More Than A Memory...
1BC Civ Forums
1BC Civ Forums
Home      Members   FAQ   Links
Welcome Guest ( Login | Register )
      


«««1234»»

More Than A Memory...Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
5/1/2008 5:08 PM
Kaboom!

Kaboom!

Last Seen:
Today @ 6:29 PM


Posts: 610
Visits: 4,427

I agree with Scipio, I don't want to detract from the remembrance part of the thread, so I'll make this short.

If the object of terrorism is as you say to get global airtime and shift public opinion, does violence have to be involved at all? Take Gandhi for example. His genius was in his grasp on public opinion and how to shift it, yet whenever deaths happened they were usually the fault of the British.

The reason I point that out is to ask you Scipio whether it is the tactics of this kind of pr-terrorism that you object to, or merely the "payload" or the message being purveyed by such tactics. I do agree with BO that in cases of violent terrorism it can never really be supported, but what's your view. Would you support a violent terrorist organization spreading liberal democratic values?
5/1/2008 5:20 PM


First Lieutenant

First LieutenantFirst LieutenantFirst LieutenantFirst LieutenantFirst LieutenantFirst LieutenantFirst LieutenantFirst Lieutenant

Last Seen:
9/17/2008 9:34 PM


Posts: 1,966
Visits: 4,411

Ummm.....I created another thread to debate this point.  See "Is Violence....."
7/5/2008 3:10 AM


Udderly ridiculous

Udderly ridiculous

Last Seen:
Today @ 9:33 PM


Posts: 3,924
Visits: 4,737

Thought this was worth sharing.

BBC article on "Evolution of a Conspiracy Theory."
7/6/2008 12:47 AM


Grognard fantôme

Grognard fantôme

Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 9:35 PM


Posts: 7,585
Visits: 9,899

Rishbhav (5/1/2008)
. . . Would you support a violent terrorist organization spreading liberal democratic values?

In short, and perhaps with a couple caveats here and there, yes.

Primarily I disagree with Islamofascists because they are fascists, and also because they are not religion-state separatists "secularists." Not because they blow up civilians. Blowing up civilians is clearly a perfectly legitimate way to win if one is seeking to win for the right reasons.

Blowing up civilians for the wrong reasons is a nice bonus demerit that "Democro-fascists" like myself can deploy in efforts to undermine Islamofascist efforts, but it is not the primary reason to decimate their arses, and erase all record of their existence from human memory.

BTW, what ever happened to Neutron Bombs? You'd think those things would get more air time these days wouldn't you?

7/6/2008 1:04 AM


Grognard fantôme

Grognard fantôme

Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 9:35 PM


Posts: 7,585
Visits: 9,899

Nuclearcow (7/5/2008)
Thought this was worth sharing.

BBC article on "Evolution of a Conspiracy Theory."

*yawn*

In this case, what is the clean smooth surface we'd get from Occam's Razor?

7/6/2008 5:32 PM


Radical Centrist

Radical Centrist

Last Seen:
Today @ 6:04 PM


Posts: 5,592
Visits: 27,821

Blowing up civilians is clearly a perfectly legitimate way to win if one is seeking to win for the right reasons.


QFE.
7/6/2008 8:48 PM


Grognard fantôme

Grognard fantôme

Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 9:35 PM


Posts: 7,585
Visits: 9,899

Locus Coeruleus (7/6/2008)
Blowing up civilians is clearly a perfectly legitimate way to win if one is seeking to win for the right reasons.


QFE.

Are you tellin' me that the Allied strategic bombing programs that devastated civilian populations in Europe and Asia were wrong?

7/7/2008 12:46 AM


Radical Centrist

Radical Centrist

Last Seen:
Today @ 6:04 PM


Posts: 5,592
Visits: 27,821

No sir. I am not concerned with what the Allied forces did in WW2. I am looking forwards, not backwards.
7/7/2008 2:14 AM


Udderly ridiculous

Udderly ridiculous

Last Seen:
Today @ 9:33 PM


Posts: 3,924
Visits: 4,737

You sound like a politician, LC!
7/7/2008 1:11 PM


Radical Centrist

Radical Centrist

Last Seen:
Today @ 6:04 PM


Posts: 5,592
Visits: 27,821

What, NC? The past cannot be changed. What's done is done. Just because a despicable practice has worked in the past does not mean it should be employed in the future. Maybe back then the situation warranted bombing civilians, just as AQ felt the only way they could get our attention was to bomb civilians. Note, I am not equating the actions of AQ and the allied forces in WW2, I know that there is a difference in the righteousness of cause, but I still feel that in general, going forward, bombing civilians is a deplorable practice and one that we should definitely avoid, no matter that we are "spreading freedom".