When will it stop??

[goku]

That was nicely put Charles.

I don't think any countries think differently than what you just said. Now I like the States. In fact I have an American citizenship. The USA is flawed just like every other country, but they take the initiative to try to get things right. Now some ways are better than others. (i.e. Bush shouldn't have blown up Iraq and killed people, but attempting to help the AIDS problem is very honorable.)

However, I think we will always be at war. It's the savagery of the human spirit. And I have another quote that seems to fit. I don't remember who said it, but it was: "Men are at war with one another because each man is at war with himself." I'll leave you on that note. What do you think?

[Dent]

heheh it was an honorable act of mr. bush to help africa, but unfortunatelly was made following the logic of politics, think on them when elections come.

Cya

Dent

[goku]

Originally posted by Dent
from the weird stories i listened on all my life, one of them fits on this discussion. There will be dificult times ahead and on this period, depending on how humanity will act on it, if she goes well through it, weґll have 1000 years of peace and prosperity, will come a time that nobody will know how to fight. If no, will be 1000 year of chaos and violence. Interesting.

Well donґt ask me who said that, but i heard it from various people, i wonґt say that is the armageddon itself, because there are people that donґt believe on it, or that it is aliens, or angels, or what the human imagination creates, but itґs something to think about. And seeing that world just becomes more dangerous, with destructive weapons being created every day, with wars waging on several points on earth, it should make us ask, these times are coming, or already came?

Wow. This is interesting. I have been watching the news recently, and I've noticed fires have sprung up every where. They are burning all over the United States, in France, and other European countries. The globe is practically catching on fire. So it makes me wonder. Is this the beginning of the end? Is it a sign or omen?
Who knows? But it is pretty coincidental.

[DAZ]

If politicians had to fight their own wars the world would be a more peaceful place.
You find more peace in normal people than you do in a self-interested politicians with their greed-is-good-die-for-oil-suckers mentality.

[luxxi]

Goku forgot to mention one thing. In 1944 Soviets deported almost entire population of Chechnya to Kazahstan where several thousands of them died from cold, hunger and radiation sickness (Soviets tested their nuclear weapons there). They were allowed to return in 1957. This action is burned into Chechen memory like Holocaust is in Jewish memory and Turkish genocide is in Armenian. So don't be surprised if Chechens don't like Russians very much.

[goku]

Guess what? Another act of Terrorism. http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2...641_blast.html

Chechnya hasn't been acused of providing the terrorists yet, but nevertheless it's a terrible thing, no matter who does it.

[Tranz]

another horrible tragedy. How the hell do you blow up a hospital, wit sick or wounded ppl in it. What an act of sin that is. I hope these ppl responsible are found and judged properly. There is no reason for any terroist act anywhere, I just hope the rate of these tragedies reduce, or fade away all together.

[denial]

Thanks Goku and luxxi!!!

It was just last night I was reseaching this conflict of Russia and Chechen on internet after I read the news about the military hospital was bomb, 25 dead.

I was lost here and there while trying to puts the stories together from the news. Was thinking about asking someone here but not sure who.

Now I understand ...
.....ahh..my intiution again?..

...seem like this will never end .. we'll have to get used to this and try to live at our best ...

[Dent]

dudes, i believe the question here isnґt, when will stop, but if will stop. Terrorism is an act, and in a war everything is used. They exploded hospitals. NATO and the US also blowed up hospitals on kosovo, afganistan, iraq. and for people whose weapons are the most advanced on the world itґs very difcult so many hospitals being destroyed by accident. But that didnґt made them terrorists. A terrorist inflicts fear on other people, wars inflicts fear on people, but ui dont see these nations being called terrorists.

Dent

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Can you actually draw a line between terrorism and acts of war and violence from an actual country?
Really, what is the difference? Apart from actually having an active government, of course.

Both target residential areas, both kill innocent people, both kill for a purpose... well, more often than not. What Charles already paraphrased "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The soldiers that fought for US's independence were considered to be terrorists by the British colonialists. Same thing can be said for the Great Indian Mutiny which started it all in India. Had those acts of terrorism never been done these countries, and many more, would have never of existed. I can even include my country Eritrea into the mix. My country won its independence from Ethiopia solely through terrorism.

I'm sorry to sound cold-hearted but despite amount of horror terrorism induces to people I think terrorism is necessary. I think it is pretty self-serving when people are against terrorism when it doesn't serve their interests. When a group people are stripped of their rights, dignity, and identity terrorism is most probably the only way to fight back.
Peaceful protests aren't quite doing much these days, Tibetans are still part of China despite their protesting all it got them was a concert hosted by the Beastie Boys.
Go to the UN, make them implement their Declaration of Human Rights? It didn't work with Tutsi tribe of Rwanda did it now?

