Lefties: Want to get rid of my Reagan avatar?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The part where you said financing terrorism to combat communism because "you don't like communism" is justified in your opinion, then?

Bingo. Communism sux the big one .

great



So you support terrorism in Latin American countries on whole civilian populations just because you don't get your rocks off with communism.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It really bugs you when I try to help you doesn't it?

Yeah -- I hate being reminded that you and I are in agreement in this thread.

[MrFun]

it's 2:15 AM



carry on without me

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you support terrorism in Latin American countries on whole civilian populations just because you don't get your rocks off with communism.

Mostly. Some of them we were dumb and could have done better in backing groups (like the Shah in Iran... that was a **** up).

[johncmcleod]

Terrorism is better if their is political motive behind it than if there wasn't any-and it is better if the people they are fighting are terrorists themselves-but it still doesn't justify it.

The reason is that terrorism is bad, and if some political ideology is slapped onto it that all of the sudden makes it justified. And that has lead to millions of lives being taken. People will always disagree when it comes to politics, and as long as we have the stance, there will always be war. If we agree to disagree on politics, yet agree avoid war at all possible costs, we will resolve our differences in a reasonable manner without killing each other.

Just about every war and every mass killing has had some sort of ideology behind it. That is why ideas never justify terror. If we continue to believe otherwise, we will continue to fight each other.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

[johncmcleod]

Reagan is the perfect example of why terrorism isn't justified by ideology. The belief (in rhetoric) was the communism was not good for people. Yet instead of people being the important part, communism was the important part. Eliminating communism was more important than the lives of the people that they were supposedly helping (in rhetoric). So whether or not the people had any say in their type of government or economy, or more importantly whether or not thousands of people got their right of life was irrelevant: what was more important was the ideology.

Ideologies were created to serve man, not the other way around.

It is a shame people have forgotten that.

And you can quote me on that.

[Dinner]

Re: Lefties: Want to get rid of my Reagan avatar?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
..well at least for a few weeks or so?

If you do, make me an Arafat avatar to piss off the anti-Palestinians on these boards. It should be pretty cool as well (like I saw this cool mural picture of Arafat, but now I forget where it was).

Get cracking

I'm not anti-palestian but I am most certainly anti-arafat. The man is a liar and a brutal killer. He paid people to blow up school buses full of children.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As for terrorism, when it backs a political belief i'm sympathic to and there is really no other option, I'm fine with it.

Oh, good. So if the Israelis decide to poison gas the entire Palestinian people it would be ok as long as someone some where is sympathitic to their cause.

Imran my opinion of you is slipping.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Terrorism is better if their is political motive behind it than if there wasn't any

I would hope so since having a political motive is kind of essential to the defenition.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Oh, good. So if the Israelis decide to poison gas the entire Palestinian people it would be ok as long as someone some where is sympathitic to their cause.

No. It would only be OK for those sympathetic to the Israeli cause.

I believe Imran isn't saying everyone should be happy with Hamas, just that he is because he agrees with their cause. The only things he has to do now is convince everyone else that their views are justified (which I think they are), and that violence is justified (which I don't think it is):

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We back terrorism for views we like and are against terrorism for views we don't like... well, except for some pacifists like Ben Kenobi.

johncmcleod

[Az]

Moral relativism

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mercator
The only things he has to do now is convince everyone else that their views are justified (which I think they are),

I had no idea you considered the destruction of Israel a laudable goal.

[Mercator]

[Az]

What, do you think that Hamas' goals are different?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call bull****. Though thier rehetoric is almost always couched with such niceties as a desire for freedom and a battle for human rights, there is a built in contradiction between the professed goal and the method chosen to implement them. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the methods reveal a totalitarian strain that runs through all terrorist groups today.

OMG! An actual arguement posted by DD! I thought those days were past!

States have essentially gotten together and writen the rules about what is acceptable violence and what is not- of course, they wrote it in a way to legitimize where they are strong, and criminilize forms of violence that skirt their strenghts. As technology has improved, the rules get rewriten- the massive bombardment of a city without regards to civilian casualties has gone the way of burning down the city, killing all the males and enslaving everyone else, which once was totally permitted behavior.

Any arguement about Terrorism needs to keep in mind that fact- that is not a judgement, but simply a recitation of reality.

what we call terrorism is political violence by the weak- if Hamas had Tanks, Apaches, F-16 and divisions, they could afford to fight like the Israelis- they could even afford to play by the rules. Of course, they lack all of those things, and having chosen violence as their method for political change, well, that does not leave them much but to act in ways that have been designed as criminal.

As for their aims, and the notion that all "terrorist" groups are totalitarian in nature- a judgement of the avenues open does not equal a judgement of their aim. Obviously nationalist organizations want very different aims from religiously motivated ones.

The question is, can people trully achieve anything in a non-violent manner, or in a violent manner that seeks to play by the state writen rules?