Red Pill: "Terrorism" is not "evil" but a valid tactic for groups without pinpoint guided missiles

GOATER

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2018
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
0
I know terrorism and evil go hand in hand....That terrorism is a big nono, and pure evil act...that terrorism is the most despicable tactic....or is it?

main-qimg-5e192a3f0f26a60234e5d0a3477ac571-c


Look thru out human history....hell look at world war 2....All sides, both allies and Axis carpet bombed cities.......carpet bomb....they specifically aimed at cities which they knew were full of people and killed as much much people as possible...why? To weaken the enemy, cause fear, and demoralize the enemy which hopefully would lead to their surrender....The Nukes are also an example of this.

Fact is...terrorist tactics have been part of human history....Go back in time, and killing innocent people for political gain, was done by every big nation.

So what happened? Why did terrorist tactics suddenly become frowned upon by the same nations using these terrorist tactics in WW2?....Technology changed the game.

All the nations that purposely carpet bombed innocent people, found how to create missiles...which made their killings much more efficient....but also allowed them to create a new rule......which was if you killed innocent people on purpose, you're a terrorist now.

You see, Nation-States know they have the means to minimize innocent casualties with guided missiles....They know that small groups, like terrorist groups, dont have the same capability.

So what do you do when you have a capability that your opponent doesnt have, and they are using a tactics that you no longer use? You make said tactic be viewed as illegal/evil.

This is exactly what they did.....Suicide bombings, or anything that could inflict massive casulties to innocent people was suddenly called terrorism.

You see, the word terrorism discredits the group no matter what.....It makes them look like the bad guy.

When in reality, Alqueda or any terrorist groups are doing valid tactics which have been done forever.

Think about it...Small terrorist cells dont have precision weaponry, they cant fight us in conventional ways....so "terrorism" is their only valid tactic.

The United States and every other western nation, didnt stop carpet bombing or doing "terrorist" actions because they actually changed their morals.....they simply created technology that allowed them to be accurate in strikes, thus now they could minimize innocent casualties.

Then they created the rule of "killing innocents on purpose = terrorism", since they had no need for carpet bombings anymore(Its a first world nation with missiles facing a third world nation with nothing lol, they obviously dont need such tactics to deal with them).....they knew that these new "Rules" would make them seem like the good guy and the terrorist seem like the bad guys.

However you still see glimps of terrorism tactics by USA still...Drone attacks for example have bombed weedings, killing a shitload of innocent people just because intel said 1 terrorist guy will be there......But I guess terrorism tactics there are justified because we are trying to kill 1 guy.......

afghanairstrike1105.jpg


Right now the USA/West can boast about not purposely aiming to kill innocent people....but if they ever fight eachother, and not a third world nation.....I gurantee you that carpet bombings/Nukes/aiming at innocents will come back.
 
Last edited:
It is valid and morally accetable for a proxy war disguised by a "legit uprising" .
 
Even with pinpoint guided bombs a awful lot of civilians seem to get killed
 
With SJW antics like Drag Queen story time being pushed on schools on the west, I don't even think the terrorists can hurt us more that we are doing ourselves.
 
I wouldn't call it a valid tactic because an awful lot of terrorism seems to be directed by terrorists against their own population.

You kind of lose any grounds for "justified vengeance" when you end up killing the same people whose deaths you pretend to be outraged about. These same terrorists also put the civilians at risk by operating in locations alongside the civilians, to shield their activities, and to cry martyrdom when they end up being bombed.

Strikes against military targets, even if committed by a jihadist, on the other hand, are not acts of terrorism, even if they are sometimes reported as such.

If the United States is at war against jihadism, then it should expect jihadists to strike back with equal force.

Even Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. The attack against the Twin Towers during 9/11 was, because there was no military value to the target.

I would define a "terror attack" as any attack that is executed primarily in order to cause terror among the civilian population, rather than to cause military losses against the enemy.
 
