Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
Therefore by your logic, a just war causes terrorism.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
I would agree if you said all war causes vengeful losers to resort to desperate acts of violence against innocent people. I do not agree that a just war should be called off because the enemy on the receiving end of that justice will probably lash out in its death throes. That would be called negotiating with terrorists.
If you are worried about more terrorists, I agree bombing terrorists causes more terrorists, but negotiating with them opens the floodgates. And it’s not like we don’t have enough bombs.
No, I said quite the opposite - that escalation of violence is the goal of terrorism. But I would agree that escalation of violence tends to create more terrorism, with the caveat: if the original conflict is not resolved in some manner.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
I have no idea what you mean by just war. But I would disagree that any war is just escalation of violence. Wars mostly have rather clear objectives.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
Nope. That’s not implication of my logic. But yes, in most cases wars will produce terrorism if the underlying conflict is not resolved. The underlying conflict might get resolved by war or intelligent occupation strategy (interesting to take a look at west and east Germany in that regard, especially in the context of the rise of the AfD, new german nazi party).
I don’t know what you specifically mean by it. People tend to have wildly different definitions. I for my part would struggle to call any war just, but for sure there is a spectrum of more and less justifiable reasons for and methods to conduct a war.
How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion?
You said escalations of violence cause terrorism.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
Therefore by your logic, a just war causes terrorism.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
I would agree if you said all war causes vengeful losers to resort to desperate acts of violence against innocent people. I do not agree that a just war should be called off because the enemy on the receiving end of that justice will probably lash out in its death throes. That would be called negotiating with terrorists.
If you are worried about more terrorists, I agree bombing terrorists causes more terrorists, but negotiating with them opens the floodgates. And it’s not like we don’t have enough bombs.
No, I said quite the opposite - that escalation of violence is the goal of terrorism. But I would agree that escalation of violence tends to create more terrorism, with the caveat: if the original conflict is not resolved in some manner.
I have no idea what you mean by just war. But I would disagree that any war is just escalation of violence. Wars mostly have rather clear objectives.
Nope. That’s not implication of my logic. But yes, in most cases wars will produce terrorism if the underlying conflict is not resolved. The underlying conflict might get resolved by war or intelligent occupation strategy (interesting to take a look at west and east Germany in that regard, especially in the context of the rise of the AfD, new german nazi party).
You don’t understand the concept of just war?
I don’t know what you specifically mean by it. People tend to have wildly different definitions. I for my part would struggle to call any war just, but for sure there is a spectrum of more and less justifiable reasons for and methods to conduct a war.