A Quick Look at terror

[Major König]

Would you all say that terror was a bad thing? It seems like leaders throughtout the ages have used this method to subjugate their respective people. So would you say it is a good way to run a nation? I myself can't say terror makes a population love their leader, but when chaos ensues, terror on a large scale keeps order well, and the order after it usually lasts. Would terror be neccessary in any situation where chaos comes into play? Rebellion, revolt, etc.

[hellheaven1987]

Not really, terror is good thing sometime, especially when a country is not stable.

[Gunno_Desk]

If we're talking about backwater countries in Africa or the middleeast and there are rebels everywhere then fear would be a good thing as it would keep the order. However, I just can't imagine having to fear from assassins from the government in my country *shivers*

Ps. Mind sharing that 1.5 mill

[Final Frontier]

Would you all say that terror was a bad thing?

I think of Machiavelli when "terror" is mentioned. After all, he said that the end justifies the means, and that using fear to stay in power is the best solution. Myself, I do not think fear is the ideal way to rule, but at the same time I don't think being an "all-loving" ruler is the best way, either. It seems to be a mix of both those elements.

It seems like leaders throughtout the ages have used this method to subjugate their respective people. So would you say it is a good way to run a nation?

If you want people to obey, then yes. It would be one hell of a time for the populace, though, being paranoid about your next move. You may even have secret groups plotting against you, in fear that you might do too much harm.

I myself can't say terror makes a population love their leader, but when chaos ensues, terror on a large scale keeps order well, and the order after it usually lasts. Would terror be neccessary in any situation where chaos comes into play? Rebellion, revolt, etc.

Well, the only reason chaos would ensue in the first place would be because the leader/government has/has not done something to gratify the people. I think that another method could be to try and change their method so that they still retain their power yet satisfy the populace.

[Xam Enyap]

Would you all say that terror was a bad thing? It seems like leaders throughtout the ages have used this method to subjugate their respective people. So would you say it is a good way to run a nation? I myself can't say terror makes a population love their leader, but when chaos ensues, terror on a large scale keeps order well, and the order after it usually lasts. Would terror be neccessary in any situation where chaos comes into play? Rebellion, revolt, etc.

Do you think its a good idea to question the evil nature of terror when you have a nickname like that and a picture with bunch of Nazis on it?

[Major König]

Yes actually I do. If you were seriously educated on the matter, you'll know that most Germans were just supporting a regime that rebuilt... Oh God, i'm not getting into it again. Terror should be a last resort in my opinion.

Off topic: Do you even know who Major König is?

[The spartan]

Off topic: Do you even know who Major König is?

Major Konig was a German Army sniper who was killed by Vassili Zeitzef (Spelling?) in the battle of Stalingrad.

[QuackyNC]

Do you think its a good idea to question the evil nature of terror when you have a nickname like that and a picture with bunch of Nazis on it?

I believe he has a picture of GERMAN soldiers and a GERMAN cross not a picture of hitler or of a swastika.

[Xam Enyap]

Yes actually I do. If you were seriously educated on the matter, you'll know that most Germans were just supporting a regime that rebuilt... Oh God, i'm not getting into it again. Terror should be a last resort in my opinion.

Off topic: Do you even know who Major König is?

Yes I know that all Germans were far from being nazis, but those in your picture dont look like chaps from resistance movement or innocent bystanders. Anyway, Im sorry if I offended you with that post.

Off topic: I asume its a name of some german officer (probably a good one).

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Since when has terror ever created stability? That sounds to me like an oxymoron if ever there was one. But hey, if you have evidence to back it up, more power to ya.

[MadKow]

Terror has been working well for GW Bush... kept the public opinion behind him for longer than many expected. Fear the terrorists, fear the flu, fear the Iranian bomb, fear the antrax, fear the mexicans taking your job, fear the North Corean bombs. "Don't worry we will protect you. Just don't loose that fear."

[QuackyNC]

I think using terror is good ideal you would think that it would work, but I think history proves otherwise. The assyrians, Romans, Soviets, Hitler, all used terror but then again their not around anymore. By looking at the majority of goverments in the world today I think we can see that a helpful democratic goverment is better than a goverment run by terror.

Good point about Machivelli though. He did state that it was better for your people to fear and respect you than to love you.

[Major König]

(Major König was a German Sniper in The Battle of Stalingrad who, according to lore, dueled with Vassila Zaistev after Zaistev started taking a serious toll on the Germans. König was shot between the eyes after he raised his head after a kill.)

I do think terror is a useful tool for those looking to gain complete power, or restore order to an extreme, revolution esque uprising. But for those in peacetime with no serious problems, people have no need to terrorize a population. *cough* Soviets *cough*

[Tom Paine]

Politics of fear, MK, politics of fear. It consolidates power and makes one's grip on the nation that much tighter and gives the government that much more freedom in what they do and what (repressive) measures they introduce.