NationStates Jolt Archive

Now don't jump on me for this one. Terrorism that kills innocent people is always wrong. But terrorism is also an effective political tool. It is the equivalent of declaring war on an established institution, and most established institutions that have war declared on them must be bad for somebody. Like Capitalism (world trade towers), Nazism (attempted assassination of Hitler), and Despotism (assassination of Czar Romanov) Assassinations, no-fatality destruction and vandalism, all do wonders for any oppressed group that needs to win political support. I'm a bigger advocate of when this is turned against Corporations, but it doesn't seem to happen very often.

Is anyone else of the same mind? That certain acts of terrorism (like assassinations of bad leaders and destruction of symbols of oppression without innocents dying) are beneficial and good?

An example of terrorism that turned out for the good of things: The Sons of Liberty (an urban terrorist group)

agreed. Leaders dont listen to people with megaphones and signs. They can only be affected by a physical threat

Gasp! Nonsense! Without Terrorism, good men like Bill O'Reilly would be out of a job!

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and everyone acclaims it today (except me). So yeah.

Direct action is always weaker than negotiations and reasoning, full stop.

However, there are circumstances where the above does not work, as the people you are trying to negotiate with are unreasonable and more direct force is needed. However, for basic popular disputes, negotiation is always the best tool, world wide disputes over leadership is a completly different thing and must be left for governments and thier agencies to decide.

Direct action is always weaker than negotiations and reasoning, full stop.

However, there are circumstances where the above does not work, as the people you are trying to negotiate with are unreasonable and more direct force is needed. However, for basic popular disputes, negotiation is always the best tool, world wide disputes over leadership is a completly different thing and must be left for governments and thier agencies to decide.


But oftentimes direct action is necessary to instigate negotiations. A seperate Palestinian state wasn't even being considered until the popular revolution, the Intifada made Israelis not so keen on keeping the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and everyone acclaims it today (except me). So yeah.
That was the Sons of Liberty...who were responsible for a couple other acts of terrorism around that time.

Actually, attacking oppressive regimes and assassinating corrupt leaders wouldn't be terrorism in the sense of its current meaning, which is to spread fear through a civilian population by targeting innocents.

This would be more in line with a resistance, since it targets only legitimate targets (I consider oppressive leaders legitimate targets because they are not truly chosen by the people; otherwise it is unacceptable) like government facilities and military targets.

So, I guess I would agree with you that "Classical" terrorism is acceptable.

But oftentimes direct action is necessary to instigate negotiations. A seperate Palestinian state wasn't even being considered until the popular revolution, the Intifada made Israelis not so keen on keeping the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

There has to be a distinction, however, between the fighters who only attack military targets and the ones who murder civilians. The second is justifiable, the other isn't.

There has to be a distinction, however, between the fighters who only attack military targets and the ones who murder civilians. The second is justifiable, the other isn't.

agreed.

Military installments are fair play, civilians are not. Anyone who attacks civilians for any reason is a coward and a barbarian and a terrorist.

people who attack military installations are soldiers or guerillas.

liberal-minded revolutionary terrorism (ameircan revolution, haitian revolution, french revolution.. and others) were good. but i don't consider those terrorist groups. they're "freedom fighters" hahahaha

That was the Sons of Liberty...who were responsible for a couple other acts of terrorism around that time.Yeah, whatever.

What was MCBSC's name before he got deated? Just wondering.

9/11 was against capitalism? I must've been knocked out for the past 3 and a half years.

Actually, attacking oppressive regimes and assassinating corrupt leaders wouldn't be terrorism in the sense of its current meaning, which is to spread fear through a civilian population by targeting innocents.

This would be more in line with a resistance, since it targets only legitimate targets (I consider oppressive leaders legitimate targets because they are not truly chosen by the people; otherwise it is unacceptable)

(Emphasis added)

Incorrect. ALL government (that includes military) installations are "ligit" targets. That would include Wesminster, White House, Kremlin, etc, etc, as well as Ryhiad (spelling butchered, sorry Saudi's), Jerusalem (you'd quite literally raise hell, though :)) and Tehran. And Bejing. Democratic or not, a government installation is a legit target.

However, (my opinion speaking), I also believe installations giving support to resistance are legit targets. Such as terrorists held up in a mosque. If they're firing from it, blow it the hell up.[/rant]

Actually, attacking oppressive regimes and assassinating corrupt leaders wouldn't be terrorism in the sense of its current meaning, which is to spread fear through a civilian population by targeting innocents.

