Now what motivates this kind of attack?

[NotRust]

I can understand attacks against military or political targets, but what possible reason could Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have to attack a group of innocent civilians?

Nice way to slip that in.

Umm... that's what they ARE.

Have we reached the point in political correctness where we can't call a spade a spade? Would you have preferred "alleged illegitimate combatants of a religious persuasion"?

[Maurepas]

I can understand attacks against military or political targets, but what possible reason could Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have to attack a group of innocent civilians?

Nice way to slip that in.

Umm... that's what they ARE.

Youre supposed to make it abundantly clear youre going to say what they are, not just say it like you did,

[Fartsniffage]

Has that ever worked? I don't think many Americans decided to give in after 9/11. Far more would have liked to see the whole Middle East bombed into oblivion.

Define "worked".

I would argue that terrorism worked in Northern Ireland, the IRA may not have got exactly what it wanted but neither did the British. It forced both side to the table and a compromise both sides could live with was reached.

[Muravyets]

Things like this are why I have no moral dilemmas with torturing terrorists.

A) Two wrongs do not make a right. The evil of terrorism does not justify the evil of torture.

B) Since torture is an evil in its own right, then if you can find any circumstance in which you would have no problem with doing that evil act, then I would suggest you need to examine your own character and ask yourself why you would ever be okay with doing something evil.

[BrightonBurg]

Evil

I hate it when I see people throwing that word around.

Yes, these people are murderous bastards. However, before you use the word, define "Evil".

Opinion noted,however thats how I sees it. and thats how I see those people who did this act,thus me,being the master of my opinions

[NotRust]

Erm to sum it all up quickly, the Viet Minh/Cong ruined everything for the South Vietnamese and whoever their allies were at the time by basically coercing the local villagers to act against their feudal overlord types (although there was probably quite a lot of sympathy for their ideas about land reform etc. as well). This is why Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

Yeah, but it's not really the same as modern terrorism. Plus, I'd call that "guerrilla warfare", really.

[Maurepas]

Things like this are why I have no moral dilemmas with torturing terrorists.

Well, the majority of the world does, our allies do...

My question would be, why would you want to do something that pisses people off, gives the moral high ground to the enemy, and doesnt get you any good information at the same time?

It is just bad tactics all around...

[Yootopia]

Erm to sum it all up quickly, the Viet Minh/Cong ruined everything for the South Vietnamese and whoever their allies were at the time by basically coercing the local villagers to act against their feudal overlord types (although there was probably quite a lot of sympathy for their ideas about land reform etc. as well). This is why Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

Yeah, but it's not really the same as modern terrorism. Plus, I'd call that "guerrilla warfare", really.

Are the taliban and other dodgy types in Afghanistan terrorists or guerrilla fighters? Discuss.

[Maurepas]

Erm to sum it all up quickly, the Viet Minh/Cong ruined everything for the South Vietnamese and whoever their allies were at the time by basically coercing the local villagers to act against their feudal overlord types (although there was probably quite a lot of sympathy for their ideas about land reform etc. as well). This is why Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

Yeah, but it's not really the same as modern terrorism. Plus, I'd call that "guerrilla warfare", really.

One man's Guerrilla fighter, is another man's Terrorist,

[Muravyets]

Has that ever worked? I don't think many Americans decided to give in after 9/11. Far more would have liked to see the whole Middle East bombed into oblivion.

Define "worked".

I would argue that terrorism worked in Northern Ireland, the IRA may not have got exactly what it wanted but neither did the British. It forced both side to the table and a compromise both sides could live with was reached.

In the context of the conversation the word came up in -- "they do it get people to join them"; "has that ever worked?" -- I would say "worked" means "has terrorism ever succeeded in getting people to support a movement because they were afraid not to"?

I say it has not, because even the IRA eventually backed down from violence and embrace political approaches in order to claim social legitimacy. We can argue over whether the IRA deserves that legitimacy or not, based on its history, but the fact remains that they did not gain legitimacy by blowing up their own people. They did not gain support by making people afraid to oppose them.

[Katganistan]

I think thats why they're called terrorists. They just want to make life hell for the other side, forcing them to give in.

There is no other side here. Just innocent civilians.

They want the innocent civilians to be afraid to oppose them. They are not just out to get rid of whoever they see as an oppressor. They are oppressors themselves. They use terror against their own people to send the message "join us or else."

Has that ever worked? I don't think many Americans decided to give in after 9/11. Far more would have liked to see the whole Middle East bombed into oblivion.

Yes, and then after the shock and anger and grief wore off, we regained our right minds.
Kindly don't use us to justify your open contempt for non-whites.

[Fartsniffage]

In the context of the conversation the word came up in -- "they do it get people to join them"; "has that ever worked?" -- I would say "worked" means "has terrorism ever succeeded in getting people to support a movement because they were afraid not to"?

I say it has not, because even the IRA eventually backed down from violence and embrace political approaches in order to claim social legitimacy. We can argue over whether the IRA deserves that legitimacy or not, based on its history, but the fact remains that they did not gain legitimacy by blowing up their own people. They did not gain support by making people afraid to oppose them.

The IRA did back away from violence but not because it was ineffective, following the 9/11 attacks funding from Irish Catholics in New York dried up and the whole attitude towards terrorism changed. In the past the British had always gone with proportion responses, we were now talking about invading a country to avenge 3000 deaths and the IRA was smart enough to realise that any further attacks would have reprecussions much more serious than they could withstand and survive.

That was what brought them to the table with serious offers of disarmament but had the terrorism of the previous years not occured then they wouldn't have had the leverage to get the talks started in the first place.

Sinn Fein is a minor provincial party with almost no clout in Westminster, the attention drawn by big bangs in British cities made them both heard and listened to.

[Bitchkitten]

In this case, religious fanaticism. One of the reasons I wish such superstition would die out.

[NotRust]

Yes, and then after the shock and anger and grief wore off, we regained our right minds.
Kindly don't use us to justify your open contempt for non-whites.

Excuse me? You assume a lot.

Or does "Doesn't like Islamic terrorism" equal "Hates non-white" in the left-wing handbook these days?

[Nilpnt]

Snips-
I can understand attacks against military or political targets, but what possible reason could Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have to attack a group of innocent civilians?

Terrorists man. Its what they do. How many children, old people and wemon do you think they have killed? Far more than military personal. They don't care who they kill so long as they kill.

What gets me is they even fight in the Mosques. If they fight for god then why the disrespect? Goes to show their true beliefs. Kill first, god second.

[Autotelic]

I can understand attacks against military or political targets, but what possible reason could Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have to attack a group of innocent civilians?

Nice way to slip that in.

Umm... that's what they ARE.

Have we reached the point in political correctness where we can't call a spade a spade? Would you have preferred "alleged illegitimate combatants of a religious persuasion"?

My mom actually got in trouble with HR for using that phrase... they told her it was racist....

[Post-Unity Terra]

Is this the return of that Ferrous chap?