Current Events > Are all terrorists bad people?

(+) Yeah! (+)

okay now they all are doing horrible and terrible things. But how can you really blame some of them when they are being taken from their families or being raised and trained like what they are doing is right. For them they truly believe we are evil. It's not like here where killing and stealing is illegal so we know better that when we do that it's wrong. They are living with no rules, only what they are told.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the terrorists!
---

Feral dogs aren't truly bad dogs either. They just can't control themselves.
---

Loaded as fuck question.

The tea-party were terrorists.

Anyway as a general answer yes. They are awful people.

Although in many scenarios basic education, removal of religion and logic would have a dramtic positive influence
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Loaded as fuck question.

The tea-party were terrorists.

Anyway as a general answer yes. They are awful people.

Although in many scenarios basic education, removal of religion and logic would have a dramtic positive influence

how would removal of logic help any? That'd be about as useful as removal of oxford commas
---

I'm good friends with a terrorist, he just has different ideologies, but he's a nice person.
---

a bad person wants to harm others... if they want to harm others they're bad.

regardless of beliefs, gender, nationality etc.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

a bad person wants to harm others... if they want to harm others they're bad. .

Ok so a guy breaks into your home, kills half your family and tries to kill the other half.

If you want to do harm to him, are you bad?
---

Generally, yes

But some people say that movements like BLM are terrorism against whites, so
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

kingdrake2 posted...

a bad person wants to harm others... if they want to harm others they're bad. .

Ok so a guy breaks into your home, kills half your family and tries to kill the other half.

If you want to do harm to him, are you bad?

goes both ways, they will never be forgiven and may they rot in prison if caught (whomever committed the crime).
---

MrMelodramatic posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Loaded as fuck question.

The tea-party were terrorists.

Anyway as a general answer yes. They are awful people.

Although in many scenarios basic education, removal of religion and logic would have a dramtic positive influence

how would removal of logic help any? That'd be about as useful as removal of oxford commas

---

kingdrake2 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

kingdrake2 posted...

a bad person wants to harm others... if they want to harm others they're bad. .

Ok so a guy breaks into your home, kills half your family and tries to kill the other half.

If you want to do harm to him, are you bad?

goes both ways, they will never be forgiven and may they rot in prison if caught (whomever committed the crime).

I didn't say it didn't "Go both ways" I'm saying "If you wish harm onto others you're bad" is lazy idealogy when the only thing preventing you from wishing harm onto others is how perfect your life is.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

a bad person wants to harm others... if they want to harm others they're bad.

gg american gov
you are officially bad
---

Hard to say. Prolly.
---

Anyone that just bombs population centers with civilians is a bad person no matter how they justify it.
---

Why is UR still dodging?
---

Hash-Brown posted...

Anyone that just bombs population centers with civilians is a bad person no matter how they justify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Hash-Brown posted...

Anyone that just bombs population centers with civilians is a bad person no matter how they justify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

sacrifice had to be made, 1st one sent a message. the 2nd one was probably excessive.
---

It seems to me they would be a roughly equal measure of dickheads wanting an excuse to hurt others and severely wronged people who have become so angry they can't let go of the injustice they suffered, even if they're now doing worse.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

sacrifice had to be made, 1st one sent a message. the 2nd one was probably excessive.

But here's the thing, every blanket statement you make is immedately throw out when convient. It's not as simple as you want to believe it is
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Hash-Brown posted...

Anyone that just bombs population centers with civilians is a bad person no matter how they justify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

We dropped plenty of warnings in the days leading up to them. We told them exactly what was going to happen.
---

Hash-Brown posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Hash-Brown posted...

Anyone that just bombs population centers with civilians is a bad person no matter how they justify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

We dropped plenty of warnings in the days leading up to them. We told them exactly what was going to happen.

no matter how they justify it.

Hey look at those horses you just switched.
---

japan deserved it.
source: am chinese
---

No. However, innocent people's safety takes all precedent over trying to convince them to surrender and change their ways.

UnfairRepresent posted...

no matter how they justify it.

How is that justification. We told them exactly what was going to happen. They ignored the warning so they are to blame. Not to mention there were several military targets in the city that we were actually bombing. This wasn't like strapping a vest on and blowing up a market of civilians.
---

Hash-Brown posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

no matter how they justify it.

How is that justification. We told them exactly what was going to happen. They ignored the warning so they are to blame. Not to mention there were several military targets in the city that we were actually bombing. This wasn't like strapping a vest on and blowing up a market of civilians.

lolwut

"When we did it it was fine because of these justifications!... HOW IS THAT A JUSTIFICATION!"

And the saddest part is you don't even realize it... Well here's the thing Charlie, there's a million people out there who use the same logic you do. Who will say "No this is wrong if people do X and there's no justifications" then turn around and think it's right and justified when it's something they like.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

lolwut

"When we did it it was fine because of these justifications!... HOW IS THAT A JUSTIFICATION!"

