News Is Terror Justifiable Depending on the Circumstances?

[klimatos]

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”.

 

[Evo]

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/

 

[KingNothing]

Not sure if serious.

 

[Newai]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Evo]

Why is this thread is not locked?

Good idea, a quick search shows over 20 threads on this topic.