terrorism threat??

[jittujz]

Is America still in threat of terrorism?

reply ur opinion with reasons pls....

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by jittujz

Is America still in threat of terrorism?

reply ur opinion with reasons pls....

When has it not been?  From before  and during the Civil War, to the Spanish American war, to the KKK, to the Communist and Nazi threats, to homegrown like Timothy Mc Veigh,,,, Any country at any time is in threat of terrorism.

[snopes]

Yes

[Rico]

More so now than before.......

Reason..?

[jittujz]

Even though people got different opinion  about terrorism, all conclude in the aspect that it is a real threat, which should be banned or even should be treated as crime.

but still there is one aspect which i want to mention about ....TERRORISM in One mans eye can be others defence against rudeness....

[jittujz]

wat is ur opinion about Using terrorism as a way 2 achieve freedom to a country(which lack man power compared to the other)?

[Chicken Little]

(Aside:  This topic should be moved to politics.)

As Ghandi, Martin Luther King...even Woody Guthrie and others have shown us, there is another way.  An oppressed minority (or majority) can achieve the same ends through peaceful protest.  Killing innocent people in order to further a political cause is therefore unnecessary.  It is slaughter; it is a sin, and all sons of Abraham...other cultures too...recognize it as such.

Occasionally, some fringe group will persuade its followers that killing women and children is a necessary, even righteous, tactic.  That is a lie.  These fringe groups are no better than street gangs, and they should be arrested and treated like the ordinary criminals that they are.

You talk of terrorism as a tactic for groups that lack the manpower to deliver freedoms to a country.  I say that what these groups truly lack is the moral justification; the clarity of purpose; and the patience, courage, and confidence that it takes for to win through peaceful means.

If they had that, then they'd have all the manpower they need to change the world.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

(Aside:  This topic should be moved to politics.)

As Ghandi, Martin Luther King...even Woody Guthrie and others have shown us, there is another way.  An oppressed minority (or majority) can achieve the same ends through peaceful protest.  Killing innocent people in order to further a political cause is therefore unnecessary.  It is slaughter; it is a sin, and all sons of Abraham...other cultures too...recognize it as such.

Occasionally, some fringe group will persuade its followers that killing women and children is a necessary, even righteous, tactic.  That is a lie.  These fringe groups are no better than street gangs, and they should be arrested and treated like the ordinary criminals that they are.

You talk of terrorism as a tactic for groups that lack the manpower to deliver freedoms to a country.  I say that what these groups truly lack is the moral justification; the clarity of purpose; and the patience, courage, and confidence that it takes for to win through peaceful means.

If they had that, then they'd have all the manpower they need to change the world.

....were'd I put my rosey glasses...ah, there they are....nope, doesn't read any better.

While you're out doing your sit in on Baghdad Square, don't be surprised when someone comes from behind and wacks your head off.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

....were'd I put my rosey glasses...ah, there they are....nope, doesn't read any better.

While you're out doing your sit in on Baghdad Square, don't be surprised when someone comes from behind and wacks your head off.  

I say that terrorists should be hunted and treated like criminals.  And somehow that puts us at risk?  What's your recommendation?  Seriously.  I'd like to know how you plan to put the next few decades in perspective.  At various places and times, people were scared of the mafia.  Luckily people overcome those fears and act in ways that will accomplish something.  I don't need adult diapers to get though the day.  Do you?  Seems like, if you are afraid of getting your head whacked off, then the terrorists have achieved their objective.

We don't need to live that way.

[pmcalk]

CL, while I don't disagree with you, one case that always gives me pause in the discussion of terrorism is John Brown--was he right or wrong?  After all, he did use terror to accomplish his goals.  I wouldn't argue that he was the reason that slavery ended, but he did free at least 11 slaves.  Do the ends ever justify the means?  I would argue no, but then I was never a slave.  Perhaps I would argue that John Brown's murders were entirely justified, if I were one of the freed slaves.  If you believe that John Brown was correct, then terrorism becomes less about immoral methods of war, and more about the actual ends.  What ends justify terrorism?  Surely those committing terrorism believe their cause is justification.

[Chicken Little]

Abolitionists existed before and after John Brown.    He didn't end slavery, and I think that by the time Harper's Ferry happened, the North and South were already tilting towards war.  I consider Brown a historical sideshow; of the times, but not the martyr that started the Civil War.

