Patriotism vs terrorism

Remove all ads!

"patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" as quoted from oscar wilde is a very accurate phrase, one mans patriotism is another mans terrorism, it just always varies in the eye of the beholder, american patriotism is seen as terrorism bu most of the world, while binladens patriotism was seen as terrorism by the US.

this thread is not designed to bash the US, infact, if it turns into that i request that the moderators close it, it is designed to discuss the different views people hold across the world, ive held this debate many times in the past across several different message boards and in school, and it usually turns out to be a good debate.

the point of discussion is the idea that patriotism is as harmful as terrorism, because patriotism can be used to describe any act just as terrorism can be, dropping the a bomb in hiroshima and nagisaga was american patriotism, while its destructive capacity killed 350000 innocent people in moments, which to alot of other people is terrorism. the sept 11th attacks to the US they have never had such a terrible attack on their soil and to them it was terrorism, to the eastern world it was an extreme act of patriotism. kamakazi pilots (divine wind) they were terrorists to the US at sea, but they were taken in a much higher regard by the japanese who saw them as hero's. the british war with the US over independence, to the british the US people were cowards with no loyalty, terrorists in essence, and in alot of cases they fought guerilla tactics which is today called terrorism by the US, to them, they were patriots, to the british they were terrorists....
see where im going?

 

I do see where you're going and I think it could make for some interesting discussions, but I have to take issue with some of your examples.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.,

So I'd contend that a person exhibits patriotism when they join the armed forces during a conflict, but the execution of each action thereafter is simply doing one's job. I don't think the generals who made the decision to drop the A-bombs on Japan were necessarily being patriotic, they were simply trying to win the war that had been brought to them using the available means. Same for the kamikaze pilots - but I can't see how they qualify as "terrorists," while dropping the bombs definitely does. As for 9/11 being patriotic, exactly which country is the lucky recipient of such devotion? I think that event fits the above definition of terrorism perfectly.

Can any attack against unsuspecting civilians who don't even realize that there's a conflict ever be held as anything other than terrorism?

 

I see where you're going with that, and I agree for the most part. As is known from other posts, I support U.S. military action against Iraq, so I'm not an American basher. Still, that doesn't mean I believe that the U.S. is lily white and pure. I guess that my point is that a country should defend both herself and her allies in whatever way they think is best. The Israelis didn't have any U.N. authorization when they went in to take out Saddam's Nuclear plant in the 90s. If they'd waited until they got that sort of authorization, they might not have ever had the chance before Iraq turned them into radioactive ash. Some terrorists may be patriots in their own mind, or according to the definition of a major segment of the world. That doesn't mean their enemies should cut them any slack.

The terrorists use guerilla tactics just as the U.S. did. But their goal is not independance, their goal is domination of the middle east. The western world cannot allow that domination to come about. Label them what you will, the "terrorists" need to be dealt with -- permanently.

 

Really? Was fire bombing Dresden an act of English patriotism? Is every bullet fired on each side in a war patriotism? Or just when the US does it?

You are so far off base here (read the definitions above) that it seems pointless to attempt to debate you on it.
Do you wish to restate your topic now that you actually know what the words mean?

 

when is patriotism bad? When it becomes one man's wealth and dreams.

Flip the coin.
Who is the Bad Guy? USA/UK/Countless other populations OR saddam Hussein? You don't have to look far to find the answer.

Who is the Bad Guy? The liberal world or Osama Bin Laden? You don't have to look far to find the answer.

[ February 13, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

the definition above is not an accurate description of patriotism, since patriotism has atleast 15 different meanings, because patriotism can also be taken in context of loving a way of life, or a religion, the crusades saw alot of patriotism, but for the most part it was religions warring.

"Who is the Bad Guy? USA/UK/Countless other populations OR saddam Hussein? You don't have to look far to find the answer."
go ans ask the iraqi's that, their answer will be different

"Who is the Bad Guy? The liberal world or Osama Bin Laden? You don't have to look far to find the answer"
go and ask osama binladen that, his view will be different to yours

"The terrorists use guerilla tactics just as the U.S. did. But their goal is not independance, their goal is domination of the middle east. "
is it? they see it as freeing the middle east, the rebels in the ivory coast believe that they are fighting for what is right, the north alliance in afghanistan believed that they were fighting for what was right, atilla the hun believed he was fighting for what was right, ghengis kahn believed he was fighting for what was right, other countries and even the governments of the countries these people belong(d) to had a very different view of these people.

jack funk, im not even going to acknowledge you

 

If you're not going to limit the scope of the definition of "patriotism" and then proceed to define "terrorism" as "the point of view of the guy on the receiving end of someone else's patriotic act" Jack Funk is right - there's no point to continuing this discussion.

