ChatterBank3 mins ago
Terrorism and you.
Further to Admarlow's question "Serious question" ( 3 down), I noticed something interesting in carakeel's answer who says:
"Terrorism is never justified! It is a weak person who harms or kills someone. It takes an intelligent, calm and wise person tro convince another with words and gentler deeds".
This is true to some degree, but do any of you have a turning point? At what point would you realise, say for example that Britian had fallen to an occupying power, that violence was perhaps necessary, or would you ever?
How many people would fight and think of themselves not as terrorists but as freedom fighters attempting to liberate their country for example? Can you always change people's opinions with gentler deeds and words?
This question has no relation to Muslims in any way, it is purely hypothetical, so can we please not have another Muslim bashing session just for the sake of it, but I'm genuinely interested in whether you judege all "terrorist" groups as terrorists or do you see some throughout the world as justified ever?
Thanks in advance.
"Terrorism is never justified! It is a weak person who harms or kills someone. It takes an intelligent, calm and wise person tro convince another with words and gentler deeds".
This is true to some degree, but do any of you have a turning point? At what point would you realise, say for example that Britian had fallen to an occupying power, that violence was perhaps necessary, or would you ever?
How many people would fight and think of themselves not as terrorists but as freedom fighters attempting to liberate their country for example? Can you always change people's opinions with gentler deeds and words?
This question has no relation to Muslims in any way, it is purely hypothetical, so can we please not have another Muslim bashing session just for the sake of it, but I'm genuinely interested in whether you judege all "terrorist" groups as terrorists or do you see some throughout the world as justified ever?
Thanks in advance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by noxlumos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Nox, well despite our crossings in the past lol. I think there are times when war is justified but generally not enough is done to settle these matters peacefully. Only when peaceful negotiations fail should anybody step in and kick ass, and yes many innocent people will get killed, but unfortunately that is the very nature of war.
I was all for going to war in Iraq, but I was mistaken, I didn't at that time see the full picture and now I see why we should have stayed out. We all make mistakes and I have made many.
I was all for going to war in Iraq, but I was mistaken, I didn't at that time see the full picture and now I see why we should have stayed out. We all make mistakes and I have made many.
What got me thinking about this was something my wife said about it being a "good job the Polish resistance didn't think like that during WW2".
I mean depending on whose side you were on, they were either heroic freedom fighters or terrorists, so I wondered at what point most average people thought it was acceptable to mount an armed response to something which was impacting negatively on their community.
I agree that people who feel they are not heard are far more likely to be aggressive, and we've seen a remarkable shift from an armed struggle in the north of Ireland to one which is centered far more round the table, purely because some of the people with the guns who have been historically ignored feel they are being heard now.
I was always against the war in Iraq on a personal level, because when you remove such an effective dictator you create a huge vacuum of power and inevitably peoeple of all political and religious persuasions seek to fill that, with the civil conflict that goes with that. What's happening in Iraq was a foregone conclusion.
I mean depending on whose side you were on, they were either heroic freedom fighters or terrorists, so I wondered at what point most average people thought it was acceptable to mount an armed response to something which was impacting negatively on their community.
I agree that people who feel they are not heard are far more likely to be aggressive, and we've seen a remarkable shift from an armed struggle in the north of Ireland to one which is centered far more round the table, purely because some of the people with the guns who have been historically ignored feel they are being heard now.
I was always against the war in Iraq on a personal level, because when you remove such an effective dictator you create a huge vacuum of power and inevitably peoeple of all political and religious persuasions seek to fill that, with the civil conflict that goes with that. What's happening in Iraq was a foregone conclusion.
-- answer removed --
Oh my! definition of a terrorist? if someone threatened my country or took it over and I quietly fought for my country would I be classified as a terrorist?
If my personal religion meant I had to bring other countries (with a percentage of a different religion) down to its knees by any act I could bring to oust that different religion, would I be classified as a terrorist?
Ok forget muslims (that are taking a lot of flack right now because of their minority rather silly people who use terrorist tactics to prove their daft points) Could I change people's opinions to my own using warfare? - nope!
Would gentler deeds work to prove a point? - maybe if we all agreed to listen/accept each others gentler deeds.
I was christened into the church of england. My first 5 years of schooling was at a caholic convent. I follow spirituality - I am a real mixed bag! I have read the koran and at the end of the day appreciate the son of God may be a mere prophet elsewhere but the basic message is the same. So would I kill or terrorise or maim innocent people to coerce them to believe in my own personal beliefs? nope! I accept all religions and beliefs (I may not agree with them but as human beings we should honour anothers beliefs) and I am not pro or anti muslim at all - some are giving the majority terrible hassle.
Would I fight for my beliefs? No, I would not.
I would fight for my country and countrymen if my country was threatened. If the threat was religion based (which it always is) I would be fighting a person wearing a different uniform with the sole aim to protect my country and not for whatever religion they happened personally to follow.
.
If my personal religion meant I had to bring other countries (with a percentage of a different religion) down to its knees by any act I could bring to oust that different religion, would I be classified as a terrorist?
Ok forget muslims (that are taking a lot of flack right now because of their minority rather silly people who use terrorist tactics to prove their daft points) Could I change people's opinions to my own using warfare? - nope!
Would gentler deeds work to prove a point? - maybe if we all agreed to listen/accept each others gentler deeds.