This would be more in line with a resistance, since it targets only legitimate targets (I consider oppressive leaders legitimate targets because they are not truly chosen by the people; otherwise it is unacceptable) like government facilities and military targets.

So, I guess I would agree with you that "Classical" terrorism is acceptable.


Terrorism took it's modern face (attacking innocents to spread fear) through Israeli Rightist and Zionist groups, though they are considered nowadays to be legitimate. What defines legitimacy? Governments have agendas, and have more force to exercise these. But despite the fact that Israelis have killed far more Palestinians in these conflicts, the Palestinians are considered the aggressors, why is this the case?

liberal-minded revolutionary terrorism (ameircan revolution, haitian revolution, french revolution.. and others) were good. but i don't consider those terrorist groups. they're "freedom fighters" hahahaha

Har! :D

America is a terrorist state! :p

Yeah, whatever.

What was MCBSC's name before he got deated? Just wondering.


Stop Banning Me Mods, though it was banned because I posted a link to a site that ate your brains if you logged on it, and I had eaten 20 something brains already. It was an Outwar Spamming or something.

(Emphasis added)

Incorrect. ALL government (that includes military) installations are "ligit" targets. That would include Wesminster, White House, Kremlin, etc, etc, as well as Ryhiad (spelling butchered, sorry Saudi's), Jerusalem (you'd quite literally raise hell, though :)) and Tehran. And Bejing. Democratic or not, a government installation is a legit target.

However, (my opinion speaking), I also believe installations giving support to resistance are legit targets. Such as terrorists held up in a mosque. If they're firing from it, blow it the hell up.[/rant]


Firmly agreed

Stop Banning Me Mods, though it was banned because I posted a link to a site that ate your brains if you logged on it, and I had eaten 20 something brains already. It was an Outwar Spamming or something.Yeah, the mods don't like those kinds of links. Never too sure why.... Coggy hemmed and hawed when I asked him and never got around to actually telling me, just showing us he doesn't really know. And none of the experienced mods (Melkor, Rep, Salusa, [violet]) were on at the time. I'm thinking of going on #themodcave to find out why.

And was Stop Banning Me Mods also a 2nd or 3rd incarnation? I've always wondered.

Yeah, the mods don't like those kinds of links. Never too sure why.... Coggy hemmed and hawed when I asked him and never got around to actually telling me, just showing us he doesn't really know. And none of the experienced mods (Melkor, Rep, Salusa, [violet]) were on at the time. I'm thinking of going on #themodcave to find out why.

And was Stop Banning Me Mods also a 2nd or 3rd incarnation? I've always wondered.


Second

Yeah, the mods don't like those kinds of links. Never too sure why.... Coggy hemmed and hawed when I asked him and never got around to actually telling me, just showing us he doesn't really know. And none of the experienced mods (Melkor, Rep, Salusa, [violet]) were on at the time. I'm thinking of going on #themodcave to find out why.




Me and my girlfriend had UN membership for our seperate countries, but we often used the same computer. Because they still think I had done UN multing, they decided to delete my nation. It sucked, frankly

Firmly agreed

It's about time someone in the General Forum agreed with me!

(I'm a conservative, fundemental Protestant, American, and a Bush-supporter. I'm not very well-liked. :))

Now don't jump on me for this one. Terrorism that kills innocent people is always wrong. But terrorism is also an effective political tool. It is the equivalent of declaring war on an established institution, and most established institutions that have war declared on them must be bad for somebody. Like Capitalism (world trade towers), Nazism (attempted assassination of Hitler), and Despotism (assassination of Czar Romanov) Assassinations, no-fatality destruction and vandalism, all do wonders for any oppressed group that needs to win political support. I'm a bigger advocate of when this is turned against Corporations, but it doesn't seem to happen very often.

Is anyone else of the same mind? That certain acts of terrorism (like assassinations of bad leaders and destruction of symbols of oppression without innocents dying) are beneficial and good?

I hate to repeat old cliches but one man terrorists is another mans freedom fighter take the shit going on in North Ireland for Example.

Second

You're Stop Banning Me Mods? Wow, I never knew that. That sucks with the UN multing; you'd think they would be able to tell the difference or something.

Me and my girlfriend had UN membership for our seperate countries, but we often used the same computer. Because they still think I had done UN multing, they decided to delete my nation. It sucked, franklyYeah, I mean me, I've used over 30 different public computer stations to log into Czardas, a UN nation. If there were any other nations around who joined the UN, we'd both be banned for multiing. :(

You're Stop Banning Me Mods? Wow, I never knew that. That sucks with the UN multing; you'd think they would be able to tell the difference or something.


