Crosswords2 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.
Dom Tuk...
"Ward Minter is nothing but a deluded bigot with an inflated ego... delusions to his own grandeur... privately educated... once married...in the British army... sad individual... who takes great pleasure in insulting minorities... 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."
Surely there aren't many people of that description. In fact I'd be surprised if there were more than one.
So why insult him if he's a minority?
"Ward Minter is nothing but a deluded bigot with an inflated ego... delusions to his own grandeur... privately educated... once married...in the British army... sad individual... who takes great pleasure in insulting minorities... 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."
Surely there aren't many people of that description. In fact I'd be surprised if there were more than one.
So why insult him if he's a minority?
-- answer removed --
Yes, I have a turning point and would commit acts of violence against an aggressor/invader. Who wouldn't? surely only a Quaker.
I'm quite happy to see bullies smacked in the face.
As to whether it would be terrorism, self defence, freedom fighting or not, that's the whole problem isn't it. There's no objectively right or wrong answer, it all depends what your perspective is.
No-one thinks they''re evil. Even Hitler didn't think he was evil. He genuinely thought he was making the world a better place by killing as many jews as possible.
That's the scary thing. everyone has to follow their own conscience, and I personally wouldn't have had a problem putting a bomb under Hitler's chair.
I'm quite happy to see bullies smacked in the face.
As to whether it would be terrorism, self defence, freedom fighting or not, that's the whole problem isn't it. There's no objectively right or wrong answer, it all depends what your perspective is.
No-one thinks they''re evil. Even Hitler didn't think he was evil. He genuinely thought he was making the world a better place by killing as many jews as possible.
That's the scary thing. everyone has to follow their own conscience, and I personally wouldn't have had a problem putting a bomb under Hitler's chair.
noxlumos, I think the second world war was a special case. It involved not just land grabs, as most wars do, but genocide and a genuinely evil ideology. Of course every politician who wants to go to war tries to cast it in the mould of WW2 but it just isn't true. Saddam was a nasty piece of work but he wasn't Hitler.
So I think the classification of resistance/terrorist measures varies too. The Polish resistance had something that desperately needed fighting for. But as far as I know, there were no such local movements in the first world war; and some people actually found themselves living in different countries after the war when borders were reallocated.
As to where, say, Palestinian terrorists come on this scale -I think they're even worse off than the Poles in WW2 because the whole world has colluded in the confiscation of their land, and they have nothing left but their lives to fight with. I would class them as freedom fighters. But al-Qaeda? No, they're just terrorists.
So I think the classification of resistance/terrorist measures varies too. The Polish resistance had something that desperately needed fighting for. But as far as I know, there were no such local movements in the first world war; and some people actually found themselves living in different countries after the war when borders were reallocated.
As to where, say, Palestinian terrorists come on this scale -I think they're even worse off than the Poles in WW2 because the whole world has colluded in the confiscation of their land, and they have nothing left but their lives to fight with. I would class them as freedom fighters. But al-Qaeda? No, they're just terrorists.
so where is this mythical al qaeda, my personal opinion on this is the only terrorists by the defenition of the word is the u.s.,u.k and israeli governments, as the the romans used the word barbarian(anyone other than roman) the afore mentioned use the word terrorist. anyone that is not a terrorist lives in a comfortable place on this planet or in an unsafe place and has not yet hit his breaking point. anyone living in the sphere of the afore mentioned's drive for global geo-political dominance, just by their mere presence, if not on said team is obviously an insurgent or terrorist. when you have a group of individuals spending 20 times the money to prove that an individual sucked on someones cigar as apposed to finding out who and why someone flew some planes into some buildings, and the bulk of the money spent on the welfare side was in trying to prevent people from getting to the bottom of the plane incident. you have to ask yourself, what is a terrorist? and should i be listening to these people? or i can keep reading my paper and slowly but surely learn to hate a group of people i know nothing about. personally i think it's time for most on here, from what i have sadly read lately to wake to f_ck up and start actually realizing what this word terrorist really means, YOU, if you happen to live in the wrong place and quit whining after 200 years of f_cking with that part of the world with ' the great game' the ' british mandate' and the whole divide and conquer thing because some of these people have decided to call your tiny little island home. trust me, if you were a palestinian lad today, you would be a third generation boy living in a prison like existence, probably with more than a few dead relatives,l and not a lot of aspirations, i know i would be more than happy to take a few of the busturds with me.
If Britain was invaded I would definatly help the resistance (unless we were invaded for a reason I agreed with like if our government turned against us). I would NEVER target civilians though and only kill soldies when needed, I would concentrate more on enemy infistructure and communications more.
Terrorism is the use of fear by one individual or group to intimidate and coerce another individual or group.
