Terroists. Are they Evil?

[mutsakman]

Terroists in my eyes are evil and good. Some come on our side and tell us secrets. Others try to kill us. Which side do you think they're on.

[Darknessium]

I would think that anyone that kamikazis the world trade center, killing thousands of people can be classified under evil ...but... does evil really even exist? Because in other people's eye's they could be doing something good.

[Imperator]

I believe terrorists are all evil.

I don't buy into the whole "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" bullshit because the tactics vary.

Terrorists target civilians almost exclusively. Freedom Fighters target occupying military personnel.

The people bombing mosques are terrorists. The people bombing US army bases are Freedom Fighters. The insurgents appear to be both, due to the fact that they carbomb military and civilian targets.

When Hamas, Al-Qaeda, IRA, etc target civilian buses, homes, individuals, all of which hold no military or strategic value, they become terrorists.

By that definition: Yes, it is arguable if the 9/11 hijackers can be considered terrorists. The Trade Towers were indeed a strategic target, with high economic value.

But then you'd have to ignore the fact that those targets were deemed to infict the most casualties, which was ultimately their goal........

[Fucks-Funny]

Are terrorists evil? That depends on which side you're on. To you they seem evil, to them YOU seem just as evil. For them, suicide attacks are considered acts of honor. Plus they don't only kill peaceful citizens, they attack military compounds as well. Muslim terrorists have every right to be angry, their land has been butt fucked since World War 2. American soldiers kill civilians too. Just look at the Gulf War; anybody remember how some Stealth bombers attacked a bunker in Amyria or something and killed around 300 civilians who were taking refuge inside? Baghdad was bombed to shit, many civilian deaths there. They live in a totally different world. If you lived there, in constant fear, expecting death any minute, you would be pissed too. They just want to bring the fear to us. Many of their people have been killed, they want to even the odds.

[ThePurplishOne]

Evil is a fairy tale concept.........I love talking like a Bond villain.

Anyway, things are rarely as cut and dry as good and evil. They believe that America is evil. It doesn't make America evil. Conversely, just because you believe them to be evil, doesn't mean that universally they are evil.

What makes someone "evil"? Remember that they don't see the world as you see it. In the same way we are willing to bend our morality over torture, they could see it justified to attack civilians who let their government shoot children if it could protect their people and country (example of what they would hear, not something I think happens.). If they don't trust the media, as a terrorist almost certainly wouldn't, word of mouth would be the only way they'd get news they trust, and stories like that would be rampant in war torn Afganistan wouldn't they?

But then, does whether they are evil or not matter? No. They are trying to commit mass murder in a futile attempt to stop a war that was caused because of exactly that sort of thing. whether they are evil or not is entirely irrelevant really.

[HogWashSoup]

well, it depends on your point of view. to some, terrorists are evil, to others they are freedom fighters or something.

[mutsakman]

like someone said eariler, evil dosn't exist. Only in cartoons where there's the hero and the villan. But in the "terroists" eyes, they could think they're doing something Fantstic. One belief is that if they die believing "ALA IS GREAT", they beleive that they will go to heaven and live with many virgins.

[Sifr]

props for starting a topic like this.. i believe that the Law of Action and Reaction applies to terrorism as well..

terrorists are who they are for a good reason.. delving in such acts alone is a huge sacrifice.. just thinking of becoming one means that you are thinking of sacrificing your life for what you believe in.. impartiality aside, you have to admire the guts of these terrorists.. of course, i'm talking about the ones who fight for what they believe in and not the ones who just feel like shooting someone...

they wouldn't be militant if they are not forced to be militant.. some politicians or people of power tend to abuse their power and some people take it the wrong way.. some are just merely aggressive in their protest, others resort to diplomacy and when diplomacy does not work for them, they take up arms..

most terrorists however have a misconstrued understanding of their cause and tend to be fanatical to something they do not have complete understanding of.. innocent victim's blood are shed because they are caught in the crossfire of the terrorists and those they are fighting..

what im trying to say is, that i agree with the others who say that it is a matter of how we look at the situation or which side we are coming from.. for me terrorists are neither good nor evil..

