What is the Purpose of Terrorists?

[ScottyBBadd]

When you remove someone's access to porn, you create a terrorist

That just might explain everything.

 

[ScottyBBadd]

the eastern terrorists are all about wearing nike shoes and having mobile phones, then saying death to the capitalist west

Such hypocrites.

 

[ScottyBBadd]

Remember Luke Skywalker was a terrorist

So were our founding fathers.

 

[The Overlord]

Ironically, terrorism has worked in the past. Terrorism is a sort of way to say "you won't let us have our fair share? You won't let us sit at the table? Then we're going to blow you up until someone listens to us and we get a place at the table!".

It worked for the IRA.

That assumes the terroists in question have a williness to bargin and have reasonable goals. This is why Al-Qaeda is a billion times worse then the IRA. The IRA had a reasonable goal (get a seat the table to regarding the fate of North Ireland). Al-Qaeda's goal is completely unreasonable (destroy the Western World and crate a world wide Islamic State) and have no desire to bargin. Al-Qaeda doesn't want a seat at the table, they want to blow up the table and kill everyone in the room.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Why don't you do the field research for me and get back to me with your results?

I already did "hotmail" hence I know what I'M talking about.

 

[hotmail]

I already did "hotmail" hence I know what I'M talking about.

It's too bad you successfully pulled it off.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

yeah, that totally makes sense.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

can you look through their eyes, and see what they see?

 

[November Rain]

the funny thing is that, if the thread was titled

'What is the purpose of a freedom fighter'

a large majority of posters would say the exact opposite.

they are all merely people fighting what they believe to be is oppression with limited funds trying to make maximum impacts.


heroes in the matrix, star wars and terminator can all really be seen as 'terrorists' if you look at it from the side of those against.

Luke goes and blows up a death star with countless lives upon it and he's deemed a hero....makes you wonder...doesn't it....?

 

[The Overlord]

the funny thing is that, if the thread was titled

'What is the purpose of a freedom fighter'

a large majority of posters would say the exact opposite.

they are all merely people fighting what they believe to be is oppression with limited funds trying to make maximum impacts.


heroes in the matrix, star wars and terminator can all really be seen as 'terrorists' if you look at it from the side of those against.

Luke goes and blows up a death star with countless lives upon it and he's deemed a hero....makes you wonder...doesn't it....?

The difference is the Death Star was a military target, the WTC was not.

 

[Kritish]

the funny thing is that, if the thread was titled

'What is the purpose of a freedom fighter'

a large majority of posters would say the exact opposite.

they are all merely people fighting what they believe to be is oppression with limited funds trying to make maximum impacts.


heroes in the matrix, star wars and terminator can all really be seen as 'terrorists' if you look at it from the side of those against.

Luke goes and blows up a death star with countless lives upon it and he's deemed a hero....makes you wonder...doesn't it....?

The Matrix,Star Wars and the Terminator were also works of fiction.

 

[psychocheeseman]

The difference is the Death Star was a military target, the WTC was not.

still gonna be countless civilian lives lost. plus visiting politicians...but thats no great loss.

And generally in the media we still call those who target the military "terrorists".

Question is what do we call it when state military harms civilians?? (for political means)

 

[November Rain]

The difference is the Death Star was a military target, the WTC was not.

well that only really comes down to opportunity and funding issues.

As you know, the pentagon was also a potential target

 

[November Rain]

The Matrix,Star Wars and the Terminator were also works of fiction.

Wewll i'm only using works where i can relate to the majority of people on this site.

examples were their heroes could easily be shown in a different light if their stories were told from different angles.

fictional or not, i think the points being made are still valid.

 

[britrogue]

I mean, seriously, what is their purpose? What do they intend to achieve?

And can you look through their eyes, and see what they see?

Terror. That is all they wish to achieve. They're sad, misplaced puppets who truly believe that they are fighting for a better world. They should really take a good look around them and think on about whether all the rubble from blown up houses and blood from murdered innocents is worth it.

 

[Halcohol]

Wewll i'm only using works where i can relate to the majority of people on this site.

examples were their heroes could easily be shown in a different light if their stories were told from different angles.

fictional or not, i think the points being made are still valid.

No, they weren't terrorists, because Luke Skywalker, Neo, and Sarah Connor weren't fighting to slaughter mass amounts of people, their fights were in order to PREVENT such tragedies.

-Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in order to stop it from destroying more worlds (after it had already killed billions on Alderaan).
-Neo was fighting against computer programs for the survival of mankind.
-Sarah Connor was out to destroy SkyNet before it could detonate nuclear warheads all over the planet.

Had the Rebels engaged in bombing runs on Imperial planets against, say, a market place or WORLD TRADE CENTRE, then yeah they would've been terrorists. But surgically destroying a bomb-making facility when you know that those bombs would eventually have been used against your family isn't terrorism at all.

Terrorism is an attack against innocent civilians for the express purpose of spreading fear and chaos throughout society. Their goal is to raise awareness of their cause and hopefully to cause enough damage and chaos through their tactics that the targeted government caves in and gives the terrorists what they want.

