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

[GOATER]

Big difference between guerilla tactics against military forces and terrorists targeting civilians
TS is a detestable human

What? No shit.

This is why Im talking about terrorist tactics...not insurgent tactics(although sometimes they use terrorist tactics).

Yes terrorist target innocent people..I said it since OP.....yes they could resist thru regular insurgent tactics but I understand why they don't.

Im a destestable human being? How about all the bomber pilots who carpet bomb cities? You must hate them...inb4 you consider them heroes.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

Correct. And one of the most illogical and morally repugnant arguments I have seen contends that the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military installation, justified the bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[eworden78]

Here's kind of a mathematical objective argument against Terrorism as a valid tactics.

There's approximately 21 million armed forces members in the world. Or about 0.3% of the total world's population.
The civilian casualty ratio, although it fluctuates greatly, averages around 50% or one civilian casualty of war for every one military casualty.

So if we start with the assumptions:

• All Military personnel are legitimate targets of war.
• It's a legitimate rate to target* one civilian for every one military personnel.

*I'm using the world "target" loosely. Target includes acceptance of the risk of collateral damage. So the included civilians may not being literally targeted.

So given those rough statistics, at any given moment you have 42 million "acceptable" targets or 0.6% of the world population.

However, with terrorism, there is no distinction made between military and civilian targets. This means you have essentially 100% of the population, 7.4 billion people, as "acceptable" targets.

If you use a Kantian Categorical Imperative and we choose to accept one of these two statements as a universal law/

1. War limited to the parameters of international law is morally acceptable, terrorism is not.
2. There is no moral distinction between war limited to the parameters of international law and terrorism, both are equally acceptable.

By choosing statement two as a universal law you increase the number of acceptable targets by 166 times, or an additional 7.3 Billion people.
We can therefore conclude that limiting war to the parameters set forth in international law, is the more moral decision.

 

[GOATER]

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

Lol.

They are killing fellow countrymen, who are part of a rival faction....that isn't their own people.

Nationalism/Countries are social construct...A human can choose to consider fellow country men to not be their own people....American racist do it everyday.....so when they attack innocent minorites, in their mind, they arent attacking their own people even if they are from the same country.

So yes it matters what they think.....and they dont seem rival factions as their own people, deal with it.

Again..all your shit talking about their culture has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Lol.

They are killing fellow countrymen, who are part of a rival faction....that isn't their own people.

Nationalism/Countries are social construct...A human can choose to consider fellow country men to not be their own people....American racist do it everyday.....so when they attack innocent minorites, in their mind, they arent attacking their own people even if they are from the same country.

So yes it matters what they think.....and they dont seem rival factions as their own people, deal with it.

Again..all your shit talking about their culture has nothing to do with this thread.

nationalism is a 'social construct' but Religion isn't?

wait, what

you are so far in left field you're playing a different sport playa

 

[BangersAndSmash]

There is a great movie that dealt with a "war on terror" long before 9/11. It is a french movie called "The Battle of Algiers" (1966) about the historical conflict between the people of Algiers and the French who occupied them. The French were eventually forced out in 1962.



It was screened in the pentagon of the Bush white-house because it showed how a force could win the battle temporarily by using intimidation and torture to get vital intelligence, but lose war when the occupied populace gets fed up.

Anyway, here's a pertinent exchange in the movie between a journalist and a terrorist leader :

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

 

[GOATER]

nationalism is a 'social construct' but Religion isn't?

wait, what

you are so far in left field you're playing a different sport playa

Wtf are you talking about?

I never said religion wasnt a social construct....It is, religion is a social construct.

However the terrorist chose to believe the religion dogma and social contruct that it is....this is why their "people" are based on religion not entirely on nation, like westerners are accustomed to.

So attacking a rival faction, even if they are from the same country....isnt attacking their own people in their mind.

Do you understand now?

 

[GOATER]

Here's kind of a mathematical objective argument against Terrorism as a valid tactics.

There's approximately 21 million armed forces members in the world. Or about 0.3% of the total world's population.
The civilian casualty ratio, although it fluctuates greatly, averages around 50% or one civilian casualty of war for every one military casualty.

So if we start with the assumptions:

• All Military personnel are legitimate targets of war.
• It's a legitimate rate to target* one civilian for every one military personnel.

*I'm using the world "target" loosely. Target includes acceptance of the risk of collateral damage. So the included civilians may not being literally targeted.

So given those rough statistics, at any given moment you have 42 million "acceptable" targets or 0.6% of the world population.

However, with terrorism, there is no distinction made between military and civilian targets. This means you have essentially 100% of the population, 7.4 billion people, as "acceptable" targets.

If you use a Kantian Categorical Imperative and we choose to accept one of these two statements as a universal law/

1. War limited to the parameters of international law is morally acceptable, terrorism is not.
2. There is no moral distinction between war limited to the parameters of international law and terrorism, both are equally acceptable.

By choosing statement two as a universal law you increase the number of acceptable targets by 166 times, or an additional 7.3 Billion people.
We can therefore conclude that limiting war to the parameters set forth in international law, is the more moral decision.

First of all terrorist arent fighting the whole world....so they dont see the whole world, 7.4 billion people as legitimate targets.....Now do they see western nations, specifically the USA as fair game? Yes....thats still alot of people but much less than 7.4 billion

However if u want to make the point that is much better to impose rules to minimize casulties...I understand, however is not fair to terrorist all.

Again....the reason they impose these rules now is because they have the technology to attack select targets....something terrorist can't really do as efficiently as a billion/trillion $ military...so its easy for nation states to set up these new rules and make themselves seem as the good guys.

