2006-08-15 15:16:09 · 13 answers · asked by who8mycookies 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Awful as being attacked may be, no. The purpose of such an attack may not be something some people agree with, but one thing is certain; and that it that the purpose of the attack is to "force" democracy.
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.
The purpose of attacking to bring democracy is intended - in the long run - not to take over but to give a non-democratic nation a representative republic with freedom for its people. The purpose of terrorism is to take away freedom from people and to take over their society.
The killing in an attack as you described it is ideally aimed at the enemy, and the killing of innocent people is not the aim (although, yes, awful things have happened to innocent people in certain circumstances; but I'm talking about motives and principles related to the definition, not anecdotal anomalies). The killing of innocent people is the aim of terrorism.
Is such an attack a nice thing when its carried out? No. Are there people who feel as if they're being taken over by others who disagree with their beliefs? Yes.
But can such an attack be defined as a terrorist attack? By virtue of the definition of "terrorist attack", no.
2006-08-15 15:43:57 · answer #1 · answered by WhiteLilac1 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not really sure if it is or isn't because there is no right or wrong answer here. There's so many gray areas that surround this issue. Personally though, I think it is a terrorist act if we were to force a democracy on a country we were attacking, especially if we knowingly did so and there was no concrete evidence that they're going attack us. It would be a definite if the country had no history of terror threats against our country and the president made up a fictitious reason why we were to attack that country.
iamwelndowd1, you have less IQ points if you believe that Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction when none have showed up. Ignorant fool. nighthawk_842003, while you are correct that what you said above are all terrorist acts, attacking a country just so we can force democracy on them is also a terrorist act. joshua_h, I HATE IGNORANT A$$HOLES LIKE YOU! Kwan was just asking a simple thought provoking question that seems to have hurt your brain somehow. How do you know that kwan watches MTV news, or are you being a total idiot? The last time I checked we had a dumb soldier rape and murder women from one family while we've been forcing democracy down their throats for the sake of oil. THAT'S TERRORISM, NOT LIBERATION YOU DUMBFU*K!
2006-08-15 15:26:53 · answer #2 · answered by iwannarevolt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom is not forced, It's an opportunity that everyone desires. Even you like the freedom to bash your own country. If we were under a dictator like Saddam or kim jung il or someone like that. and an army came in to release you from the grip of the tyrant, I hardly think you would call that army terrorists. If the Iraqis felt the way you think they felt, don't you think they would at least let your media buddies like the communist news network or CNN, or anyone else that they didn't want us there. But no; even their newly elected, That's right I said elected government wants us to stay there until they can handle the terrorists from other countries like Iran, Syria etc. without us. And as of now they say we should stay. You just keep bashing our military, It lets people know who you really are.
2006-08-15 15:39:03 · answer #3 · answered by Go Rush! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War is terrorism. No matter what form it comes in, the innocent always suffer the most.
The war in Iraq (I assume you were refering to that particular conflict) is illegal by definition. It is illegal in US and International law, mostly because of the fact that it is a war of aggression that wasn't in response to an immediate/inevitable/imminent threat.
The Nazis tried to claim that their numerous acts of aggression were "pre-emptive" because of their belief that those targets would possibly pose a future threat to them. The Nuremburg Trials found that this was a war crime, and the act was widely condemned, and is forbidden by International Law.
Considering the fact that the US is a signatorie of the Geneva Conventions; our country is bound by our own laws to obey International laws. The Constitution strictly recommends that all members of the government are bound by all treaties (which is what the UN and Geneva Conventions are) that we are a signatorie of.
Not only is BOOsh guilty of crimes against the International Community, but he is guilty - yet again - of violating constitutional law.
2006-08-15 15:32:59 · answer #4 · answered by Daniel C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, we forced the Iraqi's into Democracy, that is why every Iraqi civillian was kissing our troops while they entered thier cities. It sure looked like we were forcing them didn't it? We didn't attack to force Democracy, we did it to take a terrorist out of power.
2006-08-15 15:28:19 · answer #5 · answered by Dawg Vader 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i ask your self why we would desire to consistently annihilate Iran.What did they do?we've been informed that their chief is a monster, yet how do we be helpful.Does everyone of those human beings communicate the language i ask your self?besides, Kilmeade's suggestion needless to say did no longer play nicely with manufacturers because of the fact the satellite tv for pc feed replaced into unexpectedly shrink.And no ask your self.If we motel to those methods, we're not to any extent further proper than everyone.we would desire to consistently leave Iran by myself because of the fact they won't be as passive as Iraq.
2016-09-29 07:50:18 · answer #6 · answered by esannason 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, blowing yourself up in a bus packed full of innocent people is a terrorist act. Flying planes into a building is a terrorist act. Blowing yourself up in a plane in mid flight to kill innocent people is a terrorist act.
2006-08-15 15:22:10 · answer #7 · answered by nighthawk_842003 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We were never invited to attack Iraq by anybody.I feel sorry for the innocent Iraqis who did nothing but stand in the way of a stray bullet or shrapnel.As for 'our' soldiers......well they get paid for doing this kind of thing.
Terrorism, in the form of sudden death from a 'liberators' bomb, is still terrorism
2006-08-15 15:26:08 · answer #8 · answered by David S 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes!
Bombing civilians is a terrorist act, whether it be strapped on, or dropped from an F-16.
Recent American and Israeli activity: 'Disguised Terrorism'
One which the zombies don't fully understand or can comprehend.
2006-08-15 15:22:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No, it's liberation... forcing the citizens of "that" country to watch their family members get raped for their political beliefs is terrorism.
I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
If, and when, you ever grow up, you may have a better understanding of the world... beyond what the quick 5-minute MTV news break tells you....
2006-08-15 15:22:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