Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[orange]

I don't think any nation has that on the books.

[notyoueither]

Actually, many do.

You plot to carry out a crime (by our books) anywhere in the world, you get locked up. That's in Canada. I suspect that many nations have similar statutes. However, I'm not a lawyer and stand ready to be corrected.

[orange]

i'm sorry, i misread it...or did you change it? I don't know...i thought it was asking if any nations had laws that supported terrorism.

[notyoueither]

I did edit it quickly. The against was always there though.

[Lancer]

The government of the US and coalition countries avoided civilian casualties in Iraq at tremendous cost. Terrorists on the other hand target civilians. You point out that terrorists don't have the ability to confront our power on an equal basis and so terrorism becomes a legitamate form of warfare.

If a nation or political or religious system ever, through atrocities, convinces the public of, say, the US to operatate on such a basis...

Anyway, the society which enables such a war on innocents should consider the abyss.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the society which enables such a war on innocents should consider the abyss.

You mean like the US in WW2 (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima)

[Lancer]

Awareness is different now Imran, as you know. Also, don't forget London. I'm not taking the side of those who bombed Dresden, but I understand them. It was total war, as the people of that time understand it. Now its something different entirely, so people recoil from it more in this time.

[Frankychan]

Terrorism is NOT war. Terrorism is armed, private combat. WAR encompasses more than just combat...it contains economic sanctions, diplomatic procedures, yadayadayada.

Terrorism is armed conflict that borders on the definition of "atrocity".

[James Adams]

There are no legitimate forms of warfare!

Sorry, but I think combat now that Nuclear warefare can happen no war is justified!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not taking the side of those who bombed Dresden, but I understand them.

So why can you not understand those that undertake in terrorism? That was the purpose of Diss's thread. This isn't different. In fact, it is very similar.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the society which enables such a war on innocents should consider the abyss.

You mean like the US in WW2 (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima)

There was a slight difference. The bombers came in shapes that could be recognised and combated. They followed similar excesses from the other side. It was a situation that both sides found themselves escalating in.

To introduce Dresden as an excuse for the acts of the terrorists is to open the door to the carpet bombing and fire bombing of the home towns of the suicide bombers. Is that a good idea?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by notyoueither
To introduce Dresden as an excuse for the acts of the terrorists is to open the door to the carpet bombing and fire bombing of the home towns of the suicide bombers. Is that a good idea?

if all the arabs were dead, we wouldn't be in this mess, now would we?

stupid politics

[Imran Siddiqui]

To introduce Dresden as an excuse for the acts of the terrorists is to open the door to the carpet bombing and fire bombing of the home towns of the suicide bombers. Is that a good idea?

It may be. It depends on the circumstances. Right now, naw it ain't a good idea. We have much more power than they do and there are easier ways out.

[Frankychan]

Nuclear "Warfare" is an atrocity.

[Lancer]

Imran, because in those times there was no force in human hands that could end all life on Earth. That changes everything.

Also, Dresden followed London, the allies didn't start the war, niether did the Brits. So anything that shortened it was ok, to those that waged it. Only in the aftermath was Dresden considered wrong, unarmed.

Nagasaki built fighters, Hiroshima, I don't recall, something though. At any rate the Japanese should not have expected quarter. Total warriors, waging a total war.

The US and Britain didn't start the war, so anything that facilitated its end was considered productive.

Regarding terrorism, it's war on innocent people. I understand that. It's a power play on the part of aggressors. Those that take part in such tactics play with oblivion. If the US were to ever engage in Jihad one day, there would be no day 2 for our enemies.