I was christened into the church of england. My first 5 years of schooling was at a caholic convent. I follow spirituality - I am a real mixed bag! I have read the koran and at the end of the day appreciate the son of God may be a mere prophet elsewhere but the basic message is the same. So would I kill or terrorise or maim innocent people to coerce them to believe in my own personal beliefs? nope! I accept all religions and beliefs (I may not agree with them but as human beings we should honour anothers beliefs) and I am not pro or anti muslim at all - some are giving the majority terrible hassle.
Would I fight for my beliefs? No, I would not.
I would fight for my country and countrymen if my country was threatened. If the threat was religion based (which it always is) I would be fighting a person wearing a different uniform with the sole aim to protect my country and not for whatever religion they happened personally to follow.
.
I think your wife makes a very valid point, noxlumos and I would suggest the case is made even more clear in the French situation during WWII when the Vichy government actively collaborated with the invader. Were the French people supposed to be loyal to Vichy, De Gaulle's alternative voice in London, which had no legal right to proclaim itself the exiled government of France, or to their own conscience?
Personally, I would resent any government being imposed upon me by an invader, even if the invader arranged supposedly free and fair elections. I would ask, 'How can the elections be free if the party I support is not allowed to stand for election and my only choices range from the servile to the out and out collaborationist. I suppose at that point I would commit acts of terror to restore the freedoms and liberties I appreciate now and wish to be available to my daughters in the future.
Personally, I would resent any government being imposed upon me by an invader, even if the invader arranged supposedly free and fair elections. I would ask, 'How can the elections be free if the party I support is not allowed to stand for election and my only choices range from the servile to the out and out collaborationist. I suppose at that point I would commit acts of terror to restore the freedoms and liberties I appreciate now and wish to be available to my daughters in the future.
-- answer removed --
Hi Nox, essentially weakness encourages agressors so in a sense pacifism is the cause of a lot of problems. I think we often ignore the paradox to our detriment. How often have you heard the phrase "Pro War" Nobody is pro war but measures have to be taken to deter an agressor. The best example I can think of is in 1931 Churchill urged action against Germany to "nip it in the bud" so to speak, he was shouted down as a war monger by the liberals of the day. in fact he was labelled a complete loony, it was only when the war started that the "loony" was needed to protect their cosy lives. To answer the original question I think that violence is a last resort but really if you demonstrate strength and will at the outset then you will probably never need to use it. Playground bullies pick on the weak, ensure you do not come across as weak.
ward minter...if any camel humping is being done it is by the British forces in Iraq. Poor blighters get caught with their pants down every time.
Probably is your platoon. (imaginary one i know).
The above post is just to rile ward minter. I cannot stand by and see him call muslims names as he does regularly. I have the greatest respect for my country and its forces...thankfully wardy and his ilk were never a part of it.
squaddie in your dreams.
Probably is your platoon. (imaginary one i know).
The above post is just to rile ward minter. I cannot stand by and see him call muslims names as he does regularly. I have the greatest respect for my country and its forces...thankfully wardy and his ilk were never a part of it.
squaddie in your dreams.
-- answer removed --
I think the line between Terrorists and Freedom fighters is very thin. Some one would consider himself a freedom fighter while trying to over throw a dictator in his country. The dictator would consider them as terrorists.
I think I will stick with my dictionary definition of terrorism
The use of violence, terror and intimidation, usually by an underground or revolutionary group, to achieve a political end.
Freedom fighters maybe fighting for freedom as they see it, but they maynot have the backing of the rest of their country.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if they do not wear uniforms they are terrorists.
I think I will stick with my dictionary definition of terrorism
The use of violence, terror and intimidation, usually by an underground or revolutionary group, to achieve a political end.
Freedom fighters maybe fighting for freedom as they see it, but they maynot have the backing of the rest of their country.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if they do not wear uniforms they are terrorists.
Big Al1st, you raised an interesting point re: freedom fighters trying to overthrow their dictator governments who considers them as terrorist. I would argue that a dictator government is sometimes a puppet of the western government who would need these to protect their interests. Take a look at Saudi Arabia or the taliban regime in Afghanistan before 9/11. US was giving finacial support to them whilst this brutal regime was massacaring thousands of afghans/ freedom fighters. After 9/11 they are no longer of interest and considered quite rightly so a terrorist cell.
To answer your question Noxlumous, essentially what creates a mindset for terrorism/ freedom fighter depending on your definition is the sheer act of desperation to get your voice heard and protect yourself against a much powerful element .
Can you always change people's opinion with gentler deeds/ words? It is quite likely to change the opinion but governments unlikely.
To answer your question Noxlumous, essentially what creates a mindset for terrorism/ freedom fighter depending on your definition is the sheer act of desperation to get your voice heard and protect yourself against a much powerful element .
Can you always change people's opinion with gentler deeds/ words? It is quite likely to change the opinion but governments unlikely.
Matt 66, leave it. Ward Minter is nothing but a deluded bigot with an inflated ego. He has delusions to his own grandeur and has found it worthwhile to let everyone know that he was privately educated, once married and in the British army. he is perhaps the only person on this site who has claimed these qualities and does not realise that just by mentioning (what in his small mind he considers to be qualities worth attaining) he has ensured that everyone knows that he has none of them. he is a sad individual who takes great pleasure in insulting minorities. In my opinion his opinions are worthless. I have in my minds eye a picture of him in his bedsit (smelling of urine) a lard ass who when he ventures out is spat at by kids and mothers cross the road when they see him.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
