The debate "This house regrets demonization of terrorists." was started by
May 31, 2016, 3:12 am.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, MrShine posted 2 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
rawblood, Donald_J_Trump, prem, josh_rocks and 4 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, MrShine, historybuff, SueAnnMohr and 4 visitors disagree.
our crimes of the past must be acknowledged, but they don't change what others are doing now. it is wrong, and although we must admit that we are not blameless, we must also speak out against the atrocities of others.
it is not hard for terrorists to attack a military installation. I am not talking about invading a base, but car bombing a checkpoint or a small outpost, a caravan or a patrol. that is the traditional form of guerilla warfare. civilians are not brought into crossfire by any resistance movement that is actually fighting against oppression. Those that do target civilians may fight oppressors, but only so that they can oppress in their place.
Who is blameless, then? Can we not demean, or have a standard for how terrorism is operated? The claims of recklessness on the US only stick on what is considered "failures" in high danger areas. The way I understand it, we can't back our army and neuter it at the same time. We also can't get involved in other countries to help and withdraw our influence. So it takes a certain balance, which has no right answer it seems. On another note, we shouldn't address terrorism (you know what I mean) by getting off our high horse. Even if we can't establish a moral high ground, we can establish our country has the ability to negotiate, meet other countries on terms that don't destroy everyone, the United States is reasonable.
Would it be a good start to establish what terrorism shouldn't be, or better to start with qualities if terrorism?
targeting of civilians is a widely used tool of America and it's allies. look at American conduct during Vietnam. they bombed and shelled indiscriminately and justified it by saying that there must have been enemies there. they routinely backed dictators that butchered their own people.
and terrorists attacking a military target is alot harder than America targeting military target. when you are desperate you attack the targets you have access to. which is exactly what America has done in wars it is not completely superior in. Vietnam, Korea, ww2 just to name a few.
you don't see the difference between having a legitimate target which results in civilian casualties (which is bad), and having maximum civilian casualties as your desired target?
Noone is painting anyone as pure evil or all good, thinking in such extremes is not healthy. The US is not all good, it has done very wrong, and the Muslims have reasons to be mad. but that is no excuse for the explicit targeting of civilians.
you may be right about terror having this wider definition, and maybe American revolutionaries can therefore fall under that label. But this new "terrorism" then needs it's own label, because the targeting of civilians as a primary tactic (not unique to modern times) is the most cowardly and brutal act of agression one can commit.
the definition of terrorism is the use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. the American revolution certainly meets those requirements. by definition they were terrorists.
and Americans have bombed many civilian targets.they bomb them all the time with drones. that too is terrorism.
don't try to paint jihadis as pure evil and America as good. they both use the same tactics. America just does it on a bigger scale. and only recently have they started doing it with any precision.
(that isn't aimed at a particular person, just a general point.)
" if you had asked the British during the American revolution (and if the term had been popular) they would have said that the Americans are terrorists. it is a strategy used by the weak against the strong."
I think you are confusing terrorism with guerilla warfare. guerilla warfare is what the weak use against the strong. Terrorism is what the ruthless among the weak use against the defenseless among the strong. It is the guerilla warfare for those who lack any balls or humanity.
this is most pronounced amongst the Palestinians. I support their cause, but their method, (and the people as a whole support those who use those methods), invalidates any message they try to send. In absence of their terrorism, Israel would be completely in the wrong, but currently it is justified in defending itself.
the fact that they do legitimate protests and petitions does not negate the violence they commit or support simultaneously.
I concur that terrorism should be demeaned, and that attacking a public area, no matter your nationality is terrorism. However, there are hot areas where battle is inevitable, such as when there is an unstable position terrorists use to mingle with the innocent. During war, there are no terrorists either, since a population and the grounds fought on are disputable. What cannot be disputed is when extremist groups or regimes try to gain power. As a leader of a country, it can be war and viewed in a different light, truth be told though without a country attacking citizens from another country knowingly with the intent to move around enemy forces rather than subduing, relies on fear. Starting what is considered a war, relies on fear or disgust.
Terrorism is more than the sum of its parts, it is the focus of terrorism, to spread fear. We can't control people's fears, but we know what invokes it, and much like when bomber planes were invented,terrorists focus on the start of a war rather than end. Why? Because by their methods, ideologies, and decisions, it could be made so that the world is in perpetual turmoil, war without end.
I disagree. an American who suicide bombs a market is a terrorist. anyone who targets civilians en mass is a terrorist. and even if the Muslims are in the right, their methods of targeting civilians are in the wrong. regardless of the motivation.
had they bombed checkpoints and military installations, then we could have this debate about whether they are terrorists or not.
I'm their minds they are the heroes and you are the ones that are evil. if you had asked the British during the American revolution (and if the term had been popular) they would have said that the Americans are terrorists. it is a strategy used by the weak against the strong. you just happen to have the biggest stick so you don't have to use it.
furthermore, if a Muslim wearing a suicide vest blows up a market place he is a terrorist. If an American bomber blows up that same market place he is not. the terminology is so loaded that it doesn't have very much meaning.
terrorists should be demonized...