means and ends

serious hypothetical question guaranteed to offend but still useful to consider.

Myself and many people like me believe that America and englands current attitude towards terrorists is flawed.

we believe that bombing the hell out of them simply creates more terrorists, more people willing to become terrorists, and kills more civilians than the terrorist acts themselves.

Currently it seems nothing will stop America attacking Iraq and they show every sign of expanding their war beyond that.

Given the many thousands of civilians who will die in the imminent battles, who feels that another terrorist attack on america killing another 3000 people would be justified if it caused them to re-think their strategy in the war on terror and realise that wars are possibly just inflammatory and ultimately more destructive than terrorist activity.

(note: this is a means to an end question. it doesn't condone terrorist activity, and pre-supposes that a terrorist strike would change the mind of the bush presidency towards diplomatic initiatives)

No.A terrorist act against the USA can't be justified even if it were to change US policy(which it wouldn't)
Only a greater understanding of the effects of US foreign policy by american citizens can change US policy.
The situation in Germany at present is a classic example;Shroeder knows the German people do not want war so he is fighting the general election on an anti-war footing.If the American people do not want terrorism they must elect a president who is willing to tackle the root causes of terrorism not just react to it.

All I can say is that I agree with Lupe on this one. No doubt the three musketeers (Ultra, Bob88, and Thomas Crowne) will have a different slant.

my answer is this: it depends upon your mindset.

i believe that violence must be avoided. as a principle violence is wrong. therefore i cannot justify the use of violence to stop violence. even though it may save lives. ignoring or sacrificing your principles to uphold your principles is a fallacy in the extreme. it also what i think america is doing and has been doing for the past year.

however, i would like to point out an alternative attitude. there are some on this board that defend the use of nuclear weapons towards the end of WWII by saying that they saved more lives than they took. the statistics are debateable, but assuming that they stand the same principle can be applied to this situation. in which case, the destruction of say, the white house, the complete annihilation of NORAD (if it was possible) or even the levelling of the statue of liberty (including a full payload of sight-seeing civilians) could be justified in saving ten times as many lives around the globe.

- qo.

Sadam should be removed at some point.

But after all the reading I've done lately,now is not the time.Until we get more of the world behind it,I think its a bad idea.Sadly I think Saddam will have do something in order for the U.S to get support.

If we go now I think terrorism is going to get a whole lot worse.Both in America and the UK.There is going to be a lot of bloodshed for one pissant dictator.

Terrorism has acted as both a crowd control mechanism and excuse for the catering to the Military/Industrial complex. It would just extend those evils.
We, America & England, will make many more terrorists before we curtail terrorist actions. The radical mullahs are given ample fodder to the very weak arguments they indoctrinate followers with when one days bombing run costs more that it would take to feed their village for a decade.

I agree with John Bull. but also the sacraficing of life to save life is bull. only one thing saves lives in international conflict and that's peace agreements. a violent act that murders one not to mention thousands can not save lives as it murders and/or maims many, that just idiotic lunacy. ok, maybe it's just lunacy...but in my mind it is also idiotic.