We were bombing a military target and the civilians were collateral damage. We didn't go out of our way to kill the civilians, which is exactly what most terrorists do now. Both are terrible, but only one actually targeted civilians.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

the 2nd one was probably excessive.

no probably about it. the second one was clearly a war crime.
---

Hash-Brown posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

lolwut

"When we did it it was fine because of these justifications!... HOW IS THAT A JUSTIFICATION!"

We were bombing a military target and the civilians were collateral damage. We didn't go out of our way to kill the civilians, which is exactly what most terrorists do now. Both are terrible, but only one actually targeted civilians.

It was nuclear bomb on a city intended to kill mass amounts of civilians intentionally. 10s of thousands of civilians
---

the green guy with the glasses seems cool enough
---

The point about child soldiers being abducted at an early age and programmed to kill is certainly a valid one, but I don't think it accounts for the majority of terrorists. It certainly doesn't account for those who are clearly providing Islamic State with the technical expertise to build ever more sophisticated bombs and who are probably middle-class engineering or chemistry students in university rather than peasants.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

It was nuclear bomb on a city intended to kill mass amounts of civilians intentionally.

No, it was bombed because there was a large military contingent there.
---

Hash-Brown posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

It was nuclear bomb on a city intended to kill mass amounts of civilians intentionally.

No, it was bombed because there was a large military contingent there.

When you unleash a weapon with the destructive power to obliterate several square miles of a population centre, knowing it's going to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians in the residential areas, claiming that you were trying to discriminate between targets by "hitting the military" is morally meaningless. The IRA used to set off bombs in pubs in the hope of killing one or two off-duty soldiers, policemen or loyalist paramilitaries among the pub-goers (when it wasn't a strictly sectarian attack), but that didn't make it any less of an act of terrorism.
---

no

john brown was cool and good
---

Funkdamental posted...

Hash-Brown posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

It was nuclear bomb on a city intended to kill mass amounts of civilians intentionally.

No, it was bombed because there was a large military contingent there.

When you unleash a weapon with the destructive power to obliterate several square miles of a population centre, knowing it's going to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians in the residential areas, claiming that you were trying to discriminate between targets by "hitting the military" is morally meaningless.

On top of that it's also not true.

Killing massive amounts of civilians was literally part of the point
---

Unless you bring religion into it, with a higher power defining Good and Bad, human morality will always be shades of grey with those changing as you change your perspective.

It is widely accepted that killing people is bad. Is a soldier bad then? No, most people will say he is good because he fights for his country. So you can justify killing people for a good cause. But, what defines a good cause? Well, same thing as in morality, if no religion involved, it's up to the individual.

A group fighting to overthrow their government can be called rebels/terrorists or they can be called patriots/freedom fighters, all depending on the perspective of the individual speaking of them.

Are terrorists all bad? The word itself carries a position on their actions. If you don't see them as bad, odds are you'll be using another word.

KyerWiz posted...

It is widely accepted that killing people is bad. Is a soldier bad then? No, most people will say he is good because he fights for his country.

There are legal and ethical norms which hold that it's important how he fights and who he kills. That's how most of us would usually discriminate between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. We might hate our own soldiers being on the receiving end of sneak attacks -- ambushes, mining and sniping -- but nevertheless, they're legitimate combat tactics also used by regular infantry units. But using civilians as human shields, or hostages as human bombs against military forces, or deliberately targeting civilians as if they were military forces, falls much more easily into the category of terrorism or war crimes.
---

They are bad people, but I also believe that everything happens for a reason. I don't mean spiritual nonsense, but a cause that leads to an effect. Even a slight change could potentially make these bad people good or at least not damgerous. Even if we can do nothing for one generation, we can figure out how to prevent these bad people in the future.
---

I believe to a certain amount in the banality of evil. Most of these people are wrong place wrong time, not rotten to the core and irredeemable or anything like that
---

If my family was murdered because of American conquest and western interference, I wouldn't be surprised to see myself become some type of extremist.
---

some of the best movies have protagonists who are motivated by revenge. extremist create other extremist, then blame those extremist for wanting some get back.

dead wife? dead child? best friend? sounds like a Steven Segal movie.
---

BettyWhite posted...

If my family was murdered because of American conquest and western interference, I wouldn't be surprised to see myself become some type of extremist.

The question is, why do Anglo-Pakistani teenagers from cities in the north of England travel to join a movement that beheads Yazidis, Shi'ites and Kurds in Iraq and Syria; bombs Shia mosques in Saudi Arabia; slaughters Iraqi Sunnis who refuse to swear loyalty to al-Baghdadi; attacks Palestinian refugee camps in Yarmouk; and whose vision of government is a medieval-style caliphate thought-policed by a religious Gestapo? That's ideological factors at work. The compulsion to exterminate religious minorities and "heretics" has nothing to do with personal loss or payback against Western nations.
---