden's (? et al?) 'point of view', "doing NOthing is an Irrational act" hence we see that that Idea of "inaction" is seen as a "Supplication to a Power", therefore we know that they would see "action" as the only Rational pathway...(Rationally speaking, of course)
 
  • #27
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Unequivocably yes.
Sez you.
 
  • #28
591
0
Originally posted by russ_watters
Unequivocably yes.
What if they only struck at the Pentagon?
 
  • #29
Zero
Originally posted by master_coda
What if they only struck at the Pentagon?
I think the World Trade Center towers are perfectly logical millitary targets. Others seem to disagree.(the same others who worship money as their one true God, mostly Republicans)
 
  • #30
Evo
Mentor
23,103
2,448
Originally posted by Zero
I think the World Trade Center towers are perfectly logical millitary targets.
I agree, looking at it from their viewpoint, but they chose to attack when they knew the towers were full of civilians. They could have struck at a time when the towers would be pretty much empty. I think the blow against America if the towers weren't full of people would have been impact enough, the decision to kill so many people was unecessary.

I'm no bleading heart liberal, although I spent much of my youth volunteering at a "subversive" radio station. We were "blown up" by the KKK.

But I can't agree with the unecesssary taking of lives.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Originally posted by Evo
(SNIP) But I can't agree with the unecesssary taking of lives. (SNoP)
Neither do 'they'...
 
  • #32
russ_watters
Mentor
19,226
5,236
Originally posted by master_coda
What if they only struck at the Pentagon?
With a missile or a civilian airliner? Missile no, civilian airliner yes.
I think the World Trade Center towers are perfectly logical millitary targets.
How do you figure?

It is bizarre to see people on a science board arguing against the existence of an objective definition of something. With all the threads here on the Geneva Convention and the actions of the US military being under such a microscope, I have a hard time accepting that this thread even exists. Its such a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
With a missile or a civilian airliner? Missile no, civilian airliner yes.
How do you figure?

It is bizarre to see people on a science board arguing against the existence of an objective definition of something. With all the threads here on the Geneva Convention and the actions of the US military being under such a microscope, I have a hard time accepting that this thread even exists. Its such a contradiction.
I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it, won't you?
 

Related Threads for: How do you define terrorism?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
110
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
6K
Replies
71
Views
8K
Top