Yeah, they're real hardasses. I tried explaining it to them, but they still thought I was an evil lawbreaking criminal, or something. Yeah, so they banned me without giving forewarning. And my poor GF Gum Tree. She didn't deserve that.

You're Stop Banning Me Mods? Wow, I never knew that. That sucks with the UN multing; you'd think they would be able to tell the difference or something.Well I mean, he only just returned about 10 minutes ago. :rolleyes:

agreed.

Military installments are fair play, civilians are not. Anyone who attacks civilians for any reason is a coward and a barbarian and a terrorist.

people who attack military installations are soldiers or guerillas.

So then the founding father are still terrorists by your definition. The Boston Tea Party was a civilian target although no one was hurt it was civilians that lost money not the government

Yeah, they're real hardasses. I tried explaining it to them, but they still thought I was an evil lawbreaking criminal, or something. Yeah, so they banned me without giving forewarning. And my poor GF Gum Tree. She didn't deserve that.

They didn't even warn you!? Wow, talk about getting a little overractive; I mean, there's 36,000+ UN nations and you and your girlfriend's two take up .000054% of them. They could have at least asked you or something.

It's about time someone in the General Forum agreed with me!

(I'm a conservative, fundemental Protestant, American, and a Bush-supporter. I'm not very well-liked. :))

That could be because a monkey has more intelligence than you i mean for christs sake my dog could run America better than Bush hes certainly more intelligent.

Well I mean, he only just returned about 10 minutes ago. :rolleyes:

Don't you roll eyes me! ;)

The name seemed familiar... :confused:

They didn't even warn you!? Wow, talk about getting a little overractive; I mean, there's 36,000+ UN nations and you and your girlfriend's two take up .000054% of them. They could have at least asked you or something.


I don't care that much. But Stop Banning Me Mods was a cool name. I picked it out myself. :(

That's just how the cookies crumble.

I agree, not all types of terrorism are bad...obviously the modern day type most people are familiar with, the cowardly tactics employed by Al-Qaeda and their operatives in attacking innocent civilians is beyond savage but I do believe that other, more justified and noble (if you will) forms of terrorism are and can be a usefull and highly effective tool.

I don't care that much. But Stop Banning Me Mods was a cool name. I picked it out myself. :(

That's just how the cookies crumble.

The cool names always get deleted. Still, the new one's pretty good and oddly accurate.

Well I try not to support any violence, being a pacifist and all, but I don't think that terrorism is neccisarily all horrible evil all the time. Sometimes there are situations where the only method people have to fight back with is terrorism.

Terrorism is in essence the poor man's Militarism.

It reminds me of a cartoon I saw somewhere, it two frames, the first was titled "militarism" and had a building being bombed by a plane, under which was written "legal," and the other frame was labeled "terrorism" and had the same building being blown up by a guy in a turban, under which was written "illegal." Kinda gets you thinking.

But I get where you're coming from, most definitely.

It's about time someone in the General Forum agreed with me!

(I'm a conservative, fundemental Protestant, American, and a Bush-supporter. I'm not very well-liked. :))


I have no fault with conservatives, except that their opinions go diametrically opposed to mine. I think liberals are wimpy. Too much non-violence and the like. But I'm a sort of revolutionary. Anyhow, yes, I fully agree with you. And I don't feel ashamed doing so.

The cool names always get deleted. Still, the new one's pretty good and oddly accurate.


I only hope they don't use it as an opportunity to be more cruel. Frankly, I'm not a fan.

Well... It's not like terrorism isn't defined. Don't kill me if the current US Army definition has changed since 9/11. It probably has, in the interest of not fitting their own definition... Anyway, I'm fairly sure the following is dead on, if formulated differently:

Terrorism:The use, or threat of using, violence to achive religious, financial and/or political agendas.

Personally I think that description is pretty good. I know international law regards forign terrorism differently from domestic terrorism, and has a more precise definition, but I can't really be arsed to look it up. Regardless, considering America (and most EU countries) as terrorist nations is spot on. Alone the US support of Israel is financing terrorism, and as such makes you terrorists.
And no, this isn't just to bash the US. It's to bash all of us, because we're hypocrites.

The diference between a freedom fighter (or a revolutionary) and a terrorist is who wins. America won, so we're Revolutionaries and Freedom Fighters. The chinese Boxers lost: so they're labeled terrorists. Generally if there is no clear victor, both sides are terrorists (Middle East).

That could be because a monkey has more intelligence than you i mean for christs sake my dog could run America better than Bush hes certainly more intelligent.