Terrorism is the only way these people can fight.
How can you deny them that but excuse developed, well established countries from doing far, far worse?

I'm not promoting terrorism AT ALL btw, I'm just saying that I understand.

PS: Sorry for the long post.

[luxxi]

Originally posted by PowerPuff Grrl
Can you actually draw a line between terrorism and acts of war and violence from an actual country?
Really, what is the difference? Apart from actually having an active government, of course.

Yes, you can. If you kill several civilians in amrket and you are wearing uniform you are war criminal. If you aren't you are terrorist.

Originally posted by PowerPuff Grrl

I'm sorry to sound cold-hearted but despite amount of horror terrorism induces to people I think terrorism is necessary. I think it is pretty self-serving when people are against terrorism when it doesn't serve their interests. When a group people are stripped of their rights, dignity, and identity terrorism is most probably the only way to fight back.
Peaceful protests aren't quite doing much these days, Tibetans are still part of China despite their protesting all it got them was a concert hosted by the Beastie Boys.
Go to the UN, make them implement their Declaration of Human Rights? It didn't work with Tutsi tribe of Rwanda did it now?

No, terrorism isn't only way. You have guerilla. Look at Hezbollah (OK, several acts of terrorism but mostly guerilla), mujahedeen in Afghanistan under Soviet ocupation, ocupied Europe during WW2 etc.

Chechens are shooting themselves in their legs with these acts of terrorism. If they would kill only Russian troops they would get much more sympathy. But with this Russia can cloak it's extermination tactics into "War on terrorism (tm)" and nobody will raise a voice for Chechens.

[Dent]

Yes powerpuff girl, i also think that way. If my country, that i love so much was invaded by another country, surely i would do anything to take these invaders out of my country, or to make them pay what they did against us. Itґs a cruel act, but what war isnґt cruel?

Dent

[Dent]

No, terrorism isn't only way. You have guerilla. Look at Hezbollah (OK, several acts of terrorism but mostly guerilla), mujahedeen in Afghanistan under Soviet ocupation, ocupied Europe during WW2 etc

but guerillas uses terrorism too. not that they use constantly, but is one of the ways to do guerrila warfare
The definition for guerrila is: Guerrillas may operate independently or complement orthodox military operations. The underlying strategy in guerrilla warfare is to harass the enemy until sufficient military strength has accumulated in order to defeat him in battle or until enough political and military pressure is applied to cause him to seek peace.

Dent

[luxxi]

Originally posted by Dent
but guerillas uses terrorism too. not that they use constantly, but is one of the ways to do guerrila warfare
The definition for guerrila is: Guerrillas may operate independently or complement orthodox military operations. The underlying strategy in guerrilla warfare is to harass the enemy until sufficient military strength has accumulated in order to defeat him in battle or until enough political and military pressure is applied to cause him to seek peace.

Dent

No. Terrorism is killing civilians to cause fear in population, guerilla is warfare, killing enemy soldiers. They are often conected, but aren't inseparable.

It is true that often one guerillas are fighting against is calling them terrorists (e.g. Hezbollah) because guerilla is legitimate mean of resistance and terrorism isn't.

[LenochkaO]

Having grown up in a country subject to frequent terrorist attacks (the UK), I can't condone terrorism at all. Though the IRA did do Manchester a favour when they bombed it, because the repair work has been wonderful. Shame they couldn't have blown up the Arndale centre, though (hideous building).

However, effectively, terrorism in Northern Ireland has worked, in that Sinn Fein is now part of the political mainstream. There was a time when we weren't allowed to hear the voice of SF's president - his words were always re-spoken by an actor for broadcast on TV or radio, which was a bizarre situation. Anyway, what I'm trying to say, through the haze of this hangover, is that with examples of "success" like that, it shows other terrorist groups that bombings and other attacks do have the required effect. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have negotiated with Sinn Fein/IRA, because I don't see what else we could have done. But because of that, terrorism has a proven track record of effectiveness that means that it isn't going to go away any time soon.

</ramble> (want to be back in bed...)

[Dent]

Originally posted by luxxi
No. Terrorism is killing civilians to cause fear in population, guerilla is warfare, killing enemy soldiers. They are often conected, but aren't inseparable.

It is true that often one guerillas are fighting against is calling them terrorists (e.g. Hezbollah) because guerilla is legitimate mean of resistance and terrorism isn't.

not only killing civilians, but anything who inflicts fear on population in order for terrorists to achieve its goals.

Dent