Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There's a thread on my former university's messageboard about the London bombings and there's very little compassion to be seen. This might be understandable since the attacks weren't in France so it's more difficult to feel affected by something that's happening in a foreign country but I also sensed a certain anti-British and anti-US sentiment.

    Anyway, I was describing terrorists as cruel and unhuman cowards whose only aim is to kill the biggest number of innocent civilians. I also said that terrorism (action against civilians, not armed forces) is never justified.

    In response to this, I was told that I was foolish to think that terrorists think about killing the most innocent people and these are actually people who are very depressed and have no will to live...

    When reading that, I was absolutely gobsmacked as it sounded like a complete defence of the terrorist actions. Sure, you may want to explain why the terrorists attacked and even then, I feel like some people go so far that it sounds like they believe that it's not the terrorists' fault if they attack but this was going too far.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only time I let it get to me is when those people somehow manage to stumble upon a position of power to use as a platform (usually gained through nepotism rather than the virtues of their insight or abilities).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was told that I was foolish to think that terrorists think about killing the most innocent people and these are actually people who are very depressed and have no will to live...
    Whoever said that to you really doesn't know or understand anything about 'new' terrorism. I would advice them to go to a library and read something that isnt written by John Pilger or Noam Chomsky which encompasses the wants and needs of 'new' terrorism ala bin laden.

    Here is a select few that i would recommend:

    Carr,C.(2002) The Lessons of Terror : Time Warner Books London
    Dershowitz,A.(2002) Why Terrorism Works : Yale University Press London
    Hoffman,B.(1999) Inside Terrorism : Orion Publishing Group London
    Stern,J. (2001) The Ultimate Terrorists : Harvard University Press Mass.
    Wilkinson,P.(2005) Terrorism versus Democracy: Frank Cass Publishers


    Btw, care to pm me or post here a link to that forum ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What is the difference between terrorism and armed resistance? Most people would agree that there are times when armed resistance is necessary and that will often involve what can be called terrorism.

    Sam the Man: What is the source for your information? It may well be a [mistaken] description rather than a justfication. A rabid dog may be innocent but you'll take steps to stop it biting you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I read a quote by (think it was Saddam Hussein) who when asked why the terrorist used suicide bombers to convey a message- he replied "If they had F-14s they would use those instead".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sure, look at the "terrorist" (Thatcher's words), leader of "one of the more notorious terrorist groups" (CIA), Nelson Mandela.
    Look at the US bombing of Afghanistan - it meets perfectly the definition of terrorism, yet is generally accepted as legitimate and justified.
    Terrorism just means political violence - it is legitimised because it is the only possible expression of a legitimate cause against a repressive authority. Where the goals of the terrorist are legitimate and non-violent means unable to reach those goals, terrorism is legitimised, perhaps even necessitated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think you've misunderstood the point the person replying to your post was trying to make. They were not defending the terrorists they were only pointing out that they were not attacking to cause the most terror and loss of life.

    In 9/11 and the London attacks they struck at the economic centres respectively. They are fighting against what they see as the social and economic tyranny of the west. True they are using terror tactics.

    If they were just trying to cause terror and death they would go for even softer targets. Just look at the Beslan siege and be thankful that Al Qaeda don't fight that sort of war.

    Now I agree they are very much in the wrong. Attacking civilians is wrong! But look at the end of WW2, the firestorms in German cities and the 2 atomic bombs. Were they necessary? The wars could have been completed with just military action.

    We are paying now for the mistakes of the past. Now we have to take preventative measures and avoid making the same mistakes again.

    A final thought, the most successful philosophies in history have valued compassion highly. But they go further than feeling compassion for your friends, but also your enemies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Attacking civilians is wrong! But look at the end of WW2, the firestorms in German cities and the 2 atomic bombs. Were they necessary? The wars could have been completed with just military action.
    Were they necessary? Yes, they were. The atomic bomb saved millions of lives and made the invasion of Japan irrelevant. As for the 'fire bombings' of German Cities: Well, Dresden happened in February, the Soviet Union lost another 1million casualties between then and the end of war. So the war was far from over. WW2 also had the curious situation where the lines between civilian and military were one and the same. Who is the more responsible, the person who makes the the gun and gets paid a good wage and does so voluntarily or the press ganged conscript from some far off country who is made to fight because if he doesn't he will be shot ? I would also suggest that if we ever get to a point where we are in the same situation as WW2 you can bet that we will revert to using strategic bombing to destroy factories, power plants etc which will kill civilians.