Thank you for your well-thought-out, constructive post. It reflects greatly on your intelligence. :rolleyes:

The diference between a freedom fighter (or a revolutionary) and a terrorist is who wins. America won, so we're Revolutionaries and Freedom Fighters. The chinese Boxers lost: so they're labeled terrorists. Generally if there is no clear victor, both sides are terrorists (Middle East).


Honestly? I would love to meet a few members of Al-Qaida. We could talk about oppression, imperialism, make an obvious religious distinction, but both walk away knowing we are against the same things.

I have a firm belief that no one is illogical or immoral...to themselves. Even Osama Bin Ladin is probably just another revolutionary. A compassionate individual who thinks violence is justified in his situation.

The diference between a freedom fighter (or a revolutionary) and a terrorist is who wins. America won, so we're Revolutionaries and Freedom Fighters. The chinese Boxers lost: so they're labeled terrorists. Generally if there is no clear victor, both sides are terrorists (Middle East).

Exactly. But isn't that how it always is, even in actual war? THe loser is painted as the evil one, and the winner the good one.

Thank you for your well-thought-out, constructive post. It reflects greatly on your intelligence. :rolleyes:


I liked his lack of punctuation, and his inability to find the Shift key.

Honestly? I would love to meet a few members of Al-Qaida. We could talk about oppression, imperialism, make an obvious religious distinction, but both walk away knowing we are against the same things.

I have a firm belief that no one is illogical or immoral...to themselves. Even Osama Bin Ladin is probably just another revolutionary. A compassionate individual who thinks violence is justified in his situation.

Assuming you're a westerner and not a Middle-Easterner, or a Muslim, he'd probably chop your head off with a dull knife and make a movie out of it to put on the internet.

Exactly. But isn't that how it always is, even in actual war? THe loser is painted as the evil one, and the winner the good one.


Not always. It seems to make a distinction between the groups that are affected. Ask a leftist if they thought the Vietnam war was just.

Not always. It seems to make a distinction between the groups that are affected. Ask a leftist if they thought the Vietnam war was just.

That's a bad example though -- there are people that dispute America ever won that war, hence negating the point entirely. :D

Assuming you're a westerner and not a Middle-Easterner, or a Muslim, he'd probably chop your head off with a dull knife and make a movie out of it to put on the internet.


Quite possibly. But our mutual understanding of American oppression would make him think "damn, now that was one spot-on infidel!"

That's a bad example though -- there are people that dispute America ever won that war, hence negating the point entirely. :D


True, but to most Americans, the Vietnamese were the evil ones.

True, but to most Americans, the Vietnamese were the evil ones.

not the Vietnamese entirely, just the Viet Kong.

and MCBSC, I wouldn't go as far as to say American oppression, even if you hate all that America stands for.

The cool names always get deleted. Still, the new one's pretty good and oddly accurate.Hey wait a minute. I haven't been deleted.


...Yet.

*me comes back to computer to find message from mod saying "'Czardas' has been deleted for saying he hasn't been deleted yet and forgetting to touch wood" or something like that*

Hey wait a minute. I haven't been deleted.
...Yet.
*me comes back to computer to find message from mod saying "'Czardas' has been deleted for saying he hasn't been deleted yet and forgetting to touch wood" or something like that*

Good point...for now. :eek:

Touching your wood while posting on NS seems like grounds for deletion. ;)

Good point...for now. :eek:

Touching your wood while posting on NS seems like grounds for deletion. ;)


lol, I think he has to touch someone elses wood.

lol, I think he has to touch someone elses wood.

I don't know, he said he uses public terminals...

WRONG!

lol

WRONG!

lol

There are some things that cannot be unseen...

I don't know, he said he uses public terminals...


*Pictures Czardas standing up slowly, walking calmly out of library, grabbing a librarian's crotch and running, whilst shouting "hahahaaa! You can't ban me now!"*

The terrorists who bombed the London tube stations and the bus yesterday do not simply hate what we do, they hate what we are. They oppose religious freedom, sexual equality, rule of law, secularism, press freedom and democracy. It is on this basis that these terrible acts are committed.

Islamic terrorism has existed for many decades now, despite the fact that western penetration of the Middle East (either militarily, economically or politically) is far less prevalent than it is in many other parts of Africa and Asia. Terrorists use the actions as western governments as a pretext to recruit potential jihadists and divide opposition, for the greater part it is not the cause.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the people who blow up buses full of schoolchildren in the name of Allah and do the utmost the destroy the freedoms and democracy that the west and the vast majority of Iraqi civilians are trying to create are not gallant freedom fighters, but simply people willing to commit acts of unspeakable evil for a cause that is equally abhorrent.

