 |
| 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. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Terrorism = Freedom? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Rom Manic                    Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Is this statement deniable, or is it undeniable?
Now, I want you to think the word Terrorism. What do you see? What do you associate with it? Do you see a man with a machine gun in the Middle East? It's not a shame if you do, it is what the world around you has put before your eyes so that you believe it to be true. So, what is terrorism? Is it Arab's blowing up buildings? Is it an extremist forcing the hands of others by force? Is it a war which instills fear upon people in the name of a belief? Quite honestly, none of these are correct. Terrorism is a label we have put on a group of people or actions that we fear. This in itself is the definition of terrorism. By classic definition, the word terrorism is merely "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". That, of course, according to Dictionary.com. To take a literal stance on the terrorism deal, I have come to understand what we choose (What I have chosen previously, I will not deny) to ignore. A terrorist, by definition, can be anyone. The Mafia. The United States. ANYONE. Anyone who can strike fear into your heart is a terrorist. A Muslim is only someone who believes in being a Muslim, not much indifferent than the way a Christian believes in being Christian. Their faiths may vary greatly, but the important thing is that they BELIEVE in something. So I believe in freedom, not much unlike you do. But lets say your freedom had been revoked from you. You were stripped of the basic rights you all love and had no other choice but to fight back. The point I'm getting at is that a Jihadist is NOT a terrorist. They are Idealists and they wish to be free just like me and you. They put their very fucking lives on the line and in the face of death to ensure that their message be heard. Something we apparently are too pansy to do. Ok, Rom Manic, what are you getting at? If you want something bad enough, people will stand up for it. Thats not terrorism, thats honorable. Do you disagree? |
|||
|
UnDisbeliever Newcomer  Since: 07-25-06 From: is an 8-lettered word :) Last post: 6503 days Last view: 6503 days |
| ||
| I undisbelieve with you entirely
The word terrism traces it's roots to the French Revolution (Yes, I actually remember my history lessons from 3 years ago) when the British used the word to describe the actions of the French Goverment... He used this famous word to help spead rumours of the ""rein of terror"" created by the french goverment. Naturally... Phosolphers have all agreed that all men will invoke terrorism against one-another, wether it be in the form of setting things straight, fighting for equality or letting their voice be heard. Simply put - terrorism is a bad name for a natural human trait. Goverment people (for lack of a better word) use this word instead of freedom fighters to make people believe what they are told to believe. (for I was once a believer - then I disbelieved and now I undisbelieve in what I think is right) |
|||
ziffhasnoaim/password Snifit Since: 06-07-06 Last post: 6487 days Last view: 6487 days |
| ||
Really? I could've sworn it was a Latin derivative rather than straight French.  |
|||
Vyper Kodondo Raging Venom  Since: 11-18-05 From: Final Fantasy Fire Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| 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? | |||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Well blowing stuff up is cool. | |||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Vyper I justify their ideals. The way they exp |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
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. |
|||
|
Vyper Kodondo Raging Venom Since: 11-18-05 From: Final Fantasy Fire Last post: 6313 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| 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. |
|||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| 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. |
|||
|
ziffhasnoaim/password Snifit Since: 06-07-06 Last post: 6487 days Last view: 6487 days |
| ||
| 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. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| 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? | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
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. (edited by Arwon on 07-31-06 02:15 AM) |
|||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| 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 Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| 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. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
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. |
|||
sandrocklq Red Cheep-cheep  Since: 07-31-06 Last post: 6433 days Last view: 6433 days |
| ||
| 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. (edited by sandrocklq on 08-02-06 04:14 PM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I think you mean a bloody means. | |||
|
sandrocklq Red Cheep-cheep Since: 07-31-06 Last post: 6433 days Last view: 6433 days |
| ||
| Well, both the means and the end result can be bloody. | |||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
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. |
|||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Except quite often those "freedom fighters" are fighting to set up/restore their dictatorial position in the country/region. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Terrorism = Freedom? |
| |
