49 police officers killed in India

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by AAHZ


Must everything be a war? a conflict? what do YOU think the police should have done? NOTHING? Laws exist to keep a nation stable. to otherwise is a fallacy... and illogical.

I don't know. Maybe I'm not the person to say what they should do.

Stability isn't always good though, especially when your children are hungry. If the police like this kind of stability then I guess they died standing up for what they believe, otherwise it was just for the money.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If the police like this kind of stability then I guess they died standing up for what they believe,

hang on to that thought for a minute... just pretend you are one of the policemen, going into harms way... these police followed the RULES of society. They came up the HARD way... they had families, friends, and LIVES. They didnt rebel and take the easy way out. they rose up the ranks like you are SUPPOSED to do in a STRUCTURED society. And now they are gone. for what?? is this logical? is it RIGHT?

[Kidlicious]

I don't care if you think you or they are better than the rebels.

Good night.

[aneeshm]

You know, kid, your defence of these murdering terrorists makes you a sick, degenerate bastard. Go and die in a terrorist attack, scum.

[SlowwHand]

aneeshm, Kid's thoughts aren't killing anyone. Don't wish ill of him. In the grand scheme, he doesn't matter.

[Kidlicious]

That's right. I don't kill anyone. Most people in real life think I'm nice, too nice sometimes. I just believe what I believe and kill time on my computer like most people.

Chill out aneeshm.

[Spiffor]

After having skimmed the thread (which sucks btw), I have a few remarks:

1. Who the heck takes Drixnak seriously? He's a very likely DL, and he's an obvious troll. How can any experience 'polytubbie bother with that?

2. This is a guerilla attacking a police outpost. A police jungle outpost, i.e. one that is here solely to make sure the territory is under Indian rule and not guerilla rule. Calling such an act "terrorism" removes all meaning to the word, so that it means "something done by someone we don't like". It's not like they have killed defenseless civilians to instill fear: they killed armed professionals.

3. A much better case for the Naxalites being terrorists would be them blowing up villager-transporting trucks last year, killing 25.

4. We don't have enough elements to know whether the Naxalites have a horrible twisted mind for putting down landmines around: if the police outpost is isolated in the jungle, and if they only put those mines down in the immediate area surrounding it, I see it as a guerilla tactic to prevent the police from reclaiming its infrastructure too soon. If the area is populated, the Naxalites put civilians in danger .

5. Kid, you shouldn't be immediately siding with the guerilla for the mere reason it calls itself communist, and demands land for the people. You should first evaluate if you agree with their methods (guerilla, and even terrorism in the case of the 2006 bombings).
You should also wonder whether their methods are any efficient. 20 years of guerilla, 6000 dead brought what results exactly? Or if not results, it brought what progress exactly?

[Cort Haus]

Spiff, since when did terrorism involve only killing civilians rather than police?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
5. Kid, you shouldn't be immediately siding with the guerilla for the mere reason it calls itself communist, and demands land for the people. You should first evaluate if you agree with their methods (guerilla, and even terrorism in the case of the 2006 bombings).
You should also wonder whether their methods are any efficient. 20 years of guerilla, 6000 dead brought what results exactly? Or if not results, it brought what progress exactly?

Spiff, I don't know if it has brought much progress. I don't know if anything does. Obviously they think it is the best strategy available to them, which is fine with me. I hate to see terrorist attacks though, but regardless I don't just blaim the rebels. This is a result of the social system in India and the world.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Spiff, since when did terrorism involve only killing civilians rather than police?

Terrorism is a specific method of warfare, whose sole aim is to strike fear (hence "terror"), so that the political power gives in to the terrorists' demands.

As such, terrorism avoids any direct confrontation with armed forces, to focus on the softest targets it can find. The more random and murderous the strike, the more fear it instills.

Here, they weren't attacking isolated policemen in their families (in such a case, the policemen would have been soft targets). They attacked a police outpost in the jungle, stole weapons and partly disabled the outpost. It looks like a typical guerilla tactic - sure they used surprise, but so does everybody- aimed at asserting power over a territory.

It doesn't look like it's aimed at killing random people so as to strike fear in the public opinion.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Spiff, I don't know if it has brought much progress. I don't know if anything does. Obviously they think it is the best strategy available to them, which is fine with me. I hate to see terrorist attacks though, but regardless I don't just blaim the rebels. This is a result of the social system in India and the world.

If the guerilla had called itself fascistic, you'd be the first one to support your extermination Or am I wrong?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If the guerilla had called itself fascistic, you'd be the first one to support your extermination Or am I wrong?

If I understand what you are saying you are right, but that's because I'm a communist. I wouldn't be saying that this was a terrorist attack though. I wouldn't even be arguing that they are just criminals like some people are here.

[Kidlicious]

Another problem is the idea that because a group has commited terrorist acts in the past that everything else they do is considered not worth defending. I think if you actually apply this across the board you can't defend very many actions. A lot of groups have done things that you might not agree with, but things that you do agree with.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Terrorism is a specific method of warfare, whose sole aim is to strike fear (hence "terror"), so that the political power gives in to the terrorists' demands.

As such, terrorism avoids any direct confrontation with armed forces, to focus on the softest targets it can find. The more random and murderous the strike, the more fear it instills.

Here, they weren't attacking isolated policemen in their families (in such a case, the policemen would have been soft targets). They attacked a police outpost in the jungle, stole weapons and partly disabled the outpost. It looks like a typical guerilla tactic - sure they used surprise, but so does everybody- aimed at asserting power over a territory.

It doesn't look like it's aimed at killing random people so as to strike fear in the public opinion.

If I have understood your position, it sounds here as if you consider terrorism to only involve attacks on civilians. While I understand the reasoning behind such a literal interpretation, I subscibe to the wider definition.

Attacking military and police targets is a common tactic to get the authorities to retaliate in a way that radicalises more civilians into joining the guerillas / freedom fighters / liberators / terrorists / insurgents.

The ultimate aim is to provoke civil war / mass insurgency, at some level, and while the tactics do not directly terrorise civilians, as acts of provocation I would consider them to be acts of terror.

[Arrian]

I'd have to agree that an attack on a police station is not necessarily terrorism... a rebel group could consider that a valid military target.

Bombing busloads of villagers, otoh, is clear terrorism. And we have both of 'poly's Indian posters telling us these guys are scum.

I mean, think of it: LS and aneeshm are agreeing on something. I have a pretty high degree of confidence that they've got it right.

-Arrian