Ideas needed

[SaintsOfTheDiamond]

As for the original question.

1) A definition of terrorism.
Probably too generalized, but I think of it as any action by any person/group with the sole purpose of causing as much havoc as possible.

2) Evidence of your grasp of militarism, pacifism, and just-war theory.
I'm not really sure I follow what you're asking, but I think that you must have a little of both to maintain order. You can't solve everything with war, but at the same time you can't solve everything by trying to "talk it out" so to speak.

3) A discussion of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches listed in 2.
Militarism: There doesn't have to be "consent" between the two parties involved. You are trying to eliminate the "enemy" before he eliminates you and will use any means necessary to do it. Therefore loss of life on a larger scale is inevitable, but it is also a greater deterent than a pacifist approach can provide because of the threat of losing the most important thing to all people, life.
Pacifism: Not nearly the same loss of life that would theoretically be encountered in war, but it also takes more time and is also more limited in it's effectiveness if both sides are not willing participants in the dialogue.

Hope I'm not too late and that helps a little.

[SaintsOfTheDiamond]

Essay written .... thanks for the help guys.

Damn. Ah well.

[so0perspam]

Essay written .... thanks for the help guys.

Damn. Ah well.

Thanks anyway SOTD.

[Irish]

This is a verry sensitive topic w/ me that I could easily write 10 pages on... but would probably get me banned from here... So all I am going to say is check out Noam Chomsky at the book store He has written several books on the subjec of terrorism and is an excellent writer. You will get everything you ever needed to know about the US and Terrorism.

You blew it; it's political now. I'm sure he's a good writer, but Chomsky is a complete wacko; an overeducated nonrealist. A skill in writing doesn't make you right

The problem with any book on a political subject is they are selling you on an idea or pressing their opinion on you. You have to read multiple authors from different view points in order to form your own opinion. This takes more work and most people are content regurgetating other people's ideas to create an artificial intelligence of the topic.

I agree w/ you 100% on that being an issue w/ most political books
however, in Chomsky's writings for the most part he isn't writing anything really new, he is using what the US Govt. publicly says vs. what they actually do. He makes a very compelling case that using its own definition of terrorism, the US Gov is the leading sponsor of terrorism in the World.

anyone that would like to send me a pm to discuss it further is more than welcome, but until they reinstate the Political forum, I will keep it off the board

I agree with you on this one. We keep acting like this is the world's problem and not our own. It's a combination of both. Alot of our enemys today(Saddam, Bin Laden) were friends of ours not too long ago and we were financing them.

Now suddenly we act like they came out of nowhere and hate the good ol' USA for no reason.

You might not agree with Chomsky's view points, but atleast he uses history to make arguments, which is more then most people do.

I don't hate america or any of that bs, and I'm sorry if this has turned "political", but until we acknowledge that the US has a large hand in all this the problem will continue IMO.

[BigMusky]

Interresting how Empires call this action a revolt...where as democratic societies call this terrorism

[blankman]

History is not black and white. It can interpretted differently and it's often possible to manipulate the facts to one's desire to "prove" a fallacy. For example, an event may occur: this is black and white; but the interpretation of the motives of or reasons for the event may be widely different.