This is my whole point...they didnt change their moral values...they simply got new technology that allowed them to be more accurate thus they didnt need "terrorist carpet bombing" tactics anymore...so they created the word terrorism and deemed anybody who did such tactics as evil.


Look at the Nuke.....the ultimate terrorist weapon..

Western Nations will use nukes against Nations which will kill a shitalod of innocent people...they will aim it at cities.


Why dont they use them? Because there is no need to, yet...however they will use them.

Terrorist, see their way of life being destroyed by a way bigger military power......Terrorist tactics are their nukes.

 

[Videer]

No. SVBIED is the precision guided munition for those who dont have 'em.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

No. SVBIED is the precision guided munition for those who dont have 'em.

that or EFPs (explosively formed penetrators)

had to identify 18 bodies from our R&R transport after it got hit by an EFP, everyone on board died. Even the combat stress dog ffs

That crucial National Guard protection, not changing routes or doing proper recon will get you

 

[eworden78]

First of all terrorist arent fighting the whole world....so they dont see the whole world, 7.4 billion people as legitimate targets.....Now do they see western nations, specifically the USA as fair game? Yes....thats still alot of people but much less than 7.4 billion

However if u want to make the point that is much better to impose rules to minimize casulties...I understand, however is not fair to terrorist all.

Again....the reason they impose these rules now is because they have the technology to attack select targets....something terrorist can't really do as efficiently as a billion/trillion $ military...so its easy for nation states to set up these new rules and make themselves seem as the good guys.

This is my whole point...they didnt change their moral values...they simply got new technology that allowed them to be more accurate thus they didnt need "terrorist carpet bombing" tactics anymore...so they created the word terrorism and deemed anybody who did such tactics as evil.


Look at the Nuke.....the ultimate terrorist weapon..

Western Nations will use nukes against Nations which will kill a shitalod of innocent people...they will aim it at cities.


Why dont they use them? Because there is no need to, yet...however they will use them.

Terrorist, see their way of life being destroyed by a way bigger military power......Terrorist tactics are their nukes.

I'm not altogether unsympathetic to your perspective. But I'm trying to look at the issue from a different perspective.
I'm not arguing about terrorists, who their targets are, what they can or cannot do, what is fair to them, etc. I'm looking at "terrorism" as an idea and whether or not the idea itself has a general moral justification.

If you look at an act from a strictly Consequentialist viewpoint any act can be justified. If one had to decapitate a toddler to save a hundred toddlers, decapitating toddlers could be considered a moral act if argued as strict Consequentialism.

I think you're argument is more or less along those lines, if a group was in such a desperate situation that terrorism was their only option, then, yes, terrorism could be argued as a moral decision.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Uhm...most terror attacks are against the civilian population of the terrorist’s home country.

I feel like this is a key point.

 

[Gunny]

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?

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.......

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.

Do you apply that logic to domestic white supremacist terrorists? Or just Islamic terrorists? Because I don’t buy it for either.

 

[sub_thug]

that or EFPs (explosively formed penetrators)

had to identify 18 bodies from our R&R transport after it got hit by an EFP, everyone on board died. Even the combat stress dog ffs

That crucial National Guard protection, not changing routes or doing proper recon will get you

This thread is one of many where it becomes instantly obvious that some people (such as the TS) have no fucking clue what they are talking about

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Depends on the definition.
Blowing up military vehicles with IEDs is OK.
Blowing up random civilians is not. Terrorists are not causing collateral damage, they're literally targeting civilians.

There is also the practical view. In WW2 large scale attacks were conducted against civilians in order to destroy industry, it works. Blowing up kids at an Ariana Grande show doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

This thread is one of many where it becomes instantly obvious that some people (such as the TS) have no fucking clue what they are talking about

they didn't get the Man Love Thursdays (forced) memo apparently

 

[ICHEERTHEBULL]

Depends on the definition.
Blowing up military vehicles with IEDs is OK.
Blowing up random civilians is not. Terrorists are not causing collateral damage, they're literally targeting civilians.

There is also the practical view. In WW2 large scale attacks were conducted against civilians in order to destroy industry, it works. Blowing up kids at an Ariana Grande show doesn't accomplish anything.

Agree with you totally about what's legit. Deliberately targeting civilians be it in the form of a 'rebel' group or at the behest of a nation state is terror.

 

[GOATER]

Depends on the definition.
Blowing up military vehicles with IEDs is OK.
Blowing up random civilians is not. Terrorists are not causing collateral damage, they're literally targeting civilians.

There is also the practical view. In WW2 large scale attacks were conducted against civilians in order to destroy industry, it works. Blowing up kids at an Ariana Grande show doesn't accomplish anything.

In World War 2, they literally went to big cities, not industrial sectors and bombed the shit out of em...That was literally their aim, to kill innocent people and to demoralize the enemy enough so they will surrender...Tell me how in the fuck is that different from a typical terrorist attack aimed at civilians?

Look at the Nukes.....The ultimate terror weapon...They didn't drop that bomb on a industrail sector to fuck up their industry....They dropped it on a city to terrorize the japanese into surrendering.


and World War 2 showed that the terrorist tactics did infact accomplished something...thats why Japan Surrendered after the nukes.

 

[all caps]

Yea, also, chemical weapons are "banned"

But it's perfectly okay to blow things to smithereens.

 

[ICHEERTHEBULL]

"And you dare to call me a terrorist,
While you look down your gun,
When I think of all the deeds that you have done,
You have plundered many nations,
Divided many lands,
You have terrorised our people, you ruled with an iron hand and you brought this reign of terror to my land "

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter but fuck all who traget civilians. From suicide bombers on a train to fat guy giving the ok to the guy dropping a bomb from a drone on what he knows ain't a legit target