[Jaketheclonetrooper]

It depends on point of view really. Take the Rebellion in the Philipines for example. We rebeled because you promised freedom for us, yet you took us over like the Spanish. So we started attacking the soldiers stationed here. SOLDIERS. We never killed any american civilian ever. So that's being a Freedom Fighter. But in the American's case, you killed and tortured everyone over ten, women,children. Mostly civilians. You saw us as terrorists and insurgents. We saw you as terrorists. Terrorists kill civilians, while freedom fighters kill mostly military targets.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/16/06 03:43 AM, Sifr wrote: props for starting a topic like this.. i believe that the Law of Action and Reaction applies to terrorism as well..

terrorists are who they are for a good reason..

Um you call the goal of killing innocent civilians in order to frighten and terrorize civilians into submission is a good reason?

Moron.

delving in such acts alone is a huge sacrifice.. just thinking of becoming one means that you are thinking of sacrificing your life for what you believe in.. impartiality aside, you have to admire the guts of these terrorists..

Fuck no. They aren't fighting for a benevolent cause, they are fighting and dying for a reward that they think they will attain in Heaven (mansions and 72 virgins).

They don't value their own lives, they don't think rationally and have logical goals and desires. They want to kill people in the name of their religion in return for rewards that they are certain they will receive.

Thats not called guts, thats called selfish, irrational evil.

of course, i'm talking about the ones who fight for what they believe in and not the ones who just feel like shooting someone...

Um the terrorists that are 'fighting for what they believe in' usually do just go and shoot people for what would appear to be no reason.

They aren't fighting for good, they are fighting in order to kill, destroy and terrorize. They aren't fighting to liberate, save, or uplift anyone.

Rarely do you see terrorists actually claim to be liberating anyone, they are just glorifying their atrocious acts of massacre and murder.

Someone who can kidnap someone, tie them up, then gut their head off and feel no remorse is not worthy of respect.

And a dipshit like you who gives them ANY respect or credence is a misguided imbecile who needs to take a good look at the world and look at some facts.

they wouldn't be militant if they are not forced to be militant..

Thats a fucking laugh. People can't blame other people for MURDER. Nobody put the knives in their hands and forces them to cut off the heads of innocent people for no reason other than their blood thirsy desire.

some politicians or people of power tend to abuse their power and some people take it the wrong way.. some are just merely aggressive in their protest, others resort to diplomacy and when diplomacy does not work for them, they take up arms..

... taking up arms by murdering innocent civilians, using civilians as human shields, and only really seeking power for themselves?

Thats not taking up arms, thats just becoming a barbaric murderer.

most terrorists however have a misconstrued understanding of their cause and tend to be fanatical to something they do not have complete understanding of.. innocent victim's blood are shed because they are caught in the crossfire of the terrorists and those they are fighting..

Um, terrorists INTENTIONALLY cause innocent victims to be killed so that they can create propaganda.

How many times have terrorists killed their OWN PEOPLE intentionally in order to blame it on their enemies for propaganda effect? Many, MANY fucking times. Terrorists have no regard for civilians, they do everything in their power TO KILL civilians regardless of who the civilians are, what religion they belong to and so forth.

what im trying to say is, that i agree with the others who say that it is a matter of how we look at the situation or which side we are coming from.. for me terrorists are neither good nor evil..

Terrorists are evil. If you say anything to the contary well then you are just stupid.

There is a difference between gorilla fighters and terrorists. Gorillas target ONLY the enemy. Terrorists do everything in their power to kill and destroy in order to not only kill the enemy but to create anger against them by others, to mislead others deceitfully against their enemy

If the terrorists that you think are neither good nor evil had 1/100000000th of the power that the US has, the entire world would be destroyed right now. There would be Jews, Christians or innocents anywhere in the world still alive.

Because the terrorists have NO RESTRAINT, they obey no laws, they have no decency. Meanwhile, they are fighting troops of countries that try their hardest to avoid innocent death and to single out the terrorists. Therefore the terrorists make sure that civilians die to discredit their enemies who are actually fighting for a good cause, rather than trying to ensure their access to virgin pussy in the afterlife.

Anyone who can actually say that 'terrorists are neither good nor evil" has a fucking mental problem, or is just incredibly biased or brainwashed.