 

[November Rain]

No, they weren't terrorists, because Luke Skywalker, Neo, and Sarah Connor weren't fighting to slaughter mass amounts of people, their fights were in order to PREVENT such tragedies.

-Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in order to stop it from destroying more worlds (after it had already killed billions on Alderaan).
-Neo was fighting against computer programs for the survival of mankind.
-Sarah Connor was out to destroy SkyNet before it could detonate nuclear warheads all over the planet.

Had the Rebels engaged in bombing runs on Imperial planets against, say, a market place or WORLD TRADE CENTRE, then yeah they would've been terrorists. But surgically destroying a bomb-making facility when you know that those bombs would eventually have been used against your family isn't terrorism at all.

Terrorism is an attack against innocent civilians for the express purpose of spreading fear and chaos throughout society. Their goal is to raise awareness of their cause and hopefully to cause enough damage and chaos through their tactics that the targeted government caves in and gives the terrorists what they want.

what your describing is simply one form of terrorism, probably the most basic but there are others.

you've painted those scenes from the viewpoints of the heroes. Just for the sake of argument, paint them from the views of

the emperor
the matrix
skynet

i know machine's don't have feelings per say but the diruption of the logical order they have created for themselves would deem it sufficient.

the emperor was merely at war, any land that goes to war with another and ends up killing a large populous of peeps (innocent or not) coud easily spin stories to justify the slaughter of 'the evil enemy'. It all depends who is telling the story really.

I mean take those animal activists that go and try to burn down or sabotage animal testing labs.

to the scientists, they are terrorising their working place in order to make a point and in some cases putting the worker's lives in danger.

in their eyes, they are fighting for a good cause on behalf of the evil people who dont take the concerns of animals into consideration with their babaric methods, that sooner all later will fall given enough support.

i'm not sure if i'm saying this properly but firstly, a public place need not always be seen as a target place for a strike by a terrorist or freedom fighter but that is completely dependant on their specific goals.


Right, here is my point, No matter how much of a crazy regime may be around, if a minority is against a majority and decide to use force to change things, they can be seen as a terrorist by that majority, regardless of whether their views are morally right or not to the eyes of an outsider.

I think you've separated military strikes and civilian strikes out but i believe they are all part of a the same whole, you've only described a branch of a much larger tree.

 

[Halcohol]

November Rain, you're saying that any use of force by a minority to assert their rights (either actual or perceived) to the majority can result in them being labelled terrorists? I understand what you mean though I do think you're generalizing a bit too much. However, in the spirit of objectivity, I'll bite.

See, in my opinion there is a "proper" and an "improper" way to assert a minority's rights to the majority. The historically proper and traditional way is to build up a military and to defeat your opponent in the honourable way: on the battlefield.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the way that connotes dishonour, which is striking out suddenly from a hidden & fortified central location to which you retreat immediately afterwards. This style of fighting usually consists of hit and run attacks and guerrilla warfare.

I think that the second way of fighting, since it became viewed by the "civilized" as cowardly and dishonourable, became associated with the practise of terrorism and automatically causes disrespect for your entire ideology. After all, if you won't meet and fight them face to face, how are they to respect you? You must clearly be "terrorists".

So in your more general definition of terrorism, I think the crucial distinction between a terrorist and an honourable opponent is the style of fighting used, independent of cause or target.

 

[November Rain]

alright, we are on a similar wavelength...

however how does one go from the improper way to the proper way or what are the factors that stop one from going about it 'properly'

it really comes down to either a lack of proper organisation, finances or resources, (or even political backing if one was to try to do this in a non-violent manner).

and in such times, one would try to be able to make the maximum impact using the minimum effort to save resources and what not.

based on this, i don't think honour should 'always' be used in justifying methods since i'm sure if all things were equal, both sides would invest the same amount of money and resources into their struggles.

However you do find that against a faceless massive regime, where the majority of chips are mounted in another person's favour, this isn't always applicable, certainly not in the earlier stages.

 

[blind_fury]

No, they weren't terrorists, because Luke Skywalker, Neo, and Sarah Connor weren't fighting to slaughter mass amounts of people, their fights were in order to PREVENT such tragedies.

-Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in order to stop it from destroying more worlds (after it had already killed billions on Alderaan).

-Neo was fighting against computer programs for the survival of mankind.

Actually Neo was trying to stop the machines from using humans for energy just like an eco-terrorist who tries to stop a corporation from stealing indigenous people's natural resources.

Had the Rebels engaged in bombing runs on Imperial planets against, say, a market place or WORLD TRADE CENTRE, then yeah they would've been terrorists. But surgically destroying a bomb-making facility when you know that those bombs would eventually have been used against your family isn't terrorism at all.

I'm pretty sure if Al-Queda only attacked the Pentagon they would be considered just as evil as they are now. No one would compare them to Star Wars rebels trying to destroy the Death Star even if they limited attacks to military operations.

 

[Fanticon]

the purpose is the key word in 'terrorists'. it doesn't matter what kind, for what reasons, from what group, what part of the world or who their victims are. To promote fear and death is their only goal. Even if their supposed message is delivered and heard, they'll never be satisfied. But then again...even the Boston Tea Party was considered a terrorist act in the eyes of the oppressor.