Fear is no substitute for appealing to another person�s rational self-interest where such people exist. Where no agreement can be reached between two entities on a rational basis there is no reason to pursue any kind of interpersonal relationship. Those who do not seek to join and be joined in a mutually agreed and understood relationship should be left alone for as long as this is reasonably possible. It is those who seek another kind of relationship with whom a problem exists that must be dealt with accordingly.
Those who appreciate the benefits of freedom and acknowledge and assume the personal responsibility for their own lives and happiness that freedom requires understand their obligation to defend themselves and each other from those who do not. Those who choose instead to live under the threat of intimidation and coercion of fear have defaulted on their right to exist and we are under no obligation to presume that right but are obliged to defend ourselves and others from their abuses.
Bullies should and must be given what they have earned and the only thing they rightly deserve; the fair payment of bullying in return. If we default on returning the payment they require then the World becomes their �Palestine� and make no mistake, this is their intent and purpose.
Terrorists have no desire to live and let live; they seek only to spread the disease of their own discontentment and hatred for existence and if you do not understand this then you have forgotten or never learned to value your own existence and for your part, the terrorists have already �won�.
I fear no God, especially not the God of the terrorists that has failed them miserably, just as has GWB�s!
Fear is no substitute for appealing to another person�s rational self-interest where such people exist. Where no agreement can be reached between two entities on a rational basis there is no reason to pursue any kind of interpersonal relationship. Those who do not seek to join and be joined in a mutually agreed and understood relationship should be left alone for as long as this is reasonably possible. It is those who seek another kind of relationship with whom a problem exists that must be dealt with accordingly.
Those who appreciate the benefits of freedom and acknowledge and assume the personal responsibility for their own lives and happiness that freedom requires understand their obligation to defend themselves and each other from those who do not. Those who choose instead to live under the threat of intimidation and coercion of fear have defaulted on their right to exist and we are under no obligation to presume that right but are obliged to defend ourselves and others from their abuses.
Bullies should and must be given what they have earned and the only thing they rightly deserve; the fair payment of bullying in return. If we default on returning the payment they require then the World becomes their �Palestine� and make no mistake, this is their intent and purpose.
Terrorists have no desire to live and let live; they seek only to spread the disease of their own discontentment and hatred for existence and if you do not understand this then you have forgotten or never learned to value your own existence and for your part, the terrorists have already �won�.
I fear no God, especially not the God of the terrorists that has failed them miserably, just as has GWB�s!
All very interesting answers, I personally think that violence sometimes has it's place, both from experience and from a viewpoint of common sense, and that armies, soldiers and Govts are not necessarily always the good guys. There are terrorists groups I in no way understand and there are terrorist groups whose POV I see clearly although I may not agree with their modus operandai and in answering my own question it would depend on which given group we were discussing at any given time, what my answer would be, but I would always be prepared to fight for freedom of my family and country if needs be, but I think that goes for nearly anyone.
admarlow, i live in canada. sadly it would appear my government of late, also has blood on it's hands. as i've said before, we are viewed more or less as white mexicans by our neighbours to the south. and when crunch time eventually does comes to pass, they will just take what the need from us whether we like it or not. canadian terrorists, rather ironic,no?
admarlow, you suggested maxximus go and live elsewhere if he doesn't agree with the government - but you said you personally would be prepared to take up arms if the government turned against you. So why shouldn't maxximus do the same? (I know, it turned out he lives in Canada, but you didn't know that.) Alternatively, if you fell out with the government, why shouldn't you just go and live somewhere more congenial? Why advise others to do one thing (go away) but plan to do something different (shoot people) yourself?
I ment if there was a coup and France and Germany (I am laughing as I type!) decided to help reinstate the British government, then I would help the ''invaders''. On the other hand, if I just decided I didn't like the whole DEMOCRATICALLY CHOSEN government , and saw no way that things would get better, than I would stop bleeting and go and live somewhere else.
Ok admarlow, but what about my own country's situaiton, the north of Ireland. The Govt that governs us is "democratically" ( I use the term loosely) elected, yet for years we had to endure a Protestant govt which deliberately kept Catholics in a state of financial and social poverty, then an occupying army, so should we all have just upped sticks and left the country of our birth because a Govt that we don't recognise in the first place, was treating us as lesser citizens? I don't think that you would be so inclined if say a Sharia govt was established in the UK( by the same sorts of democratic means), I think in fact it's probably the last thing that most people would do.
The problem difference with NI though (I am probabilly wrong though!) is that half of the people who are there want to be part of britain, so you could use your argument for their side to. As for id Shia law was established democratically in the UK, I would leave this country to them so they can mess it up as much as Iran, Syria etc and watch on the news about running battles between Shia and Sunni's in London.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Motoring9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