Which are you? Because there is no way you're actually a educated, sane, unbiased person if you can say something like that.

Go to www.ogrish.com, search for "beheadings" and watch a video. Then come back and have the fucking audacity to say that 'terrorists aren't evil".

If you're too lazy, CLICK HERE and see a particularly bad one.

[FeargusMcDuff]

A terrorist can be anyone. If someone says "If you keep smoking you will die a horrible death" they are using fear to try to get you to change your opinion. Infact, some so called terrorists don't want people to change their opinions, just die, which makes them murderers.

[Slizor]

Um you call the goal of killing innocent civilians in order to frighten and terrorize civilians into submission is a good reason?

That's incorrect. Terrorists (apart from state terrorists) do not kill civilians in order to terrorize them into submission. The aim of a terrorist is to effect political change - they have a higher goal. For example, Al Queda has two goals. The first is the removal of US troops from the Arabian peninsula and the second is a separate Palestinian state that includes Jerusalem. They take actions to achieve this goal (i.e. they are rational) if this includes pitched battles and the seizure of territory, they will fight pitched battles and seize territory. If this includes flying planes into buildings and giving their lives for a greater cause, then they will do that.

People don't like to admit that terrorists are rational because it opens a space where the grievences of the terrorists can be seen as legitimate.

What's the difference in the use of violence by a state and the use of violence by a terrorist?

Fuck no. They aren't fighting for a benevolent cause, they are fighting and dying for a reward that they think they will attain in Heaven (mansions and 72 virgins).

They don't value their own lives, they don't think rationally and have logical goals and desires. They want to kill people in the name of their religion in return for rewards that they are certain they will receive.

How then, do you explain non-religious terrorist suicide attacks by ethno-nationalist groups such as the Tamil Tigers?

Um the terrorists that are 'fighting for what they believe in' usually do just go and shoot people for what would appear to be no reason.

That you can see no reason does not mean there is no reason. I would go into this further but you are quite sparse on the old examples.

They aren't fighting for good, they are fighting in order to kill, destroy and terrorize. They aren't fighting to liberate, save, or uplift anyone.

You really don't know anything about terrorism, do you? I'll say it again - ethno-nationalist terrorism.

Rarely do you see terrorists actually claim to be liberating anyone, they are just glorifying their atrocious acts of massacre and murder.

Rarely do you see it....because it is rarely reported.

... taking up arms by murdering innocent civilians, using civilians as human shields, and only really seeking power for themselves?

You've got a real problem with the whole "innocent civilians" thing, don't you?

Um, terrorists INTENTIONALLY cause innocent victims to be killed so that they can create propaganda.

No, they intentioanlly kill civilians so as to forward a political cause.

How many times have terrorists killed their OWN PEOPLE intentionally in order to blame it on their enemies for propaganda effect? Many, MANY fucking times. Terrorists have no regard for civilians, they do everything in their power TO KILL civilians regardless of who the civilians are, what religion they belong to and so forth.

Seriously, do some actual research and stop relying on shitty biased US and Israeli views on terrorism.

Terrorists are evil. If you say anything to the contary well then you are just stupid.

Terrorists are rational, generally quite intelligent and educated and are mainly motivated by a sense of injustice.

There is a difference between gorilla fighters and terrorists. Gorillas target ONLY the enemy. Terrorists do everything in their power to kill and destroy in order to not only kill the enemy but to create anger against them by others, to mislead others deceitfully against their enemy

Have a look at the Tamil Tigers or FARC if you think that such a distinction can be made.

If the terrorists that you think are neither good nor evil had 1/100000000th of the power that the US has, the entire world would be destroyed right now. There would be Jews, Christians or innocents anywhere in the world still alive.

How about a little evidence of that being a terrorist organisation's aim?

Because the terrorists have NO RESTRAINT, they obey no laws, they have no decency. Meanwhile, they are fighting troops of countries that try their hardest to avoid innocent death and to single out the terrorists.

Anyone who can actually say that 'terrorists are neither good nor evil" has a fucking mental problem, or is just incredibly biased or brainwashed.

Or they actually know more about terrorism than you do because they've studied terrorism, properly.

