Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Lavalamp, Dec 10, 2017.
Neither party has done much the last 40 years
I have a different definition of terrorism where in order for it to be terrorism, the target of the terror is civilians. This means that if the people are attacking security/army personnel then its an insurgency. Its terrorism when they blow up a movie theater where the victims are civilians.
So in my view and definition, terrorism is inherently immoral and bad. No matter the cause.
I probably won't get the fuck out of here, and I'm sure I'll insult you quite a bit more in the future. You can handle it though, just get a rad belt buckle or something. Maybe it will help you admit when you're proven wrong. If I can do it, so can you.
Not sure where you're getting your idea about me & war from. Which conflict do you mean? I didn't support Afghanistan or Iraq under either Obama or Bush, but I really liked Obama and really disliked Bush. There is the question of Trump's competency to wage a war of any kind, for sure. It certainly depends on the conflict. If it's managing these drawn-out terror "wars" then executive leadership matters a lot. I would trust either Obama or Bush to manage those kinds of wars over Trump. But I somehow don't think that was even close to your point, so have a free one on me. Also bite me.
I suppose that distinction makes sense and its even more specific and centers on actions virtually all of us would consider reprehensible. I'd say its more useful than the more general term which refers to all violence for political purposes, even by states. Under that definition I'd agree. The justification some would use for that is that the insurgents already have a disadvantage and have to go after soft targets to compensate but I don't believe the ends justify the means so I'm in agreement with you in the case of insurgents who target noncombatants.
I guess you could say a moral insurgency would be one that attacks infrastructure in such a way so as to minimize the causalities, especially casualties of noncombatants. IIRC the armed wing of the ANC in South Africa initially tried to do that. That's a big handicap but I think the moral high ground is worth it.
GTFO is an expression. But ok. And I'm wrong plenty. And like I was with Trotsky, I'm gracious with others when they are mistaken also. And it's really not hard to find posts of me calling out both sides. I highly doubt you can find any of you doing the same.
That's pretty cool you didn't support even Afghanistan. Gotta assume you didn't support war with Japan either then. A true Isolationist. Nice
Trump has essentially let the generals run the wars. So we will have to see I guess.
But I'll go check out all your posts in the Libya and Syria threads going after Obama and Clinton. I gotta assume you think us working with Russia on Syria is a good thing also. We should work with them to n regards to Iran also.
Shit. Since you are such a non interventionist. You are probably cool with us working with Russia on all these issues. Cool
What? What is your opinion on the pearl harbor job?
I'm a huge hippy when it comes to war. But I'm amazed how people don't understand how many lives on both sides were saved by dropping them bombs
It was an unprovoked attack on a US military installation.
Terrorism is, by modern definition, the intentional targeting of innocents and civilians.
It happened in the 40s. So modern definition is subjective. the japanese deserved the nukes for their hypocrite attack. They got bitch made deservingly.
Some people need to read some damn definitions before popping off at the mouth on TV.
You're a lunk head with obviously zero knowledge of military history. But points for the alpha, brah.
Bla bla bla. If all you got is personal insults...
Separate names with a comma.