The terrorists who bombed the London tube stations and the bus yesterday do not simply hate what we do, they hate what we are. They oppose religious freedom, sexual equality, rule of law, secularism, press freedom and democracy. It is on this basis that these terrible acts are committed.

Islamic terrorism has existed for many decades now, despite the fact that western penetration of the Middle East (either militarily, economically or politically) is far less prevalent than it is in many other parts of Africa and Asia. Terrorists use the actions as western governments as a pretext to recruit potential jihadists and divide opposition, for the greater part it is not the cause.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the people who blow up buses full of schoolchildren in the name of Allah and do the utmost the destroy the freedoms and democracy that the west and the vast majority of Iraqi civilians are trying to create are not gallant freedom fighters, but simply people willing to commit acts of unspeakable evil for a cause that is equally abhorrent.

*applaud*

Couldn't have said it better.

The terrorists who bombed the London tube stations and the bus yesterday do not simply hate what we do, they hate what we are. They oppose religious freedom, sexual equality, rule of law, secularism, press freedom and democracy. It is on this basis that these terrible acts are committed.

Islamic terrorism has existed for many decades now, despite the fact that western penetration of the Middle East (either militarily, economically or politically) is far less prevalent than it is in many other parts of Africa and Asia. Terrorists use the actions as western governments as a pretext to recruit potential jihadists and divide opposition, for the greater part it is not the cause.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the people who blow up buses full of schoolchildren in the name of Allah and do the utmost the destroy the freedoms and democracy that the west and the vast majority of Iraqi civilians are trying to create are not gallant freedom fighters, but simply people willing to commit acts of unspeakable evil for a cause that is equally abhorrent.




It's never as simple as you would like to think. Nobody attacks innocents because their god tells them to. We aren't in the Crusades anymore. What the Islamic militants have to face is the overwhelming (in their eyes) oppression that they and their bretheren have to face. It is no surprise that the first victims of modern terrorism were Palestinians. The root of this conflict can be traced back to it's source, which is Israel.

I firmly believe that all this terrorism would be stoppable if we cut our support of Israel. Or if Britain cut their support of the US.

No one hates freedom. Osama Bin Ladin himself said that he didn't hate American freedom. He hated imperialism, capitalism, and our support of Israel, where thousands upon thousands of Palestinians have died, in more than a 3:1 ratio to the Israeli civilians.

Governmental terrorism is the cause of popular terrorism. And Islamic terrorism is popularly supported. To the Arabs, they're revolutionaries. People who are fighting for the greater good of Arabs as a whole.

Am I the only one who is terribly amused by pie attacks on politicians and other vermin? :)

*Pictures Czardas standing up slowly, walking calmly out of library, grabbing a librarian's crotch and running, whilst shouting "hahahaaa! You can't ban me now!"*[post 3000] ROFLMAO! That made me laugh so hard my parents found out I was playing NS and forced me off! Especially trying to imagine myself doing that in the "official" costume of black cloak, hood, red malicious eyes...with spidery white hands with long claws....ouch that gotta hurt. ROFLMAO! Stop Banning Me Mods, I award you a temporary post dedication (to be revoked at my leisure). [/post 3000]

Am I the only one who is terribly amused by pie attacks on politicians and other vermin? :)No you're not. I'm even more amused. ;)



Guess why...

Am I the only one who is terribly amused by pie attacks on politicians and other vermin? :)

No. :D

[post 3000] ROFLMAO! That made me laugh so hard my parents found out I was playing NS and forced me off! Especially trying to imagine myself doing that in the "official" costume of black cloak, hood, red malicious eyes...with spidery white hands with long claws....ouch that gotta hurt. ROFLMAO! Stop Banning Me Mods, I award you a temporary post dedication (to be revoked at my leisure). [/post 3000]


Sweet! I feel so glad to be dedicated with your 3,000th post! Thank you Czardas!

The terrorists who bombed the London tube stations and the bus yesterday do not simply hate what we do, they hate what we are. They oppose religious freedom, sexual equality, rule of law, secularism, press freedom and democracy. It is on this basis that these terrible acts are committed.
On the basis of all that why don't they attack the netherlands, or canada? Both of which have those in spades when compared to the US

Terrorism in itself is a perfectly reasonable and effective tool when used in war against non-civilian enemies. Every military in the world uses terrorism. The function of a sniper isn't just to kill people. It's also to induce fear and uncertainty in the enemy and lower morale within the troops. Terrorism can be an effective tool in a war. But when used on non-military personel to cause political destabilization within a nation, terrorism is mere cowardice. I blame it on the society within which the terrorists live. I've been given the impression that within Arabic culture, people that are not of the major religion are looked down upon. That's what I've read anyway. With no freedom to openly question religion, it's little wonder that there's extremism. I'm sorry if this impression is wrong, It's what I've read and it is easy for one society half way around the world to get confused about another. I'm open to any corrections on Arabic culture.