Now I'm not arguing that terrorists aren't misguided. Their tendency to view things in black and white (you're either with us or against us sort of thing) and their absolute belief they are right (we will fight to the death) are a potent combination. However, terrorists have and will negotiate with states if a dialogue is opened up between the two groups.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/16/06 06:48 AM, Slizor wrote: That's incorrect. Terrorists (apart from state terrorists) do not kill civilians in order to terrorize them into submission. The aim of a terrorist is to effect political change - they have a higher goal.

By terrorizing people into submission they attain a political goal. Which ties into their RELIGOUS goal which is to further the extinction of non-Islamic states, starting in the middle east (attacking countries that prevent this) then moving on to the rest of the world.

For example, Al Queda has two goals. The first is the removal of US troops from the Arabian peninsula and the second is a separate Palestinian state that includes Jerusalem.

Um they also called for the destruction of the US, Israel, UK and all countries that don't accept Islam.You're such a fucking moron you're ignoring the religious motivation. You also fail to acknowledge the fact that Islamic terrorists see NO DIFFERENCE between state and religion. According to Islam, the state and the religion are one entity. Hello Shari'a law?

They take actions to achieve this goal (i.e. they are rational) if this includes pitched battles and the seizure of territory, they will fight pitched battles and seize territory.

OMG you're complete out of your fucking mind. Al Qaeda has practically NEVER actually stood ground and fought. They hide in civilian areas and holes in the ground. They aren't actually trying to fight for land because everytime they are in the open they get slaughtered like the cowardly monkies that they are. They can only use nonconventional means of war such as suicide bombs and so forth to cause horrific scenes for PROPAGANDA effect. Al-Qaeda can't actually win a military battle, they never have other than against lightly armed civilians. They can only cause casualties to demoralize their enemy.

If this includes flying planes into buildings and giving their lives for a greater cause, then they will do that.

How did flying planes into buildings of the US cause Israel to give Jerusalem to Palestinians or cause Americans to withdraw from Saudi Arabia? It didn't. So 'the goals' of Al-Qaeda that you stated are obviously no their first goal you fucking moron.

In fact, all that did was cause the US to GO INTO their lands to fight them. Within 1 month after 9/11 Taliban and Al-Qaeda LOST almost all of their land in Afghanistan and were taken out of power. Yeah... as if Al-Qaeda is only after land, even though they are only losing land.

People don't like to admit that terrorists are rational because it opens a space where the grievences of the terrorists can be seen as legitimate.

Um killing innocent civilians intentionally in order to cause propaganda isn't a rational thing when their enemy is the US and Israel. They aren't actually gaining a strategic victory, all they're doing is doing the best thing they can do to conduct cowardly terrorist attacks, and lie and deceive to change the minds of people through TERROR.

What's the difference in the use of violence by a state and the use of violence by a terrorist?

Intention and means. Civilian death is a fact of war. But the policy of states fighting terrorism isn't just to kill and destroy for that purpose in itself. They avoid civilian casualties and conduct rational operations to achieve rational goals. They don't single out civilians and cut their heads off to film it.

How then, do you explain non-religious terrorist suicide attacks by ethno-nationalist groups such as the Tamil Tigers?

The Tamil Tigers are successionists, they aren't religiously motivated like Al-Qaeda.

That you can see no reason does not mean there is no reason. I would go into this further but you are quite sparse on the old examples.

I said what would APPEAR to be no reason you dipshit. Learn proper reading comprehension. But killing civilians strategically has no reason, its for PROPAGANDA and even to satisfy the bloodlust of people who ENJOY killing and justify it by their religious views.

Rarely do you see terrorists actually claim to be liberating anyone, they are just glorifying their atrocious acts of massacre and murder.

Rarely do you see it....because it is rarely reported.

Of fuck off you conspiracy theorist. Maybe you should read some FACTS instead of the nonsense that you are obviously being brainwashed with.

