Sure, but again - if you murder people at a music festival and take hostages, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that terrorists won that one.
Sure, but again, if you indiscriminately kill innocent people in Gaza and destroy the very last university, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that Israel won that one.
The terrorists won that one? Not sure they’d agree. I guess they thought they were going to retreat into the tunnels and nobody was going to blow the tunnels up on top of them.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
Therefore by your logic, a just war causes terrorism.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
I would agree if you said all war causes vengeful losers to resort to desperate acts of violence against innocent people. I do not agree that a just war should be called off because the enemy on the receiving end of that justice will probably lash out in its death throes. That would be called negotiating with terrorists.
If you are worried about more terrorists, I agree bombing terrorists causes more terrorists, but negotiating with them opens the floodgates. And it’s not like we don’t have enough bombs.
No, I said quite the opposite - that escalation of violence is the goal of terrorism. But I would agree that escalation of violence tends to create more terrorism, with the caveat: if the original conflict is not resolved in some manner.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
I have no idea what you mean by just war. But I would disagree that any war is just escalation of violence. Wars mostly have rather clear objectives.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
Nope. That’s not implication of my logic. But yes, in most cases wars will produce terrorism if the underlying conflict is not resolved. The underlying conflict might get resolved by war or intelligent occupation strategy (interesting to take a look at west and east Germany in that regard, especially in the context of the rise of the AfD, new german nazi party).
I don’t know what you specifically mean by it. People tend to have wildly different definitions. I for my part would struggle to call any war just, but for sure there is a spectrum of more and less justifiable reasons for and methods to conduct a war.
Sure, but again - if you murder people at a music festival and take hostages, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that terrorists won that one.
Sure, but again, if you indiscriminately kill innocent people in Gaza and destroy the very last university, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that Israel won that one.
Absolutely. Not sure why you would think I don’t understand the hatred Israel is getting.
Not sure what Israel won, despite making sure there will be another generation of Palestinian freedom fighters with rather questionable methods.
I wasn’t making a statement about you, I just wanted to demonstrate the statement can be made in any way.
I agree, Israel bred the Hamas of tomorrow for sure. But they did win in terms of getting closer to turning Gaza into a settlement.
But you were responding to a actual person, me. So it would have helped if you clarified it wasn’t about me - don’t you think?
Even that sounds to me like a win for the terrorists - but I can see, people have different view.
It’s directed to you. It just makes no statements about you personally, just responding to your opinion. Hope that clarifies it.
The terrorists won that one? Not sure they’d agree. I guess they thought they were going to retreat into the tunnels and nobody was going to blow the tunnels up on top of them.
The concept of terrorism in general. Once again it was able to achieve an escalation of violence and therefore create more terrorism.
So in your view there is no such thing as just war? Any war is terrorism?
How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion?
You said escalations of violence cause terrorism.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
Therefore by your logic, a just war causes terrorism.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
I would agree if you said all war causes vengeful losers to resort to desperate acts of violence against innocent people. I do not agree that a just war should be called off because the enemy on the receiving end of that justice will probably lash out in its death throes. That would be called negotiating with terrorists.
If you are worried about more terrorists, I agree bombing terrorists causes more terrorists, but negotiating with them opens the floodgates. And it’s not like we don’t have enough bombs.
No, I said quite the opposite - that escalation of violence is the goal of terrorism. But I would agree that escalation of violence tends to create more terrorism, with the caveat: if the original conflict is not resolved in some manner.
I have no idea what you mean by just war. But I would disagree that any war is just escalation of violence. Wars mostly have rather clear objectives.
Nope. That’s not implication of my logic. But yes, in most cases wars will produce terrorism if the underlying conflict is not resolved. The underlying conflict might get resolved by war or intelligent occupation strategy (interesting to take a look at west and east Germany in that regard, especially in the context of the rise of the AfD, new german nazi party).
You don’t understand the concept of just war?
I don’t know what you specifically mean by it. People tend to have wildly different definitions. I for my part would struggle to call any war just, but for sure there is a spectrum of more and less justifiable reasons for and methods to conduct a war.