In Defense of Terror

  • News
  • Thread starter klimatos
  • Start date
  • #1
411
35
In Defense of "Terror"

Why all the concern about “terrorism” in the last few years? We’ve had terrorism (as currently defined) as long as we’ve had human societies.

Moreover, it’s beginning to give terror a bad name. I want the enemies of the United States to tremble in terror as they scan the skies in search of the next drone attack. I want the enemies of the United States to peer in abject terror over their shoulder lest they see the black balaclavas of a Delta team. Terror in the hearts of our enemies is a good thing.

When terror is used against us and our friends, of course, it is a bad thing. Lots of things are either good or bad depending upon the circumstances, and the use of terror is one of these things.

Keep in mind that in using terror as a weapon, the United States is not guilty of “terrorism”. By legal definition, nation states are never guilty of “terrorism”. Only sub-national groups or individuals not acting on behalf of their governments can commit “terrorism”.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Evo
Mentor
23,199
3,005


Why all the concern about “terrorism” in the last few years? We’ve had terrorism (as currently defined) as long as we’ve had human societies.

Moreover, it’s beginning to give terror a bad name. I want the enemies of the United States to tremble in terror as they scan the skies in search of the next drone attack. I want the enemies of the United States to peer in abject terror over their shoulder lest they see the black balaclavas of a Delta team. Terror in the hearts of our enemies is a good thing.

When terror is used against us and our friends, of course, it is a bad thing. Lots of things are either good or bad depending upon the circumstances, and the use of terror is one of these things.

Keep in mind that in using terror as a weapon, the United States is not guilty of “terrorism”. By legal definition, nation states are never guilty of “terrorism”. Only sub-national groups or individuals not acting on behalf of their governments can commit “terrorism”.
The US doesn't go to peaceful civilian neighborhoods that have no known insurgents and send in suicide bombers. If an American were to strap bombs to himself and enter a crowded department store in London and blow themselves up, that would be an act of terrorism. We've had discussions on here many, many times.

If you do not know why we are in Afghanistan or Pakistan, you can read this, perhaps it will clear up some confusion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/
 
  • #3
863
4


Not sure if serious.
 
  • #4
18
1


These guys strap bombs to their bellies. How exactly do we make them tremble in terror? And why is that a solution? I don't see how bringing chaos to chaos would result in order.
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
20,579
7,243


Why all the concern about “terrorism” in the last few years?
Um, really? You don't think 3,000 dead civilians and a handful of collapsed skyscrapers (for starters...) is something to be concerned about?
We’ve had terrorism (as currently defined) as long as we’ve had human societies.
We've also had sunburn as long as we've had humans. Should we not be concerned about that either?
Moreover, it’s beginning to give terror a bad name. I want the enemies of the United States to tremble in terror as they scan the skies in search of the next drone attack. I want the enemies of the United States to peer in abject terror over their shoulder lest they see the black balaclavas of a Delta team. Terror in the hearts of our enemies is a good thing.

When terror is used against us and our friends, of course, it is a bad thing. Lots of things are either good or bad depending upon the circumstances, and the use of terror is one of these things.
You're not differentiate between "terror" and "terrorism". You're not getting why one is illegal/immoral and the other is not. Not sure how to help with that, since it seems you need to start from the beginning - I guess I'd suggest you start by reading the wiki on it.
Keep in mind that in using terror as a weapon, the United States is not guilty of “terrorism”. By legal definition, nation states are never guilty of “terrorism”. Only sub-national groups or individuals not acting on behalf of their governments can commit “terrorism”.
That's completely false. Again, I'd suggest you start by reading the wiki on the subject. Your understanding of the concept is extremely thin.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
149
0


Why all the concern about “terrorism” in the last few years? We’ve had terrorism (as currently defined) as long as we’ve had human societies.

Moreover, it’s beginning to give terror a bad name. I want the enemies of the United States to tremble in terror as they scan the skies in search of the next drone attack. I want the enemies of the United States to peer in abject terror over their shoulder lest they see the black balaclavas of a Delta team. Terror in the hearts of our enemies is a good thing.

When terror is used against us and our friends, of course, it is a bad thing. Lots of things are either good or bad depending upon the circumstances, and the use of terror is one of these things.

Keep in mind that in using terror as a weapon, the United States is not guilty of “terrorism”. By legal definition, nation states are never guilty of “terrorism”. Only sub-national groups or individuals not acting on behalf of their governments can commit “terrorism”.


Why is this thread is not locked?
 
  • #7
Evo
Mentor
23,199
3,005


Why is this thread is not locked?
Good idea, a quick search shows over 20 threads on this topic.
 

Related Threads on In Defense of Terror

Replies
3
Views
778
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
85
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
M
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
I
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
Top