Al-Qaeda isn't liberating anyone. They are trying to achieve RELIGOUS goals based on their fundementalist view of the world. The US is a predominantly Christian nation who supports a predominantly Jewish nation of Israel that is in the HOLY LAND that Islamists like Bin laden believe belongs to Islam. Their goal is to remove the thread of Christianity and Islam that creates an impediment for the establishment of an Islamic world Caliphate. There are underlying political issues, but these are only attached to the religious issues that morons like you care to ignore to maintain misguided political correctness towards Muslims.

... taking up arms by murdering innocent civilians, using civilians as human shields, and only really seeking power for themselves?

You've got a real problem with the whole "innocent civilians" thing, don't you?

Um yeah. That is what draws the line between terrorists and freedom fighters. If states such as Israel and the US were ONLY targeting civilians like terrorists do and were just intent on killing, then there would be no Palestinians or Iraqis left alive if the Us and Israel were as evil as Al-Qaeda proclaims.

Conversely, if Al-Qaeda had just a fraction of the power that Israel or the US have, then there would be millions, if not billions of dead Christians and Jews.

Um, terrorists INTENTIONALLY cause innocent victims to be killed so that they can create propaganda.

No, they intentioanlly kill civilians so as to forward a political cause.

Through propaganda they attain political goals which coinicide with religious goals. How does just the act of killing civilians itself give them their land like you claim they want?

You're logic is a fucking joke. Why don't you live in reality for once and drop the underdog complex.

Terrorists are rational, generally quite intelligent and educated and are mainly motivated by a sense of injustice.

Injustice? Oh give me a break. Why then do they intentionally cause injustice? Is killing innocent civilians (most of whom are their own people!) fighting injustice?

If the terrorists that you think are neither good nor evil had 1/100000000th of the power that the US has, the entire world would be destroyed right now. There would be Jews, Christians or innocents anywhere in the world still alive.

How about a little evidence of that being a terrorist organisation's aim?

Oh and you have alot of evidence to support your claim that terrorists who kill civilians are only after land and are really just rational nice people...

But I guess logic is beyond your ability. As has been proven by the bullshit that flows from your twisted mind.

Anyone who can actually say that 'terrorists are neither good nor evil" has a fucking mental problem, or is just incredibly biased or brainwashed.

Or they actually know more about terrorism than you do because they've studied terrorism, properly.

You don't know anything. You just regurgitate the propaganda you've been exposed to.

Now I'm not arguing that terrorists aren't misguided. Their tendency to view things in black and white (you're either with us or against us sort of thing) and their absolute belief they are right (we will fight to the death) are a potent combination. However, terrorists have and will negotiate with states if a dialogue is opened up between the two groups.

SOME 'terrorists' would negotiate. But Al-Qaeda and our current enemies DO NOT have any desire. They only want dead Christians and Jews.

[bcdemon]

If they're evil or not depends on which side you're on. I am sure most of the terrorists have a legitimate reason for their acts, Bin Laden didn't like the idea of USA placing troops in Saudi Arabia, which is a clear violation of their religion (as far as I know, if I'm wrong please correct me). So does Bin Laden have a right to declare [religious] war on the USA? It's debatable.

[Brick-top]

Well we cant ask them cous its hard talking to a corsp

[Aaron4400]

i think there Evil, but others think there Good, and doing right for the religion and stuff like that, they say there doing it for there religion, but their 'God' wouldnt say 'oh good job, you killed loads of innocent people!'

He would tell the heaven gate keeper, to NOT let him in, and tell him to take the express Elevator TO HELL!

thats my point of ~view~ :P

[Rasto]

For whatever reason it may be, they kill thousands of innocent people intentionally. In my eyes, that's pretty damn evil.

[cold-as-hell]

Of course terrorists are evil. What kind of a stupid ass question is that???

[goozebump]

At 12/16/06 10:57 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: Of course terrorists are evil. What kind of a stupid ass question is that???

Well lets see. We invaded two countries, killed alot of innoncence. In our eyes we were bringing them "Freedom" and doing the moral thing. In their eyes, we are the terrorist. Does it matter if a state or a group kills an innocent civilian. Why is it only called "Collateral damage" when the militaryd oes it, but "Terrorism" when someone does? You guys hink in too much black or white, esp. cellardoor.

[random8982]

The term 'terrorist' is in the eye of the beholder. To Americans, George Washington was a liberator, a freedom fighter, and a hero. To Great Britain, he was a terrorist leading a rebel insurrection.