Last edited:
Im not entirely sure the TS knows what terrorism means AND/OR im not sure the TS is using the same definition for the entirety of the OP.
 
Imagine the French resistance in WW2 and instead of just targeting occupying Nazis, they strapped nail bombs to themselves and walked into crowed market places to kill as many innocent French people as possible. So no, a lot of what these shit heads do is not valid in any way shape or form.
 
Big difference between guerilla tactics against military forces and terrorists targeting civilians
TS is a detestable human
 
Uhm...most terror attacks are against the civilian population of the terrorist’s home country.
 
It's a subjective term. I've come to learn that different people will perceive it in their own unique way depending on who you are.


I'm sure the Afghans see our soldiers as terrorists who are invading and occupying their land. Bombing and droning them and trying impose a way of life they don't want.
Our soldiers themselves are the politicians pawns btw. So unlike what some believe they too have an ideology when they kill, just like when they get killed.

So in our eyes our enemies are terrorists and in our enemies' eyes we are.
 
The powers that be in NA have been complaining about asymmetrical warfare since Pontiac's War.
 
Even with pinpoint guided bombs a awful lot of civilians seem to get killed
That’s because it’s a bomb not a guy with a knife. People hear smart weapon and think it only hits that guy. It’s a bomb. It’s music better than bombing a while city to get that one guy. Now we can hit the building.
 
Do you people not have siblings? Terrorism is a natural behavior.
 
Imagine the French resistance in WW2 and instead of just targeting occupying Nazis, they strapped nail bombs to themselves and walked into crowed market places to kill as many innocent French people as possible. So no, a lot of what these shit heads do is not valid in any way shape or form.
Lots of terrorist attacks are done against the miliatary...Since the military patrols busy neighborhoods, innocent people get caught in the blast....these insurgent attacks are then called terrorist attacks.

But yes, some terrorist just aim at innocent people...but like I said, nation states did the same shit in WW2...1000x worse.

Also the terrorist are full of factions...the terrorist attacks are against other religious factions innocent people....so your example of "Imagine the french resistence killing innocent french" is not the same.

If a shia terrorist group commits an attack against innocent people only, its gonna be against the sunnis.....so no, they arent killing their own people...this is how they think..they don't care much about nationalism.

There tactics are valid since they ate fighting a super power that is a democracy, who has shown to tap out if things get really tough.
 
I wouldn't call it a valid tactic because an awful lot of terrorism seems to be directed by terrorists against their own population.

You kind of lose any grounds for "justified vengeance" when you end up killing the same people whose deaths you pretend to be outraged about. These same terrorists also put the civilians at risk by operating in locations alongside the civilians, to shield their activities, and to cry martyrdom when they end up being bombed.

Strikes against military targets, even if committed by a jihadist, on the other hand, are not acts of terrorism, even if they are sometimes reported as such.

If the United States is at war against jihadism, then it should expect jihadists to strike back with equal force.

Even Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. The attack against the Twin Towers during 9/11 was, because there was no military value to the target.

I would define a "terror attack" as any attack that is executed primarily in order to cause terror among the civilian population, rather than to cause military losses against the enemy.

The terrorist have to have a base around innocent people to have a chance...sure they can go to the moutains and get the shit destroyed out of em...or they can have a base in a city, close to where occupant military is and commit damage.

So no, I dont blame them for having a base in the middle of a city....its their only fighting chance..its not like they can make a base in the middle of no where, with tough defenses(like occupant military does)and fight a superpower head on.

As for them killing innocent people...Lots of their insurgent attacks were aimed American Soldiers but, these American soldiers happen to be on busy streets thus innocent people died....Also they arent killing their own people.

Sunnis/shia groups in iraq after the occupation, attacked the rival group which was either sunnis/shia...they werent killing their own people...and they were aiming at the rival faction because they want political power in this new iraq.....Religion trumps nationalism in the middle east.

