Is terrorism, the furthering of a political goal by injecting of fear in a civilian population through violence, justifiable if it is utilized in a way that furthers the political goals of America's patriots and furthers the cause of freedom?
Just as the patriot Paul Revere and his minutemen stood in defiance of the British and no doubt committed what amounted to terrorism at the time, how can terrorism in today's context allow us to achieve our goals of ending Federal tyranny and reestablishing freedom in America?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Whether bombing a federal building or shooting up the families of alphabet soup agents, do you think terrorism is a justifiable means to lessen the government and get back our rights?
TL;DR Can we use terrorism against the government if it ensures long-term benefits for America?
I think that if you were actually contemplating a campaign of insurgent violence, you wouldn't have posted on a website that shares IP addresses with the feds.
Terrorism is just what the winning side calls the tactics of the losers
>>30506004
Name any terror act on America that has given any long time benefit?
>>30507022
The Boston Tea Party
>>30507026
>Throwing a bunch of tea into a harbor
>Harming zero people
>Instilling any amount of fear in anyone
>>30507059
It instilled fear in the brits
>>30507073
No, it pissed them off because they lost a fuck load of money.
>>30506028
if they were wining they wouldn't use such tactics, no?
>>30507022
When Bush did 9/11, it galvanized the population and made us more united.
>>30507059
>The destruction of private commercial property isn't destruction
Sabotage airliners or trucks of shipment of any brand and tell me that's not terrorism
>>30507084
Read the thing again ESL-kun
>>30506004
It would be argued by those in countries we currently occupy that our tactics are terrorism. Just like they would argue those fighting against us would be freedom fighters.
To me, terrors are the ones who attack non-fighting positions or non-fighters. Blowing up a school may seem like terrorism, but if it is occupied by a force looking to fight, it isn't terrorism.
>>30507022
Concord Bridge. April 19th, 1775.
>>30507127
What about all the bombings on civilians during WWII? I mean it's a shit tactic and rightfully evil but it's still a tactic and if you're in an all out war it's kinda inevitable for someone to do it
>>30506004
Terrorism is a political act, but one of absolute last resort, to be employed when the targeted power-structure has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the fighters. Whatever grand ideals one may have about fighting the federal government in the name of the constitution are bunk. One goes with the other; only a tyrant gets to decide which law he abides and which he does not.
>>30507153
I guess its all about warning in the WW2 bombing runs civilians still had some warning most of the time in most acts of terrorism its all about 0 warning.
>>30507153
That had more to do with the limited effectiveness of bomb targeting technology at that time than it did with bombing civilians being a tactic.
>>30506004
Everything is justifiable so long as you win.
>>30507094
that's not terrorism. the faggot news and government might call it that, but what you described is asymmetrical warfare. terrorism, by any non-retarded definition, is violence meant to instill terror into your enemy, usually specifically targeting their civilian population. torturing POWs, for example, doesn't make enemy combatants as afraid as it makes the civilians, who don't want that to happen to their loved ones who go off to war. blowing up civilians doesn't demoralize troops as much as it makes the civilian population want to give up the war.
terrorism is a word that is being intentionally devalued in an attempt to prepare the western population for its use against other western civilians that do not in any way fit the actual definition. the real terrorists are the ones who born cages full of prisoners, or capture only young girls from a villiage, or turn all the boys I. your village into junkie child soldiers, as an example to enemy civilian populations.
>>30507090
Aren't we still fighting that war?
>>30506004
Terrorism is a buzzword, all warfare is politically motivated and waged against a society.
>>30506004
Terrorism has literally never once furthered a political goal. It's a desperate tactic utilized by people who lack the support to actually fight other combatants.
>>30506004
Not how AQ or ISIL has been doing it.
Look up the exploits of Imad Mughniyeh in relation to Israel and U.S foreign intelligence.
>>30508773
Actually, all warfare is based on deception.
>>30506004
Terrorism and sedition are two different things. Terrorism is cruelty intended to provoke a psychological effect. Sedition is political resistance intended to provoke more tangible changes in policy or diplomatic status
>>30508797
I wasn't talking tactics, I was talking strategery.
>>30508782
This.
Terrorism is the tactic of weak faggots.
If you purposefully target military or government sites, it's an act of war. If you purposefully target a civilian site, it's terrorism. If you "accidentally" kill a bunch of civies while conducting a strike on a legitimate target, it may or may not be a war crime.
Any modern-day revolution taking place in a first world country would have to go to insane lengths to insure that there were no civilian casualties or they would instantly lose credibility.
>>30507133
>Two armed parties skirmishing at a strategic location.
But that's not terrorism faggot.
>>30508782
The 9/11 terrorists wanted to draw the US into protracted conflict in the middle east, so technically I guess it worked.
If we say terrorism must include lethal violence directed at non military/government targets then I can't think of anytime where domestic terrorism accomplished anything.
Since the boston tea party wasn't deadly, it wouldn't count. That's an act of violent civil protest but no one died.
The Revolutionary War wouldn't count as I can't think of a time where non combatants were attacked by American troops.
>>30506004
Attacking non combatants is abhorrent. If you believe killing the families of law enforcement will somehow "establish freedom in America" then you are either retarded or delusional. Violence is an act of last resort when non violent
means to end tyranny are exhausted. You would be hard pressed to define the Federal government, as a whole, as tyrannical. The country moving in a direction you don't like is not the same as tyranny.
>>30506004
I think those methods just lead to reduced rights, more gun bans etc. and possible persecution. Pretty much the opposite of what you wanted.
Was he right?
>>30506004
We fucked British troops up, we didn't decapitate women and children in the streets. Learn the difference little boy
>>30509178
Did he accomplish anything long term?
If your army has devolved to the point of terrorism, you're simply drawing out defeat. It will never win the war for you, it will simply make things worse for the winners. It's pointless carnage motivated by anger and pride.
>>30506004
Don't attack innocent targets. It would be too damn easy for the media to demonize you and you're unlikely to draw many supporters. There is no benefit from terrorizing the general populace, and it would probably end up backfiring with authorities using the situation to get more control (9/11, Boston Bombing). Only kill the government official who is the target, it will terrorize the government that is what we need.
As for building bombing, I believe a bomb that yields zero casualties is better than a bomb that kills 100. Destroying a building is more about what that building stands for than killing its occupants. And you're likely to get more support if you show that you want to keep the body count to a minimum.
>>30507022
Oklahoma City Bombing. FBI and ATF backed the fuck down after that.
>>30506004
"Justifiable Terrorism" is all perspective.
"Terrorism" is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword. Any act of defiance or opposition is going to scare someone, somewhere. If scaring people is the only thing you plan to accomplish by said act, you need to rethink your strategy.