[cold-as-hell]

At 12/16/06 12:17 PM, goozebump wrote:

At 12/16/06 10:57 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: Of course terrorists are evil. What kind of a stupid ass question is that???

Well lets see. We invaded two countries, killed alot of innoncence. In our eyes we were bringing them "Freedom" and doing the moral thing. In their eyes, we are the terrorist. Does it matter if a state or a group kills an innocent civilian. Why is it only called "Collateral damage" when the militaryd oes it, but "Terrorism" when someone does? You guys hink in too much black or white, esp. cellardoor.

Well then when the next round of bombing occures I hope your next to the fucker whos going to go bang.

And if you dont like troops in other countries then be a politican and pull them out.

[xineph]

At 12/16/06 12:47 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/16/06 12:17 PM, goozebump wrote:

At 12/16/06 10:57 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: Of course terrorists are evil. What kind of a stupid ass question is that???

Well lets see. We invaded two countries, killed alot of innoncence. In our eyes we were bringing them "Freedom" and doing the moral thing. In their eyes, we are the terrorist. Does it matter if a state or a group kills an innocent civilian. Why is it only called "Collateral damage" when the militaryd oes it, but "Terrorism" when someone does? You guys hink in too much black or white, esp. cellardoor.

Well then when the next round of bombing occures I hope your next to the fucker whos going to go bang.

By saying that, you prove his point. His goals are humanitarian and you're only perpetuating war.

And if you dont like troops in other countries then be a politican and pull them out.

Now that's just stupid. You can use that response for literally every single topic on the politics forum, and it's not like one politician could do anything anyway.

[SpaceBandito]

It all depends, there are many different forms of Terrorism, and Terrorists. Large full scale War Terrorists are "Evil", i'm assuming that's what you mean, but then there evil in there own way, they see them selves as Freedom fighters or whatever. Flying into the twin Towers though, what did that do? Not alot constructive, and to do such a thing, I would think you would have to be psychotic and evil.

[Little-Rena]

Any form of terrorist is bad, why? Because to be a terrorist you have to cause terror.
And terror is bad, we can agree on that I think.
No matter what they say or do, if they still cause terror then they are still going to be bad.
If they didn't cause terror, then they wouldn't be terrorists' anymore.

[Cheesemold]

Good and Evil are subjective terms. Especially when we establish sides like this.

[Svoboda]

I agree with Imperator, a lot of terrorists are evil and kill almost exclusively civilians. But there are also legitimate terrorists, like the werwolfs : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

[Puzzled]

Well to me people who kill other INNOCENT people for no good fucking reason are obviously bad. I doubt there is a "good" terrorist out there. Hence why they are called TERRORists they want to strike terror everywhere they go because they hate their country and they have nothing to live for so they want to bug the shit out of everybody else. If I could I would kill every terrorist out there. Your an idiot for saying terrorists are good. They are like turds that you flush down the toilet but somehow thy always seem to float back up.

[dawin45]

I think terorism is evil, and the religious leaders from the midle east part are telling people that killing themselfs and destoying planes for God is good but it's not, its just a fake message, but speaking of terrorism did you like:"death of a president" the movie, I think its kinda cool...

[Neoptolemus]

The fact of the matter is one cannot simply state that "all terrorists are evil etc etc" as that is obviously not true. Firstly, it is false due to the fact that both good and evil are subjective terms which differ greatly from person to person. Also, what some fail to see is that governments claim groups as terrorists who are opposed to them and willing to stand up and fight for what they believe is right.. Just look at the ANC during the Apartheid in S. Africa, they were classed as terrorists yet are now considered to be a resistance movement.

[Demosthenez]

At 12/16/06 06:48 AM, Slizor wrote: The aim of a terrorist is to effect political change - they have a higher goal.

There goal is immaterial. You legitimize their tactics when you express sympathy for their goals. Opinions like that do exactly what their leaders want from the public, legitimization. And because of their tactics, they deserve no legitimization. None. Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. And their ends especially dont justify their means when their means are so violent and extreme.