So even by WW2 standards..they are doing exactly the same...they are attacking the enemies innocent people(just like America purposely killed innocent Japanese/Germans, to try to get them to surrender)

As for what exactly is a terrorist attack, I agree that your defenition is better than the mainstream defenition....Example the USS cole attack was considered a terrorist attack by the media/military..I believe even the military changed the defenition to make an attack against non-active military group be considered a terrorist attack...but like u said pearl harbor shouldn't be considered a terrorist attack so neither should uss cole.
 
good call

all those recent bombings in Kabul have hurt so many non Afghans....

oh wait
 
good call

all those recent bombings in Kabul have hurt so many non Afghans....

oh wait
Again......Religion>Nationalism in middle east countries.

If a Sunni terrorist sets off a bomb in a shia neightborhood to only kill innocent people, this equivelent to an American Plane carpet Bombing Tokyo to kill innocent people only..same fucking tactic.

They arent killing their own people..in their minds shia/sunnis, whatever is the rival faction...they are the enemy...just like Americans saw germans/japanese as the enemy and killed their innocent people.
 
Last edited:
Again......Religion>Nationalism in middle east countries.

If a Sunni terrorist sets off a bomb in a shia neightborhood to only kill innocent people, this equivelent to an American Plane carpet Bombing Tokyo to kill innocent people only..same fucking tactic.

They are killing their own people..in their minds shia/sunnis, whatever is the rival faction...they are the enemy...just like Americans saw germans/japanese as the enemy and killed their innocent people.
I know playa, I lived in Kabul for a year

doesn't change the fact they are literally killing their own citizens, we don't do that. Also, the ANA and AMP have a 20% attrition/AWOL rate after training....where do you think those people end up? helping the populace? hahahahaha no

Girls didn't even attend school in that country until 2010, there were only 70km of paved roads IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY in 2001 (hence why drivers license aren't mandatory there).....that wasn't b/c of the US my dude
 
I know playa, I lived in Kabul for a year

doesn't change the fact they are literally killing their own citizens, we don't do that. Also, the ANA and AMP have a 20% attrition/AWOL rate after training....where do you think those people end up? helping the populace? hahahahaha no

Girls didn't even attend school in that country until 2010, there were only 70km of paved roads IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY in 2001 (hence why drivers license aren't mandatory there).....that wasn't b/c of the US my dude
They arent killing their own people.

Yes they kill fellow countrymen but REMEMBER they put religion over nationalism so their terrorist attacks are against rival factions.

So when you say "but but they kill their own people!"....thay isnt true...in their mindset, sunnis/shias or whatever is the rival faction, aren't their people....this is how they think.

So its not like they do terrorist attacks against their own community.....you people make them seem..as irrational savages...they aren't, they do have some logical pattern that is similar to WW2 terrorist tactics.

Why in the fuck are you bringing young girls and driving into this? Yes they are ass backwards.....that has nothing to do with this terrorist discussion.
 
They arent killing their own people.

Yes they kill fellow countrymen but REMEMBER they put religion over nationalism so their terrorist attacks are against rival factions.

So when you say "but but they kill their own people!"....thay isnt true...in their mindset, sunnis/shias or whatever is the rival faction, aren't their people....this is how they think.

So its not like they do terrorist attacks against their own community.....you people make them seem..as irrational savages...they aren't, they do have some logical pattern that is similar to WW2 terrorist tactics.

Why in the fuck are you bringing young girls and driving into this? Yes they are ass backwards.....that has nothing to do with this terrorist discussion.
It doesn't matter what they feel, they are literally killing their own people. Period, end of story.

well, there's a reason young women are essentially property of the family in Afghanistan...and why they are like NEVER seen in public.

HInt: it's the same reason bestiality and raping boys is rampant in that country. It's not b/c they fear that Coalition forces are snatching their women up, if you catch my drift
 
Back
Top