What i have to say has already been said by other people in various posts, but i'll say it anyway.

i do NOT condone terrorism or violence. I think killing is wrong. The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter is a thin, blurry line, and often depends from which side you look at it, but choosing military/governmental targets rather than innocents helps the FF side, IMO. That said, ETA mostly did this in spain, killing government officials and giving warnings before exploding bombs and it si still awful. I don't condone it. Likewise, it doesn't matter to me if the blowing up of a building is by a terrorist with a bomb or a stealth bomber with a bomb, the effect is the same.

However I can see why they do do it. If they feel a strong enough reason, be it oppression, religious, cultiural or otherwise, then they will want to fight back. So would many westerners in the same situation. However, in a 'war' with such unequal military sides, terrorism/guerriilla warfare is the only way it can be done. examples include ireland, palestine and iraq, amongst many others.

I have no problem with non-violent direct action. If its legal i have absolutely no problem with it, if its illigal it would depend on theh situation as to whether i did or not. This includes protests (anti-G8 style), chaining yourself to trees or piloting rubber dingies in between whales and harpoons (greenpeace style), and even simply lobbying polititians with letters and heckling them at conferences.

What i have to say has already been said by other people in various posts, but i'll say it anyway.

i do NOT condone terrorism or violence. I think killing is wrong. The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter is a thin, blurry line, and often depends from which side you look at it, but choosing military/governmental targets rather than innocents helps the FF side, IMO. That said, ETA mostly did this in spain, killing government officials and giving warnings before exploding bombs and it si still awful. I don't condone it. Likewise, it doesn't matter to me if the blowing up of a building is by a terrorist with a bomb or a stealth bomber with a bomb, the effect is the same.

However I can see why they do do it. If they feel a strong enough reason, be it oppression, religious, cultiural or otherwise, then they will want to fight back. So would many westerners in the same situation. However, in a 'war' with such unequal military sides, terrorism/guerriilla warfare is the only way it can be done. examples include ireland, palestine and iraq, amongst many others.

I have no problem with non-violent direct action. If its legal i have absolutely no problem with it, if its illigal it would depend on theh situation as to whether i did or not. This includes protests (anti-G8 style), chaining yourself to trees or piloting rubber dingies in between whales and harpoons (greenpeace style), and even simply lobbying polititians with letters and heckling them at conferences.

Well, not a bad opinion, really. (Is in make-other-people-happy mode. :))

BTW: Awesome sig. It's so true. :D

However I can see why they do do it. If they feel a strong enough reason, be it oppression, religious, cultiural or otherwise, then they will want to fight back. So would many westerners in the same situation. However, in a 'war' with such unequal military sides, terrorism/guerriilla warfare is the only way it can be done. examples include ireland, palestine and iraq, amongst many others.

I have no problem with non-violent direct action. If its legal i have absolutely no problem with it, if its illigal it would depend on theh situation as to whether i did or not. This includes protests (anti-G8 style), chaining yourself to trees or piloting rubber dingies in between whales and harpoons (greenpeace style), and even simply lobbying polititians with letters and heckling them at conferences.

Yes, If the forces are unequal then terrorism is the only option. So long as it's used on political and military targets and not civiian targets. By the same token, The other side should minimize civilian casulties also. In certain cases, such as the Atomic Bomb on Japan, civilian casulties are justified by the end of a war. They are only justified if a war is very likely to end due to the casulties. With terrorism, despie the protests, the war continues. Civilian life is not justified in acts of terrorism.

Do you think that the harpooning of whales or cutting of trees might be for the greater good of the entire society, the entire society which has different opinions to you? If the government finds that the lumbering of a forrest is for the good of society as a whole, while not especially good for you or your beliefs, then who are you to stand in the way of a tree and deprive everybody else of something they want or need?

Sweet! I feel so glad to be dedicated with your 3,000th post! Thank you Czardas!Just think though. In 2,980 posts you'll be able to return the favor! :D

Just think though. In 2,980 posts you'll be able to return the favor! :D

Hey, I suggested the whole "wood" idea! Can I have post 4,000?

