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

[GOATER]

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.

My argument is this...One group has shit technology thus they do terrorism....another group had shit technology for a long time, did terrorism but now have new technology to be more accurate in their strikes.

The group with the new technology...Now acts morally superior to the group with shit technology(AKA terrorist), because they have the technology to be accurate and since that's the case they call the terrorist tactics, now immoral/wrong even though they committed way more terrorist acts in WW2 than the people who are they criticizing now(terrorist)

So basically why they are against terrorism now, is because they aren't depended on that tactic anymore...they have better tech thus they can do different things.

 

[panamaican]

My argument is this...One group has shit technology thus they do terrorism....another group had shit technology for a long time, did terrorism but now have new technology to be more accurate in their strikes.

The group with the new technology...Now acts morally superior to the group with shit technology(AKA terrorist), because they have the technology to be accurate and since that's the case they call the terrorist tactics, now immoral/wrong even though they committed way more terrorist acts in WW2 than the people who are they critizing now(terrorist)

Your position can be summed up with the old adage "Might makes right."

 

[Madmick]

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.

Oh, look, another attempt to portray people who walk onto buses crowded with civilians including children and detonate a bomb as the "good guys".

^^
Hollywood called. They've already been dishing out top awards for your "red pill" dating back over a decade.

 

[GOATER]

Oh, look, another attempt to portray people who walk onto buses crowded with civilians including children and detonate a bomb as the "good guys".

^^
Hollywood called. They've already been dishing out top awards for your "red pill" dating back over a decade.

But according to you, I bet these guys were the good guys...even though they did the exact same shit that a terrorist does when they walking into a bus to detonate themselves.


The difference here is...that these guys had the technology to drop a bomb from the sky and kill a shitload of innocent people.

The aim was the same as a terrorist tho...Terrorize the civilian population to get them to surrender(Political Aim).

 

[Soul Crusher]

Rationalizing Islamic terrorism.


A new low for the progressive left.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

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

Yes to all of this, especially that bit about @GOATER

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

But according to you, I bet these guys were the good guys...even though they did the exact same shit that a terrorist does when they walking into a bus to detonate themselves.


The difference here is...that these guys had the technology to drop a bomb from the sky and kill a shitload of innocent people.

The aim was the same as a terrorist tho...Terrorize the civilian population to get them to surrender(Political Aim).

I think that bomb drop was despicable, as are all terrorist attacks.

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

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

It's a bit more complicated than "guerilla tactics vs terrorism", I think. It's certainly a shit thing to kill civilians in a war, but such killing rarely happens without any context and goal. It's rarely "mayhem for the sake of mayhem", it's usually a tactic designed to elicit a specific response. For example, 9/11 drove up the security and military spending in the US, cost of security, and it caused social turbulence that's now lasting almost 20 years. Fear can be a goal. Social unrest can be a goal. Driving the other team's costs can be a goal. Is it a tactic with detestable results? Certainly. But it's rarely an act of the Jokers of the world, an act of anarchy for anarchy's sake

 

[GOATER]

Yea, also, chemical weapons are "banned"

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

I can understand why Nation-States banned chemical weapons.

They are really easy to fucking counter...Basically a mask.....So imagine the same war but people wear mask now...What's the difference now? More innocent people are death because they won't get mask.....So basically chemical weapons don't do much against militaries so they are pointless if they became the norm in war.


Now, should small groups like terrorist, use chemical weapons? I mean I understand why, it's a good terror tactic...and like I said in this thread, terror tactics have been a norm for most of history.

 

[Madmick]

But according to you, I bet these guys were the good guys...even though they did the exact same shit that a terrorist does when they walking into a bus to detonate themselves.


The difference here is...that these guys had the technology to drop a bomb from the sky and kill a shitload of innocent people.

The aim was the same as a terrorist tho...Terrorize the civilian population to get them to surrender(Political Aim).

 

[GOATER]

I think that bomb drop was despicable, as are all terrorist attacks.

Ok.

Well the Nations who are 100% against terrorism now, did that like 80 years ago.....but now they outlawed those tactics and call it terrorism because they have the tech to be more accurate.


Did they outlaw them because of morality? No, they outlawed them because that's the only way a small group can fight.....So now they decided to call it terrorism to discredit their movement/organization.

