 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| optomon Posts: 56/84 |
The point I was making there is that Israel does not fit under the definition of terrorism while hezbollah does.
The word terrorism has become a propoganda tool that is starting to carry a very negative connotation in this day and age. I understand how that could upset people. It is used to pit America against the Middle East, by citing the familiar tactic used by Arab militants against US civilians. Personally, it upsets me because now I don't get to use the word without offending anyone. Terrorism is more bullshit than collateral damage. While both are bullshit, one pile of it smells a little worse. We're talking something along the lines of first degree murder vs. third degree murder. But in the end, no one is really going to care about which one is more brutal because the result is pretty much the same: the innocent die. Like I said earlier, terrorism is a policy of desperation. Many Arab militants in the Middle East are desperate as they are no match for Israel's military to be attacking them head on. So they attack what they can to win. Terrorism is their only real chance of victory and I could understand their reasons for using the tactic. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is what I feel both sides are doing. They are both fighting for what's good for their people. And now that Israel isn't tolerating ass kickings from Arab terrorists anymore, heated conflict will take effect. |
| Rom Manic Posts: 233/557 |
Originally posted by geeogree Which contradicts me how? Originally posted by optomon By all appearances, they are terrorists. They very well fit the definition of it, by any means. But ask yourself, when is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons a bad thing? Does it make you any more evil than the one who does the wrong thing all the time? Oh, by the way, collateral damage is BULLSHIT. |
| optomon Posts: 54/84 |
For me, terrorists are people whose objective is to attack innocent people in an attempt to coerce the governments of their victims. It is a horrible and desperate tactic. It was used often in World War 2 by countless countries including the United States.
Israel, as far as I know, does not intentionally kill innocent civilians. They do kill civilians, but it's unintentional and it's not their objective, killing Hezbollah is. Israel however is at least pressuring the Lebanese government to make them get on the same page politically in eradicating Hezbollah. While their actions are violent and deadly, I feel it would be unfair to label them as terrorists. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. They launch rockets into Israel with the objective of killing civilians to make Israel think differently about invading their country. Before that, they were terrorists anyway, with their bombings and kidnappings and such. |
| geeogree Posts: 179/207 |
Except quite often those "freedom fighters" are fighting to set up/restore their dictatorial position in the country/region. |
| Rom Manic Posts: 229/557 |
Originally posted by sandrocklq The point to the topic title insinuates that we see terrorism, whereas the other side of the fence sees freedom fighters. And vice versa. |
| sandrocklq Posts: 22/210 |
Well, both the means and the end result can be bloody. |
| Arwon Posts: 347/631 |
I think you mean a bloody means. |
| sandrocklq Posts: 18/210 |
The masses are easily minipulated in the US unfortunately. People tend to see things in black and white when really almost everything can be seen in some shade of grey. The "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" is the perfect example. People aren't given a 3rd or 4th viable option.
I would love to be a fly on the wall whenever the President was having his Iraq invasion meetings. Knowing the exact motivation behind it would be deliciously entertaining, I think. And although I don't believe this is true, for all we know the invasion of Iraq was necessary to protect American interests, not necessarily preventing terrorist attacks. Also, terrorism is not freedom. Using terrorism to gain freedom is just a means to an end. A bloody end. |
| Rom Manic Posts: 224/557 |
Originally posted by Jomb It IS labeling, and just because they believe in something completely different doesn't make them ALIEN to us as human beings. However, what DOES separate us from them is the way they will make sure that belief is heard. In the case of the Hezbollah VS Israel, there is blood on both sides. Yes, Israel has killed innocent civilians by unnecessary force, but does that mean their belief is flawed? Hell, thats one of the the whole reasons groups like Hezbollah exist. They believe that the Israeli's are less than human, that they have no right to live. So, because both sides have been provoked, is there no justification in their beliefs? Originally posted by Arwon I agree, and I think it's important people start recognizing that. Originally posted by Someone very related to the topic This message portrays the realism that we face today. Though the person who says this probably does not see or care how his choices affect other people around him, the overall point is that we should understand how groups like Al Quaeda and Hezbollag work, why they exist, and how we can try to come up with a proper solution. |
| Arwon Posts: 338/631 |
In a word, yes.