Do you think that the harpooning of whales or cutting of trees might be for the greater good of the entire society, the entire society which has different opinions to you? If the government finds that the lumbering of a forrest is for the good of society as a whole, while not especially good for you or your beliefs, then who are you to stand in the way of a tree and deprive everybody else of something they want or need?

not convincead about nuclear bombs, but i guess i never will be...

The point there was made in support of direct action, citing those examples, simply as examples. I do also suppord those examples :eek: because i think that the environment isn't given nearly enough importance by governments as it needs for it to survive in the future, partly coz of the time lag between damaging the environment and the change affecting us, partly coz polititians generally have short term aims, and partly coz not enough of the electorate is concerned enough for it to be a political issue. I'm in favour of this non-violent direct action, and lobbying etc., btu conceed that whaling/deforestation will happen anyway.

to show my bias, i'll take hunting with dogs as another example. i think it should be illegal (as was recently voted into law), but i don't begrudge the hunt supporters from protesting and having marches and lobbying for the decision to be reversed. i also accept that using the parliament act was probably a misuse of it. however, the only direct action i can think of for them is civil disobedience in the form of still doing the hunts regardless. I'm against this for the obvious reason that i'm against the hunts.

Whichever side i take a stance on, if what the direct action does there will be legal consequences. I think being fined or imprisoned for something i believe in is more noble than the same for hunting coz its a human right to be able to, but i would. If hunters believe it strongly enough they'll take the same consequences as any illegal non-violent (hunting is violent, but as its directed at animals its a somewhat different category) direct action for ecological movements.

PS. derscon, i can't see my sig or anyone elses, how come you can (or i can't)? or do you need to check out a profile to see the sig?

not convincead about nuclear bombs, but i guess i never will be...

The point there was made in support of direct action, citing those examples, simply as examples. I do also suppord those examples :eek: because i think that the environment isn't given nearly enough importance by governments as it needs for it to survive in the future, partly coz of the time lag between damaging the environment and the change affecting us, partly coz polititians generally have short term aims, and partly coz not enough of the electorate is concerned enough for it to be a political issue. I'm in favour of this non-violent direct action, and lobbying etc., btu conceed that whaling/deforestation will happen anyway.

to show my bias, i'll take hunting with dogs as another example. i think it should be illegal (as was recently voted into law), but i don't begrudge the hunt supporters from protesting and having marches and lobbying for the decision to be reversed. i also accept that using the parliament act was probably a misuse of it. however, the only direct action i can think of for them is civil disobedience in the form of still doing the hunts regardless. I'm against this for the obvious reason that i'm against the hunts.

Whichever side i take a stance on, if what the direct action does there will be legal consequences. I think being fined or imprisoned for something i believe in is more noble than the same for hunting coz its a human right to be able to, but i would. If hunters believe it strongly enough they'll take the same consequences as any illegal non-violent (hunting is violent, but as its directed at animals its a somewhat different category) direct action for ecological movements.

PS. derscon, i can't see my sig or anyone elses, how come you can (or i can't)? or do you need to check out a profile to see the sig?

Fair Enough.

Now don't jump on me for this one. Terrorism that kills innocent people is always wrong. But terrorism is also an effective political tool. It is the equivalent of declaring war on an established institution, and most established institutions that have war declared on them must be bad for somebody. Like Capitalism (world trade towers), Nazism (attempted assassination of Hitler), and Despotism (assassination of Czar Romanov) Assassinations, no-fatality destruction and vandalism, all do wonders for any oppressed group that needs to win political support. I'm a bigger advocate of when this is turned against Corporations, but it doesn't seem to happen very often.

Is anyone else of the same mind? That certain acts of terrorism (like assassinations of bad leaders and destruction of symbols of oppression without innocents dying) are beneficial and good?
In order with my understanding of what you are saying here then Yes, I agree with you.

Hey, I suggested the whole "wood" idea! Can I have post 4,000?I'll think about it. If you do something else very special for me, I may decide in your favor. ;)

PS. derscon, i can't see my sig or anyone elses, how come you can (or i can't)? or do you need to check out a profile to see the sig?

It's in your profile somewhere, can't remember where, sorry. :(

However, this is what yours says:

"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."

Ihatevacations']On the basis of all that why don't they attack the netherlands, or canada? Both of which have those in spades when compared to the US

SHOCK: A TERRORIST KILLING IN THE NETHERLANDS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

It's in your profile somewhere, can't remember where, sorry. :(

However, this is what yours says:

"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."Oh, hahaha, that is so true. As a longtime debater on NS General, I ought to know...