People don't like to admit that terrorists are rational because it opens a space where the grievences of the terrorists can be seen as legitimate.

What grievance of Al Qaeda’s is legitimate?

How then, do you explain non-religious terrorist suicide attacks by ethno-nationalist groups such as the Tamil Tigers?

Desperation and relative poverty in relation to who they are fighting. Religion has nothing to do with suicide bombings or a disrespect of human life. In fact, I would argue religion lends none of these ideas or tactics that religiously motivated terrorists use, no matter the rhetoric the terrorists use to justify their actions. That all has to do with, like I said, desperation and relative poverty. Accordingly, I would also argue you would find less dissimilar qualities between the rank and file Tamil Tiger terrorist and rank and file Hamas or Al Qaeda terrorist than you would find in common.

Rarely do you see it....because it is rarely reported.

I will wait for a link.

No, they intentionally kill civilians so as to forward a political cause.

Semantics.

Terrorists are rational, generally quite intelligent and educated and are mainly motivated by a sense of injustice.

None of that precludes the ability to be evil. You could be describing Hitler there for all I know.

Or they actually know more about terrorism than you do because they've studied terrorism, properly.

That is a rather bold statement to make considering you have said nothing justifying their actions or debunked the fact their actions are indeed what most (by most I mean the entire world) would consider evil.

However, terrorists have and will negotiate with states if a dialogue is opened up between the two groups.

1) Which religiously motivated terrorist group has shown any history of being open to talks with states? And this includes not having ridiculous demands. You can say you are open to talks all you want but if you demands are impossible to meet and you arent willing to back down, that doesnt count.
2) You see nothing wrong with non-state entities representing no one but their membership making demands of states through coercive, violent methods? Why should a state even begin to entertain negotiations with some groups (like Al Qaeda) when their demands are impossible to meet and, frankly, are ridiculous?
3) You legitimize and encourage their actions every time you cave to them. If they are likely to go back and do the same thing again (kill or kidnap a bunch of people for, lets say, the release of a political prisoner), why cave to the demands? Its like caving to a blackmailer, once they have you by the balls, they can come back and twist them a little tighter anytime they want (unless you decide to involve the authorities). Better yet, they are not a state so any paper or agreement you sign with them is as good as toilet paper. They have no responsibility to uphold their agreement (other than there own sense of morality which is already under severe questioning considering their tactics) and even if they do break it, there is no way to try to hold them accountable, they have no UN or world community to worry about.

At 12/16/06 09:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: It's debatable.

A civilian man disowned by his home country representing no state or peoples interests has no right to start any war, let alone a religiously motivated one. Absolutely none.

At 12/16/06 12:17 PM, goozebump wrote: In our eyes we were bringing them "Freedom" and doing the moral thing. In their eyes, we are the terrorist.

You totally misconstrued and simplified that entire issue, I just wanted to point that out. I dont want to debate this but I just am saying, you simplified the terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan to the point of being inane.

Does it matter if a state or a group kills an innocent civilian.

It does depend alot because you can hold states responsible. You cant hold terrorists responsible for their actions unless you capture them and put them in custody, first of all. And second of all, that is not the main concern, the main concern is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind the killing of these civilians. Most states (America in Iraq particularly) would love if civilians were not harmed. Sometimes that hope is not feasible.

Why is it only called "Collateral damage" when the military does it, but "Terrorism" when someone does?

One is accidental when your goal is to kill (lets say. . .) Saddam when you have intelligence he is eating at a restraunt, sometimes the brass rolls the dice. They decide it is worth the risk to try and kill a man whose death could possibly end a war and save numerous lives in the process all while attacking a densely packed urban area where you know civilian casualties are likely. The other is entirely intentional.

I am not saying it should ever been an easy decision to send that bomber to drop bombs in a densly packed urban area, it should be a tough as hell decision. But when you consider the possible payoffs or consequences of ignoring the intelligence, a responsible leader would likely consider the gamble in depth if not outright go for it.

You guys hink in too much black or white, esp. cellardoor.

There should be no grey when people are strapping vests filled with C4 and ball bearings and other shrapnel to intentionally kill people who they dont know and have never done them any wrong. That is simply wrong. There should be no debate.