That's why they called the PLO in Jordan and then later on in Lebanon a "state within a state" and that's why they call Hezbollah that now. |
| beneficii Posts: 204/310 |
Arwon,
That's interesting, because that could mean that such groups could start eroding the legitimacy of the states that they operate in. If they're providing welfare and protection and even law and order in some cases to the populaces they took control of, then the government of the nation-state they're in would start losing credibility right? |
| Arwon Posts: 337/631 |
I don't disagree with your overall post, but that's actually a common practise among popular resistance/terrorist type groups and kind of dovetails nicely with their goals and outlook. Surprise surprise, terrorists aren't one-dimensional evil. There's two big reasons, one cynical, one idealistic. First the cynicism: success hinges on popularity with the people they're defending/helping so it makes good practical sense to do such things. Then the idealism: Such groups are mostly really passionate, hardcore and committed people (you have to be to risk everything and try to kill other people for your own ideas)... if you're willing enough to fight and die for something such as a group of people, chances are you're concerned enough to attempt to provide welfare and education and stuff where possible. It's kinda love, as well as hate, I guess. I think it's possible to be a resistance movement and a terrorist group and a social justice organisation. Just makes things a bit more complex than most people would like or be willing to admit. |
| Jomb Posts: 296/448 |
I think you are onto something, ROM Manic. It seems to me that sometimes our government will just slap the label terrorist on anything they disagree with because it will automatically make the masses dislike it. I'm not really sure i consider hezbollah to be a terrorist group after everything i've heard about them, what kind of terrorist group provides welfare to the poor? I think they are more of a people's resistance movement of some sort. Israel has killed many more civilians than they have, in the name of "shocking and aweing" them, yet that isn't called terrorism. But i thought terrorism was when you killed people indiscriminantly or caused lots of damage to enforce your viewpoint? No, terrorism has become a label of convenience and is losing any real meaning. The idea of a "War on terror" is ridiculous, and somewhat frightening. Seems more like a way to have a never-ending war to me. That way the government can have more power and take away more of our rights because we are "at war". How different is a terrorist from a criminal? Why not just call them criminals? How long until people once called criminals just get called terrorists instead so that they have no rights? |
| ziffhasnoaim/password Posts: 218/292 |
Radical Islam has never been contained under any administration.
As for democracy building - I don't see that as necessarily a good thing. Some nations operate better under dictatorship. Benevolent or not. Hussein was a bad man, but he kept it together because he had an iron fist. We walk a fine line when we introduce democracy to an area where the idea hasn't fully formed for that nation's morals. And then we see the reaction to democracy - the people's wishes. Look at what happened in Palestine with the Authoritie's elections. People deny the fair and equal victory of Hamas. Iran could've had a reform minded centre-left leader that showed incllinations of trying to change the combative stance of the nation, however the people prefered the man that we now face. |
| MathOnNapkins Posts: 672/1106 |
I don't really think they are a top priority problem like it's made out to be. Islamic Radical terrorism has been around long before 9/11 and it was contained and thwarted under previous administrations. I think that matter was pretty much ignored under the first half of Bush's administration and that's probably why we had 9/11. And that opinion is based on the facts we know about how warnings from certain FBI agents were ignored, and it's also my gut feeling. I feel it was an overreaction on the part of the administration to ... fight this thing called terrorism simply to cover up the fact that they had been ignoring the problem in the first place.
The difference in the present era is that we have this notion that we can fight ideas with military force. Did we (in the US) have a war against ourselves to root out the right wing crazies after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Building? No, b/c that would probably have just caused them to blow more stuff up. Instead what we do on our own domestic front is monitor suspicious groups of people who could be of that type (and hunt them down with black helicopters  ). You use intelligence and infiltration, not tanks and ground troops.
On the plus side, the possibility that Afghanistan and Iraq could become free societies in the long run is encouraging, though I don't think something like that obviates the fact that it was not a clear initial goal of the war on terror. And it's an interesting paradox how imposing democracy upon a nation is both at once tyranny and a release from tyranny. At least, that's how I view it. |
| Vyper Posts: 359/575 |
No, what I have a problem with is terrorists blowing up stores, houses, schools, markets, etc. that have nothing to do with the US armies.
I'm not saying what we, the US, did in the past was wrong, but that's the past. We need to worry about THE PRESENT! And in the present, these fucking Islamic radicals (since you're so offended by the word terrorist) are the problem. |
| Wurl Posts: 830/842 |
Originally posted by Vyper Vyper, it seems that you have a problem with rational thought. What I assume Rom Manic is trying to do is rationalize the thoughts behind Al Queada. It seems many people associate this with "lol i wan 2 b butfukd by Osama. <3333333333333333333333 Osama," more or less. Al Queada is a group who uses violence as a tool for evoking change they see fit. They want the change they bring about to eliminate the U.S.'s hegemony over the world and replace it with a radical, narrow vision of Islamic rule. They, like our "founding fathers" of this nation, use violent and "terrorist" methods to bring about their change. Rom is trying to say that really, by definition, any group using force to bring social, ideological, theological, ect. change with force is a terrorist. Many people do see terrorists as A-rabs in ski masks shooting off AK-47s. They are terrorists, just like the U.S. trained Contras that terrorized Nicaragua, for example. To summarize, "terrorism" is a method of violence used to bring about change that does not have any inherent political/religious/ect. ideology attached to it. Rationalizing actions does not constitute a justification , Vyper. |
| Rom Manic Posts: 219/557 |
Originally posted by Vyper I justify their ideals. The way they express themselves is, to me, very idealistic. Duly noted, nobody should kill anyone for any means, but then again I never said that, did I? |
| Arwon Posts: 332/631 |
Well blowing stuff up is cool. |
| Vyper Posts: 353/575 |
So we're "told" to believe the Al Queda are terrorists by definition that blow things up just because of a deranged take on Islam and the Kuran. Yet somehow, I get the feeling you're trying to justify their actions... WTF? |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