It's never as simple as you would like to think. Nobody attacks innocents because their god tells them to. We aren't in the Crusades anymore. What the Islamic militants have to face is the overwhelming (in their eyes) oppression that they and their bretheren have to face. It is no surprise that the first victims of modern terrorism were Palestinians. The root of this conflict can be traced back to it's source, which is Israel.

I firmly believe that all this terrorism would be stoppable if we cut our support of Israel. Or if Britain cut their support of the US.

No one hates freedom. Osama Bin Ladin himself said that he didn't hate American freedom. He hated imperialism, capitalism, and our support of Israel, where thousands upon thousands of Palestinians have died, in more than a 3:1 ratio to the Israeli civilians.

Governmental terrorism is the cause of popular terrorism. And Islamic terrorism is popularly supported. To the Arabs, they're revolutionaries. People who are fighting for the greater good of Arabs as a whole.

I think it is important to distinguish between two types of Islamic terrorism. There is the kind that occurs when citizens attack military targets and soldiers in a country of occupation. These people are often viewed as freedom fighters and I have very little doubt that the basis of these peoples actions are the reasons you have listed above: Perceived violation of national sovereignty, the Israel-Palestine situation, inadvertent killing of civilians by western military forces etc etc.

However, to explain the London bombings on this basis is to fundamentally fail to understand the motivations of these people. This attack was irrational and religious in nature, it was not motivated politically since there is no political goal. Furthermore, planting bombs on a subway in an attempt to murder the maximum number of civilians does not resemble a calculated rejection of British foreign policy - it is utterly devoid of reason and signifies an incomprehensible hatred of western values and society.

It is a common mistake to ignore the religious factor as a motivation for terrorism, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of international terrorist organisations are composed of radical Islamists. To disregard this factor and simply view the attacks as a bitter protest against western foreign policy is to fly in the face of evidence.

If this were the case then one would expect a greater proportion of terrorists to be drawn from a whole variety of backgrounds. Why are there not more Nicaraguan, Cuban, Vietnamese, Japanese, Latino or Korean terrorists who operate internationally for instance? These countries and regions too might easily be said to have suffered greatly as a result of the policy choices of western governments.

You would also do well to note, that the people who have suffered the majority of casualties as a result of terrorist attacks are themselves Arabs. These people are certainly not attempting to "defend" their fellow brethren from western policies and actions. These people are acting on a fanatical religious basis and wish only to destroy what they hate - anyone or anything which does not subscribe to their societal ideal - an oppressive, global, Islamic theocracy.

SHOCK: A TERRORIST KILLING IN THE NETHERLANDS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm
Yeah, a killing bravo. Doesn't prove me wrong. Why not? Because it was just a killing, racially/religiously influenced killings happen all the time. Come back when they bomb some random dutch town

I once sat in on a Latin American politics class at a college I was visiting, and the professor talked about the difference between a "terrorist" and "geurilla" group. Guerilla normally have popular support, and have a spcific goal they are working towards, and try to avoid civilian casualties.

stuff like the London bombing are hardly random or irrational. They are calculated efforts with a desired effect. The point of any attack on a civilian populance or major city is to dirupt the enemy, and to make people lose faith in the government that is supposed to protect them, thus causing instability.

"In certain cases, such as the Atomic Bomb on Japan, civilian casulties are justified by the end of a war."

Dude, the Japanese offered to surrender, but we wouldn't accept anything less then an unconditional surrender. And no matter what, nuking a non-military target was just fucked. Nuking anything is fucked.

I try not to use the word "terrorist," as their is no globally recognized definition. The best I have heard is "any attack perpetrated against civilians with a political goal." But I prefer to use the term soilder, guerilla, rebel, et cetera.

By the way, anyone else know what's going on in Peru? They, like the rest of South America and the Global South, are all kinds of fucked.

A perfict example of making people lose confedence in the gov is when a Peruvian guerilla group shut down all power in Peru's capital city, and when the power came back on, it only came back in certain parts of the town, so as to make a giant hammer and sickle, visible from the slums.

I think a good example of a guerilla, not terrorist group, is the Zapatista Army in Mexixo back in '94 (or was it '96?).

The way I think of "terrorists" is the same way I think of soldiers, police, whoever: They are just people doing what they think is right, and are willing to die to defend their family/people (especially those in Iraq right now), or to fight evil. Ballsy people, all.


Also, this is quite off subject, but has anyone else heard that new Garbage song, Bleed Like Me? I'm listening to it, it's so damn good.

No, I just like it cause a sadistic anti-american asshole.

You don't have to be a sadistic asshole to be anti-american. I am a quite genial, polite, compassionate anti-american.

Although there's nothing wrong with a little sadism/mosochism, in the right situations ^_~