Please state 3 reasons why it is......
2007-03-06 14:19:34 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No.
1.It evokes fear
2. It involves violence against Innocent people.
3. It is not based on solving any problems. it is designed to create problems.
2007-03-06 14:36:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I do feel peace can be achieved through terrorism, please understand that there are typically two types of terrorism, and I do not support either type.
The two types are state terrorism, and non-state terrorism. I believe that state terrorism can achieve peace.
The stuff in Iraq, Afghanistan, and during the Boher War is non-state terrorism. It's only effective against what is seen to be an occuping (outsider) foce. The outsider force doesn't actually loose, but they choose to cut their losses, and pull out. Non-state terrorism against a home government is usually impossible because the terrorists are usually crushed (often resulting in heavy bloodshed), resulting in the continuation of the status-quo. Non-state terrorism against a foreign government is usually ineffective, as it's excessively hard to achieve any goals.
State terrorism, on the other hand, is effective in establishing peace. An uneasy peace, at that. This would be Stalin's Great Purge and Hitler's Night of the Long Knives. Anything that involves political prisioners and the secret police.
1. This kind of terrorism does establish stability, as political opponents are either exiled or executed. I admit though, this stability supports those that don't give a damn about human rights.
2. The general public is more likely to follow the government's orders out of fear of being shipped off, thus being less likely to discuss the injustices their government is commiting.
3. It discourages intervention by outsider governments, as a state terror campaign would show that the government has an iron fist over its people.
Ultimately, terrorism can achieve the kind of peace that favours the brutes of humanity. Although I admit I was a bit too young to remember the Iran Contra affair, I believe that the whole thing was guided by the principle that if the US supported dictators in Latin America to fight off Marxist rebels, there would be stability in the region. I admit, however, I could be wrong. I haven't studied it that much.
2007-03-06 14:57:45 · answer #2 · answered by Scott F 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. If the people know that any resistance can result in torture and death for themselves and their loved ones, they will be peaceful.
2. If your opponents cannot predict when or where you will attack next, they will realize that they must meet your demands.
3. [I take this directly from Osama bin Laden] When you can take a large number of lives and they can't prevent it, they will realize that you are stronger than they are, and they will want to join you.
2007-03-06 14:35:12 · answer #3 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The theory doesn't seem to be getting much support in Baghdad, or anywhere else.
The only thing that terrorism promotes is more violence.
2007-03-06 14:31:45 · answer #4 · answered by Ed 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you think peace is what the destruction of the world trade towers was about? No. It was about killing as many Christians as possible. Terrorists want to kill Christians. They think if we are gone, they won't have to fear God, and that will somehow make thier false god more real.
2007-03-06 15:29:59 · answer #5 · answered by lester b 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they are total opposites
anything won by evil can only be evil
terrorism is as vile as evil can get its fruits [and cause and sponsors ] are all bad
2007-03-06 14:37:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