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

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

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.

Lol it was a rhetorical question but I wouldnt be surprised if a few of them didnt understand what they were doing. I dont know these mens hearts and our government isnt exactly always on the up and up and honest to our fighting men.

I suppose I'd say there is a difference between hitting a button way up in the air and walking into a crowded area and directly harming folks. I'm saying there is almost a level of deniability to what you are doing. However if you are indeed aware of your actions and take them, you have absolutely no moral high ground whatsoever.

Intentionally and knowingly killing the innocent is evil full stop.

I appreciate your comments. I rarely agree with you, but you are genuine and you stand behind your positions. I can respect that

 

[Madmick]

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.

Your ignorance, as usual, is off the charts.

1. First, civilians were killed in the Pearl Harbor attack. Not everyone who lived in that Bay was a soldier. The Japanese weren't concerned with civilian collateral. They were attacking that installation because they wanted to sink our air carriers.
   
2. Second, terrorists aren't in a state war. They are non-state actors. That is part and parcel to the definition.
   
3. Third, terrorists don't seek to "win" a war. They seek to terrorize. Their goals are not inherently aligned with decisively ending a war that is causing massive collateral of life to both sides. In fact, to the contrary, their goal is to maximize civilian collateral.
   
4. Fourth, due to the fact we were in a state war on the Pacific front, and not one that we started, since we were in fact ambushed by the Japanese, reflects that we were going to ultimately have to conquer and crush the Japanese resistance stemming from their mainland. We could have turned Japan and all its cities into another conventional war front, like Belgium, France, Poland, Russia, or Germany itself, for example, but that would have also entailed massive collateral to civilian life as well as destruction to its infrastructure in dozens of cities rather than two. Starvation and disease kill more efficiently than bombs. It would have turned their mainland into another Iwo Jima staging ground, but this time we wouldn't be fighting on an uninhabited island. Many have argued that dropping the bombs actually spared lives. That is not controversial with regard to our own people, and this is your primary concern as an American leader.
   
5. Fifth, whether we are talking about Enola Gay or Doolittle's Raid, you are talking about acts of a great war itself, and should fairly trace the origins and motives of the nations involved. We did not start WWII, nor did we start the war with the Japanese. Ergo, our response to that violence, and our reason for involvement, need to be taken into account. The Japanese were aligned with the Nazis who sought to conquer and subordinate all non-Aryan peoples. Their designs on the Pacific were unilaterally imperialist. They were the bad guys, and that isn't up for debate.
   
6. Sixth, everyone agrees that wars are disastrous, but that doesn't mean we judge the crimes during these periods by the same standard as during peace. However, we in the West have tried to create standards that apply even during these turbulent times. This is what diplomacy like the Geneva Convention was intended to address. Terrorists do not acknowledge these terms of international law. They willfully violate them. When states violate these same laws they deserve the same derision as terrorists, but not otherwise.
   
7. Sixth, finally, you have to consider the consequences and aftermath of the attack. We decisively ended the war, and what did we do after? Did we wrest sovereignty from the Japanese people? No. We sought their surrender, and the dismantling of the Imperialist regime that attacked us. Immediately after we undertook a massive period of reconstruction which ultimately helped Japan rise to become one of the economic powerhouses of the world. We became their allies, and maintain that good relationship. We have not supplanted them with our own civilian population. We do not control their laws. We only maintain treaties.

Terrorists desire a state of perpetual war. Their philosophy is incompatible with peace or democracy. They believe any act of violence, against anyone, at any time, for their own reasons, is justified. Yes, I'd certainly agree to these sentiments.

Furthermore, I hope our authorities are watching you. You are ripe for radicalization.

 

[Andy Capp]

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.

LOL everyone makes mistakes.
Pole dancer welcomes Chinese kindergarten students on 1st day of school, horrifying some parents
Vid, no idea how to embed: https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/1312649795527/?jwsource=cl

 

[Bald1]

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).

"Surrender was officially forbidden in the Japanese military, and in the closing years of the war, Japanese civilians were told that they too might have to choose death to protect the dignity of the nation and the sanctity of the imperial ideology. "The hundred million," the propaganda's term for the civilians at home, might have to embrace a death that would be beautiful in its tragedy, "like shattered jewels."


https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/261166/

They attacked first. They weren't going to surrender. The majority of the population were willing to lay their lives down for their god emperor. Read a book.

 

[AlexDB9]

Well today the libtards and Trumptards can come together in a kumbaya moment and laugh at TS collectively

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

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.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both important industrial centers.

 

[Andy Capp]

"Surrender was officially forbidden in the Japanese military, and in the closing years of the war, Japanese civilians were told that they too might have to choose death to protect the dignity of the nation and the sanctity of the imperial ideology. "The hundred million," the propaganda's term for the civilians at home, might have to embrace a death that would be beautiful in its tragedy, "like shattered jewels."


https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/261166/

They attacked first. They weren't going to surrender. The majority of the population were willing to lay their lives down for their god emperor. Read a book.

Depending upon what point in the latter part of the war you are talking about, I don't think it was anywhere near the majority by the time it became evident to the general public that they were losing, by which time they were losing very very badly indeed. This is something the military and the government kept hidden for as long as they possibly could.

So, yes, I agree it was certainly the quickest way to end the war and possibly the best solution no matter what, but by that time, Japanese intransigence was overblown. Just for the record.

 

[Goonerview]

LOL everyone makes mistakes.
Pole dancer welcomes Chinese kindergarten students on 1st day of school, horrifying some parents
Vid, no idea how to embed: https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/1312649795527/?jwsource=cl

Here is the difference.

In China, the pole dancer caused uproar and the school apologised

Drag Queen story time has been celebrated in the west. It's f**king disgusting.

 

[deadshot138]

Yeah no, it’s not a tactic, it’s fucking evil.

 

[danny23]

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

What if the government is allied with their enemy? Then it makes sense to cause havoc doesn't it?

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.

These would be, terror attacks or war crimes?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Targeted civilians, held no strategic or military value.

 

[lfd0311]

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.

What exactly are the "political" goals of groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS? Keep in mind you're the same poster who just yesterday called white Americans a bigger threat to you than Islamic Terrorists, correct?

 

[lfd0311]

What if the government is allied with their enemy? Then it makes sense to cause havoc doesn't it?

So it's ok to wander into groups of people and blow yourself up?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Targeted civilians, held no strategic or military value.

We actually prevented more death by bombing Hiroshima and Nahasaki, do people get that?