 

im not unlimiting patriotism, all im saying is that patriotism certainly isnt limited to that 1 definition above patriotism is more a matter of pride then land, because otherwise we can unlimit terrorism to a number of different quotes, one of which will certainly cover patriotism, nationalism for example:

nationalist
noun, adjective [C]
Nationalists want political independence for their country.
Scottish/Welsh nationalists
a nationalist movement

nationalistic
adjective
ESPECIALLY DISAPPROVING
They tend to judge things from a very nationalistic viewpoint (=believing that their own country is more important than others).
(Cambridge American English Dictionary)
nationalism
noun
the feelings of affection, loyalty, and pride that people have for their country
Nationalism is also the desire for political independence in a country that is controlled by or part of another country: The government is alarmed at the rise of nationalism among its ethnic minorities.

nationalist
adjective
supporting political independence for a group within a nation
His views were those of the nationalist Quebec government.

nationalistic
adjective
strongly supporting your country or its political independence
A series of nationalistic speeches prepared the country for going to war.

(Cambridge American English Dictionary)
patriot
noun [C]
a person who loves their country and defends it when necessary
patriotic
adjective
Candidates love to associate themselves with patriotic values.

patriotism
noun
This really calls into question his patriotism.

patriot
noun [C]
a person who loves their country and, if necessary, will fight for it

(Cambridge International Dictionary of English)
patriotic
adjective
patriotic fervour/pride
That was an era when many Americans felt it was their patriotic duty to buy bonds to support the war effort.
A folk group led the singing of patriotic songs.

patriotically
adverb

patriotism
noun
A wave of euphoric patriotism seems to have swept the nation.

Why do americans continue to meld and form everything into what they want to be seen as truth? since when have nationalism and patriotism been the same? since the sept 11 attacks.... that is when being a nationalist became synomyous with patriotism. the talk of 'too great a love' of one's country is gone. The american description of nationalism is similar to patriotism. many people are incapable of distinguishing between patriotism and blind nationalism. what the average american sees as patriotism, others see as nationalism.

[ February 13, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Shoshino ]

 

@shoshino
Shoshino first use UBB code to quote.
Next use @Username or anything else to adress people so we know who you talk to.

Anyway. You seem to have missed my point entirely either deliberate or not. I did not make a definition of patriotism (assuming it was adressed to me), I merely pointed out what bad patriotism could be. You do not agree that patriotism controlled by one man is bad? Hence Osama's wealth and dream. Hence Saddam's wealth and dreams...

You are trying to flip a coin that looks alike on both sides

[ February 13, 2003, 20:57: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

To put my two cents in, patriotism and terrorism are kind of on the same line. You know, a person has so much love for their country that they go and fight for what's in the best interests of said country, that's patriotism to me. However, the instance they start slaughtering innocent people that have absolutely nothing to do with their country's problems, that's terrorism.

I read both of the arguments here, and what everyone is saying is correct, in some form. The separating factor between patriotism and terrorism is, IMO, extreme, depraved. and indifferent violence. It happened with the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with 9/11. Both acts were uncalled for and were against people that had absolutely nothing to do with WW2 and whatever's going on in the East with Bin Laden.

In some aspects, patriotism and terrorism are two sides to a coin because in one way, it's patriotism and in another, it's terrorism. But like I said, it's the indifferent violence that draws the line. I'll give you two scenarios. Let's say that there's a war going on between Country A and Country B. Now, a soldier from Country A is given a medal for...destroying a military-controlled weapons hold. That's patriotism, that soldier was doing what he supposed was best for his country, even if there were lives lost. Now, let's say that a soldier from Country B was given a medal for executing some people in a village. That's not patriotism, that's terrorism, to attack a village that's no threat to you, that has nothing to do with the war that's going on.

Now, the soldier from Country B will swear that killing those innocent people was best for his country, but we all know that it's not true. And all of this circles back to the depraved violence that I believe leads one from patriotism to terrorism. It's all about crossing that line, the line that distinguishes which is which. I suppose that even extreme patriotism can be classified as terrorism is that person commits an inhumane act against someone that's not a threat.

Ah ha! That's the word I was looking for! Inhumane, people. That's the transitional act from patriotism to terrorism. Committing an inhumane act against someone that's not a threat to you or your country. And I hope that we all never have to experience such acts again, but I fear that in these times, it's only the beginning.

 

The real threat with patriotism is that all too easily leads over the top nationalism and uncalled for wars. A patriotic nation is alot easier for a goverment to dupe into agreeing to an uncalled for war than a nation that isnt as patriotic. I would like to say that patriotism most often is a negative emotion. Terrorism isnt really related to patriotism even though patriotism often leads to terrorism.