 

[GOATER]

So attacking a military installation, like Pearl Harbor......A Surprised military attack against another military......Justified the Nukes aimed at innocent Japanese people that killed hunderds of thousands?


WOW..........We got ourselves a terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Madmick]

So attacking a military installation, like Pearl Harbor......A Surprised military attack against another military......Justified the Nukes aimed at innocent Japanese people that killed hunderds of thousands?


WOW..........We got ourselves a terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that how World Wars work?

Intredasting.

 

[GOATER]

Is that how World Wars work?

Intredasting.

World Wars make terrorist tactics valid? Weird.

I guess the terrorist aren't in some sort of world war, according to your logic, their tactics are valid.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Ok.

Well the Nations who are 100% against terrorism now, did that like 80 years ago.....but now they outlawed those tactics and call it terrorism because they have the tech to be more accurate.


Did they outlaw them because of morality? No, they outlawed them because that's the only way a small group can fight.....So now they decided to call it terrorism to discredit their movement/organization.

It’s different people, bud. None of the people behind Hiroshima are alive, let alone on power.

You’re doing the same thing I did when I was young and trapped in the mindset of our culture. It’s ironic because they have us feeling like we are seeing something against the grain, but it is absolutely mainstream in our culture to turn the magnifying glass hard on our own while not doing the same to other cultures.
War is ugly as hell, and ugly decisions get made. It isn’t a white American thing. The ‘Japanese’ were fucking horrific in that war, too. Downright horrific. And no, it doesn’t justify the mass slaughter of their people.

I do see your point - that it is easy to be more moral when you have more moral options, but youre paintbrushing the same old enemy - those nasty white Americans - based on what nasty Americans did many generations ago. You are writing off a group of people based on DNA and position in government and military. It isn’t progressive. This is how we don’t improve and move past things together. I do see what you are saying, though.

And it’s a tough, tough call to make from our comfortable lives. I became quite supportive of the other side of the story regarding the IRA years ago. They didn’t have another way to fight back, and people were getting pushed around by Orangemen, and the cops would always take that side. They had the balls to fight back, and there was only one way to do it. But, like someone on here said, there is a difference between guerilla tactics and something unforgivable like Black Friday. Again though, it’s easy to say from my bed. Day after day of altercations and hatred, and some guys snap and do something truly horrible....

Enola Gay was worse. They got the order to drop that bomb (bombs) because the guy behind building it had put too much time into it and realllly wanted to see it go boom and how much damage it could do. More coldblooded, and all the rationalizations for it make me sick.

Let’s not assume that nations like the US would be all for terrorism if they didn’t have better weapons. It’s a big and divisive assumption. It’s an accusation that can only bring about hatred and mistrust. Assume better, condemn the actual evil acts.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

yes they could resist thru regular insurgent tactics but I understand why they don't.

Because they are evil...

Anybody who intentionally kills or harms the innocent is evil

 

[GOATER]

Because they are evil...

Anybody who intentionally kills or harms the innocent is evil

For the record...These guys are evil? Yes or no...Just trying to understand how strong your moral convictions are.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

For the record...These guys are evil? Yes or no...Just trying to understand how strong your moral convictions are.

Did they intentionally kill a lot of innocent people knowingly and by choice? If the answers are yes, then yes.

I stick to my principles. I dont give a damn what team you are on. Killing the innocent is wrong

 

[GOATER]

Did they intentionally kill a lot of innocent people knowingly and by choice? If the answers are yes, then yes.

I stick to my principles. I dont give a damn what team you are on. Killing the innocent is wrong

Yeah bro, they dropped the nuke...They knew it was super powerful and they would kill innocent people...Is not like they lied to em, and told em they were dropping marshmallows in an industrial only sector.

Alright man, that's all I wanted to know...It's good to have people with strong principles...Keep being my adversity in issues, Thank you for being my opponent.


Also Im high.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Did they outlaw them because of morality? No, they outlawed them because that's the only way a small group can fight

Huh? It makes way more sense that once we became capable of fighting without harming the innocent that we would do so.

Also it's much easier to win hearts and minds when the innocent civvies arent all missing arms and legs.

What reasoning do you have to dismiss the morality argument?