The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy

  • News
  • Thread starter SOS2008
  • Start date
  • #26
81
0
stoned said:
russ_watters said:
I guess I should have phrased it better (caveat: the PLO). How about this:

The USSR raped and pillaged the countries of Eastern Europe for nearly 40 years: why didn't the people of Eastern Europe resort to terrorism against the USSR?

Eastern Europeans did not have to revert to terrorism against Russians. Russians were the true liberators of eastern Europe, and lives of people there did improved a lot. On the other hand American brutal wars against Iraq or Vietnam do breed terrorism- that is normal.
 
  • #27
57
0
russ_watters said:
This thread, like the dozens of others we've had on the subject, presupposes that terrorism is an acceptable response. That's why you missed my point, Smurf. Quite frankly, its disturbing.
The problem russ is that i don't know what your head think terrorism is... For example could we say usbek president is a terrorist??? or saddam of the 80's was a terrorist?

Explain please. until you explain that, there is no valid argument you can make about "Terrorism"
 
Last edited:
  • #28
356
3
russ_watters said:
This thread, like the dozens of others we've had on the subject, presupposes that terrorism is an acceptable response. That's why you missed my point, Smurf. Quite frankly, its disturbing.
No Russ, the problem is that you're making weak and incomplete arguments that Islam culture is a "violent culture".

You state that having a violent culture is a necessary condition for terrorism. Frankly, that's absurd. The only conclusion from that statement is that the Middle East, Chechnya, England, Ireland, USA, France, Spain, India, Palestine, Israel, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Phillipines, Cuba, Sudan, Canada, The Koreas, Pretty much all of South America and Countless nations in Africa - ALL HAVE VIOLENT CULTURES. The only logical conclusion from this is that almost any human "culture" is capable of resorting to terrorism.

And, let's not stop there, if we create another rule (Which I see no less evidence for - since you have yet to provide evidence in any of your arguments) that violent culture is a necessary ocndition to countless other forms of group violence (war not excluded) then every single culture on earth becomes guilty of a having a violent nature - without going back in history even half a century.

It's a weak and/or incomplete claim... and I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence and arguments for it.
 
  • #29
57
0
If we are talking about violent cultures, i think we have nothing to talk about. everybody know wich is the most violent country... The one who used military force in most of the conflicts in the world, and if not using military force directly by helping one of the sides in conflict, The number 1 weapons manufacturer in the world. the number 1 in technology for killing...

you know., "The best country in the world"
 
  • #30
57
0
The cause of the terrorism against the US is a culture based on violence and lack of respect for human life.
The cause of therrorism against the us (If you call terrorism a suicide bomber) is the unbalance between the oposin factions, How do you expect the irak people figth your army? they shoot their ak47 for more that 1 minute and a misile came from the sky and kill them plus everythink around them.... What do you expect??? they cant even be safe in bunkers. no way military instalations, they have no other choice that diguise themselfs in the civilian population. It's more a tactic that a isue of culture... i don't see another way to fight the us Army and actualy having any chance of wining..
 
  • #31
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
As always the question of definition arises, and as always the point must be made that individuals, groups, and states can commit acts of terrorism:

State terrorism is a controversial concept that is without a clear definition (see below). Depending on definition it can include acts of violence or repressions perpetrated by a national government or its proxy. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the speaker considers the action justified or necessary, or whether it is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It may also depend on whether the speaker supports the government in question.

State terrorism, where it is consdered to apply, may be directed at the state's own population or at others. It may be carried out by the state's own forces (such as army or police) or other organisations, where it is more usually called state sponsored terrorism.

Care should be taken to separate out state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents but not as part of a government policy. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action. There is considerable debate over whether acts carried out within the laws of war may be considered terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

Terrorism is disturbing no matter who practices it or instigates it. And to properly address the matter, one must look at the root causes, no? It's not showing sympathy toward terrorism to do so, and throwing stones from a glass house isn't likely to get good results.
 
  • #32
356
3
russ_watters said:
This thread, like the dozens of others we've had on the subject, presupposes that terrorism is an acceptable response. That's why you missed my point, Smurf. Quite frankly, its disturbing.
I don't think terrorism is "acceptable". What you find disturbing is that I don't think it's any worse than other kinds of violence, even that by American Forces.
 

Related Threads on The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
6K
Replies
60
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
8K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
71
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Top