Terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MRT144
nye, the thing i dont understand is how anyone can tolerate any violence period. and certain kinds of violence over another. does the victim and intent really change the fact of what happened?

Do we tolerate a robber at the local bank? No.

Why? Because we all live in an ordered, and enforced, society.

Do we tolerate some of our sons and daughters killing 'enemies' overseas? Yes.

Why? Because the world is not an ordered and enforced society. No matter how we want to dress it up, no matter how much you want to believe in the UN, the reality is that someone is just around the corner wanting to take your national lunch away from you. There are no cops to stop it. There is no order, aside from the agreements of the 200 some-odd nations of the Earth. And those agreements aren't particularly useful when the **** hits the fan.

Ask the Tibetans.

As for what Westerners should tolerate for violence. I would say enough to ensure a halt to the attacks on civilians by civilians for political purposes most anywhere in the world. If we do not do it, who will?

[MRT144]

Sure we tolerate our adventures overseas, but when the game comes to us, all of a sudden its an outrage and unnacceptable. to who though?

Thats not to say we shouldnt act and not intervene, quite the oppisite, when we have a chance to defend ourselves from real threats, we should. We should go after terrorists with the same resolve as we go against conventional armies. We have to put our foot down somewhere, but crying foul over terrorism isnt going to stop it.

think about violence relativism...

[Lancer]

Such people...

[Lancer]

MRT, you can stow that where the sun doesn't shine pal.

[notyoueither]

No, when the game comes to you, the stakes are raised, or you realise you are at the table.

I have always said that terrorism was unacceptable and should be squashed. Glad to see many of your countrymen come on board recently.

Think about the self preservation of the leaders of the states who have supported terrorism up to this point.

[MRT144]

only if you move your head for a moment.

[Lancer]

notyou, sure, they must consider themselves fair game.

Btw, Syria has pulled out of parts of Lebanon, seemingly on their own.

[CyberGnu]

MRT

The whole idea of "civilian" vs. "military" died with the advent of industrialism.

What we should be concerned with is aggression. An aggressor is always wrong, regardless what means of fighting he employs. The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.

[Sirotnikov]

MRT and Cyber Gnu scare me.

The whole idea of regulated warfare is that assured mutual destruction is prevented.

If both sides kill each other completely, using all possible means - there'd be no one to inherit the earth and win the fruits of war.

That's just silly.

[MRT144]

the problem is you cant regulate the actions of others. you can only react, and for israel that means reacting to terrorism with conventional means. for palestine that means reacting with terrorism to conventional means.

if you cant win the fight their way, fight any way you know how, or die trying.

[Lancer]

"You can only react"

Erm, Iraq.

[MRT144]

youre right lancer...we had no provocation and were the aggressor...and we were wrong. conventional terrorists.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Terrorism is NOT war. Terrorism is armed, private combat. WAR encompasses more than just combat

No it doesn't. Wars are defined by 1000+ battlefield deaths.

[Lonestar]

I prefer the Israeli method of dealing with terrorists.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MRT144
yes, i understand that mad monk. you cant just say "no war" and expect it to happen. the idea that i find ridiculous is that our conventional warfare is somehow more acceptable to other people than terrorism.

Why does that shock you so?