    But they go further than feeling compassion for your friends, but also your enemies.
    I'm sorry but thats a load of rubbish, how can you expect a soldier to show compassion for his enemy ? He already has the unenvyable task of having to kill the enemy, now you are suggesting you want him to think about what he is doing. If you think about more than what you are actually doing for even a second in a real combat situation you will end up dead. Compassion while lead to guilt, guilt lead to psychological problems. Killing is already hard enough to do without trying to make them feel sorry for the guy they just killed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No. It's a cowardly act.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    No. It's a cowardly act.
    Dying for what you believe in is cowardly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Dying for what you believe in is cowardly?
    When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, April 20, 1999, very few people thought that killing 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves was an act of bravery.

    I personally think it was justified, but that's for another time.

    (Original post by oilcan)
    When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, April 20, 1999, very few people thought that killing 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves was an act of bravery.

    I personally think it was justified, but that's for another time.
    Don't think you'll get 'another time' once the mods kick you off for good.
    And there is no justification other than self-defence or mercy to kill another human being.

    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    Were they necessary? Yes, they were. The atomic bomb saved millions of lives and made the invasion of Japan irrelevant. As for the 'fire bombings' of German Cities: Well, Dresden happened in February, the Soviet Union lost another 1million casualties between then and the end of war. So the war was far from over. WW2 also had the curious situation where the lines between civilian and military were one and the same. Who is the more responsible, the person who makes the the gun and gets paid a good wage and does so voluntarily or the press ganged conscript from some far off country who is made to fight because if he doesn't he will be shot ? I would also suggest that if we ever get to a point where we are in the same situation as WW2 you can bet that we will revert to using strategic bombing to destroy factories, power plants etc which will kill civilians.



    I'm sorry but thats a load of rubbish, how can you expect a soldier to show compassion for his enemy ? He already has the unenvyable task of having to kill the enemy, now you are suggesting you want him to think about what he is doing. If you think about more than what you are actually doing for even a second in a real combat situation you will end up dead. Compassion while lead to guilt, guilt lead to psychological problems. Killing is already hard enough to do without trying to make them feel sorry for the guy they just killed.
    actually dresden was pretty unnecessary at that point, it was a bit of a revenge for the blitz and a morale booster for our own civilians.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Rome)
    Don't think you'll get 'another time' once the mods kick you off for good.
    Please, don't get my hopes up too much.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    Please, don't get my hopes up too much.
    no he's spot on. I've warned that guy before and had temp banned him whilst i figured out why perma ban hadn't worked.
    Now am going through and finding all the nasty stuff he has left this time and giving appropriate warnings for each.
    most warned guy in a long time methinks lol.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    actually dresden was pretty unnecessary at that point, it was a bit of a revenge for the blitz and a morale booster for our own civilians.
    Considering the Soviets lost another million men from Dresden to the end of the war it was neccessary and could have potentially cost the Russkis even more in deaths.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    no he's spot on. I've warned that guy before and had temp banned him whilst i figured out why perma ban hadn't worked.
    Now am going through and finding all the nasty stuff he has left this time and giving appropriate warnings for each.
    most warned guy in a long time methinks lol.
    48 :eek:
    Bannination three times over I guess.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Let's all just hold hands and live in peace naked and shagging each other like rabbits.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Killing innocent people is never justified. That's why they're called innocent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhivago)
    No. It's a cowardly act.
    Cowardly? Do you really believe that? Dying for something you believe in is the complete opposite of cowardly in my opinion, i would go as far as to say it is a brave act. It is a shame that these people are warped murderers, and i truly believe that the act is totally unjustified; you can never justify the slaughter of the innocent.
    But remember how indoctrinated these people are- they have been brought up to believe these warped views and interpretations of islam, and this nurture has reinforced already harmed minds. There are many more people who belive the cause, but wouldnt kill people.the ones who do are simply murderers, and we should not dignify them with any other name.
    Does anyone really think the attacks are justified????? Even if you empathise with their desperation considering the ***** that happens to their people, and the political situations, etc. Poeple who kill people purposefully are evil, full stop.
 
 
 

2,149

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.