 

I don't see that patriotism and terrorism are at all alike. First of all, patriotism doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with conflict or aggression. Patriotism is essentially loving and supporting one's country. There are millions of patriots in this country who have never attacked a foreigner in their life. How can you possibly say that in someone else's eyes (bin Laden, for example) they can be labelled terrorists? To make such a statement is to remove meaning from the English language. Using patriotism to describe the bombing of Hiroshima is simply a misuse of English, as well. The bombing of Hiroshima was an act of war. It was use of force between nations under a formal declaration of war. It could be defined as terrorism in the sense that the primary purpose was to inspire fear and the primary target was innocent civilians. However, there are a few important points:

• The use of a mass destruction weapon was intended to dissuade a nation from a destructive aggression policy towards the US. In other words, it was a tool to end a war, not start one.

• It was obvious from the Japanese resistance and fighting spirit that to invade the nation would have caused more deaths than the atomic bombs themselves did. Naturally we were interested in the lives of our young men, not just the Japanese, but I think you will find most historians agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives.

• The atomic bomb was a last resort, used with great reluctance by the president. I think that the current change in opinion in favor of using tactical nukes is a dangerous one, but that's a topic for another day.

I would contend that Rallymama's definition of patriotism IS perfectly adequate, and your fifteen or so interpretations of the word are, again, misuse of the language, and would be better described in other terms. Also, terrorism is typically perpetrated by groups and organizations rather than nations. For anyone to label it patriotism, regardless of how favorably they view it, is misleading. As Rallymama said, patriotism to what?
I'll hold off with the rest of this until the topic develops a little further.

[ February 14, 2003, 00:35: Message edited by: Capstone ]

 

I like what Cap had to say and would just add that terrorism seems to require an illegal act and the Geneva convention which may make the use of a nuclear weapon illegal occurred in 1949 -- 4 years after the use of the weapons iirc. So, at the time, I don't think their use was illegal and therefore couldn't be terrorist.

Similar story with kamikaze pilots, not sure why that would be illegal(you might be able to dig something up here though.) Don't think any Americans thought they were terrorists either, crazy maybe, but not terrorist.

 

There are rules of war, the violation of which leads to war crimes prosecution. One of those rules is thatt you do not launch an attack unless you have either a) declared war or b) made it pretty clear in the international community that you will do something. During WW2, the States were at war with Japan -- any attacks, surprise or not, are to be accepted. During the first Gulf war, the UN warned Iraq several times before finally smashing them to bits. And now, George W. is merely seeking to enforce the resolutions that Saddam agreed to years ago. Saddam knew that if he violated those agreements, he ran the risk of being attacked. In the case of the WTC, no country had at that time declared war on the US, and no warning was given. Al Quaeda is not a recognized world government, so does not have the right, under the UN rules, to engage in acts of war anyway.

 

Terrorists don't drink beer.

Disgruntled citizens do.

Seriously.

 

terrorists do drink beer

 

Hmm... I would tend to agree that patriotism can be manipulated into terrorism although they aren't two sides to one coin.

I would like to comment on Capstone's statements also though.

This may have been the intent but it wasn't very effective. We have come close to war during different times during the arms race. You might say that the U.S. wouldn't start such a war. But could one say that the leaders of other nuclear powers wouldn't have? Some of them were considered lunatics.

The debate on this hasn't been resolved. It probably never will. I'm not comfortable with the idea that you can take lives if you THINK it will save more. They could have bombed an unhinhabited area to show what an atomic bomb could do. The generals/leaders said that it was a difficult decision. Fortunately for them they were far away when it happened. The soldiers who dropped the bomb from Enola Gay would say that the generals had it easy. The soldiers were haunted by the destruction. Finally, remember that history is always written by the victors.

It is unfortunate though that most of us will just be swept with the events to come and will be unable to do anything about it. However it is good that we take time to discuss these matters rather than watch idly by.

 

I don't think it's much as patriotism that a war is going to happen, it's just history. Let's examine the past...

1776: American Revolution
1812: War of 1812
1846: Mexican American War
1860s:American Civil War
1898: Spanish American War
1910s: World War I
1930s: World War II
1950s-1980s: Cold War
1990s: Gulf War & Middle East Crisis
2003?:...

You see, that's roughly about every 20 to 30 years that America wages a bloody war. Cold War was not bloody, but it represents a similar situation we are in now - though not as deadly. I've left out some more minor "skirmishes" but as any student of American history can tell, we are ripe for Gulf War II. As they say, "History repeats itself." Terrorism could not be prevented; this war is nearly inevitable. It's not as much as patriotism as it is history.

 

you missed vietnam, i dont think that was a minor skirmish, and that is an instant when america have been the agressor

 

One man's Patriot, is another man's Terrorist, because both look at the same man from a different point of view, and cannot and will not place themselves in the position of the opposing party to understand their side.

And that is the only point I have to give.