Do the "ends ever justify the means?" I think that the means and ends are inseparable.  I don't care how noble the cause, you can't support it through irresponsible actions.  That's delusional thinking.

That goes for terrorists and neocons, alike.  What's the difference?

[pmcalk]

Again, don't really disagree, and I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument.  I just thought it might be interesting to have a philosophical discussion with someone whose opinion I respect.  I don't think that the discussion of terrorism is quite so black and white sometimes.  Specifically, the question of what constitutes terrorism and who is really innocent has many gray areas.  I wasn't arguing so much about John Brown's grandious acts to make a statement (ie, Harper's Ferry), but about his specific acts freeing specific slaves.  Was he justified in killing homesteaders in Kansas in order to free their slaves?  The eleven slaves who were freed after Brown killed their masters probably feel so.  If terrorism is a horrendous, brutal act carried out in order to strike terror in one's enemy, didn't we do just that when we bombed Hiroshima?  I am not saying that we terrorized Japan, just saying its not always so clear.  Was Hiroshima not terrorism because the women and children were not innocent?  Because we were at war?  Terrorism has been around forever, and has always been difficult to identify (kind of in the eye of the beholder).  Was the Trojan horse a brilliant tactical move, or an early example of terrorism?

[MichaelC]

The same could be said for the word "patriotism".  One persons patriot is another persons terrorist/freedom fighter/rebel/lunatic.  Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, patriot, lunatic, or all of the above?  Depends on who you talk to, but there are plenty of people who believe "patriot" is the correct term.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

The same could be said for the word "patriotism".  One persons patriot is another persons terrorist/freedom fighter/rebel/lunatic.  Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, patriot, lunatic, or all of the above?  Depends on who you talk to, but there are plenty of people who believe "patriot" is the correct term.

That's right. The redcoats called us insurgents, then they quit and we became patriots.  To the victor belong the semantics.

So was the American Revolution a "noble" war? Or was it just a war that we happened to win?  Could we have won it by tossing more tea in more harbors?  Search me, but I'm sure glad we did.  That was then, and you'd think we'd be smarter by now.

My point is, there are plenty of struggles left for humans....heck, every day there will be struggles.  But when we butcher each other, the  point we were trying to make gets obscured.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Again, don't really disagree, and I am not trying to bait anyone into an argument.  I just thought it might be interesting to have a philosophical discussion with someone whose opinion I respect.  I don't think that the discussion of terrorism is quite so black and white sometimes.  Specifically, the question of what constitutes terrorism and who is really innocent has many gray areas.  I wasn't arguing so much about John Brown's grandious acts to make a statement (ie, Harper's Ferry), but about his specific acts freeing specific slaves.  Was he justified in killing homesteaders in Kansas in order to free their slaves?  The eleven slaves who were freed after Brown killed their masters probably feel so.  If terrorism is a horrendous, brutal act carried out in order to strike terror in one's enemy, didn't we do just that when we bombed Hiroshima?  I am not saying that we terrorized Japan, just saying its not always so clear.  Was Hiroshima not terrorism because the women and children were not innocent?  Because we were at war?  Terrorism has been around forever, and has always been difficult to identify (kind of in the eye of the beholder).  Was the Trojan horse a brilliant tactical move, or an early example of terrorism?

I guess it comes down to what is worth dying for and what is worth killing for.  There's a difference.  There are probably people out there willing to die for free checking, probably a few others willing to kill for it.  I'd speculate that these are two very different, very stupid, sets of people.  There's probably a third set of idiots who aren't willing to kill or die for free checking, but don't have any qualms at all about others dying or killing to keep their checking free.  As far as free checking goes, I like it; I'll switch banks for it; but I'm not any of those idiots.

But there are certainly things that I would fight and die for, so on somebody else's scale, I'd be an idiot, too.  Somebody else will always say you overreacted, you could've "talked that out", gone on strike, or whatever.

You just have to do the best you can and be willing to face the consequences.  I think that people who are living in constant fear of decapitation are being played by Osama and Cheney.  The threat is real but not grave.  It warrants global police work, spying on people and the flow of money.  Fight it like you fight organized crime, with informants, bribes, targeted raids, etc.  But this global bloodbath rhetoric is over the top, and unhelpful.