What do you think about terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

I know that the topic is quite serious and for some, especially for Americans particularly sensitive, but I would like honest debate on this issue.

At the beginning can be a delicate version of terrorism, which is generally no one is killed, namely, eco-terrorism

Recently started on about the movie "Hoot," a touching tale tale about kids fighting for the preservation of wild owls nest at risk of extinction. As mentioned earlier the main characters are two kids one boy with a whim of fate tossed in the provinces, the second boy is in love with nature a little hippie blond boy. The two boys became friends quickly joined a "special" bond.
The main enemy is greedy Machiavellian businessman who plans to build on-site restaurants defenseless little owls nesting.
The brave boys they try to unmask the diabolical conspiracy greedy bad guy, but unfortunately they did not succeed because of the age difference. Our villain is an adult while our heroes are young brat. after all, who would believe them are children.
So our heroes go to their senses and used a new tactic that is eco-terrorism.

This summary is probably sufficient. I added below some links to reviews where the author also looks for promotion of eco-terrorism in the film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453494/ [Description of the movie in IMDB]

And movie critics about eco-terrorism ;

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/so ... rorism/31/
http://www.ucora.org/forum/index.php?topic=2077.0

This film is not new, I know it, but his story is worth further thought , moreover, there is quite a lot of action films featuring the guerrilla or terrorist in a positive light, even though "Avatar" by James Cameron, Star Trek: Insurrection, and almost the entire Star Trek: DS9 (The Bajoran) , Star Trek: Voy ( The maquis)

Eco-terrorism is only the beginning, though I would like to know how are referring to the above case. I'm interested in your opinion on terrorism in the political struggle, takch shady organizations like Al-Qaeda, ETA, IRA and other similar. Is the goal really sanctifies any means?

Americans Independence of their country also owe to "irregular warfare" once the UK Government defined the American rebels as terrorists, it is worth remembering.

The problem is deep:

You mentioned US independence fighters - but the are not alone:

My grandfather was "terrorist" - he blew up trains, made ambushes and kill soldiers... (I even know where, and I spent a lot of time with metal detector searching for remains of history)
He was so good in it, that he's mentioned in historical books

He was guerilla fighter against nazi - but at that time, under the prevailing law - he was considered "terrorist"


Other example: in may area eco-activists made some really big protest actions against local and central government - because some people try to pave express road trough protected areas.
They was branded "eco-terrorists"... the whole thing finished in EU court... eco-activists win without bigger problems... and after that, some people from local government finished with criminal charges (corruption, et cetera..)


so...

I think there is only one method to sort "terrorist" from "brave freedom/glorious case fighter" - we just have to remember that history is written by those who win...

Terrorism can have no universal definition. If you are terrorized by some people, you can claim that they are terrorists, but it would be only according to your own paradigm. Muslim people in Palestine are terrorized by Israelis according to Palestinians, Israelis are claiming just the opposite. In fact, it's a war of attrition and nobody cares about peace or human lives.

Look at Syria now, it is the same. USA, Israel and Turkey claim that rebels in Syria are actually ''freedom fighters'', whereas China, Russia and Iran stated that they are ''terrorists''.

Terrorism is also a good excuse to wage war against another nation and claim its resources. If there is no threat from the nation on target... well, any nation can harm itself by staging some incident and blame another by using mass media.

An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

The term "terrorist" has been pulled and pushed so many ways to support so many political agendas that it has become meaningless.

Asymmetric warfare is one technique among many for fighting battles. The causes for which these battles are fought can be judged and should be judged first, rather than the mode of fighting.

The people on the extreme left have gone so far as to declare that aerial bombardment is a terror tactic. It is no such thing. It is just another way of killing the enemy and destroying his assets.

ruveyn

What do I think about terrorism? Well, to answer this question, I must know what terrorism is first. I believe Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983) can help me out here. Terrorism is “the systematic use of terror esp[ecially] as a means a coercion.” That’s all well and good but now I must what exactly is meant by terror. In the dictionary I’m using, there are several definitions of terror. The definition most relevant to my purpose in answering this question is the fourth. Terror is “violence (as bomb-throwing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.” Now, I will construct a definition of the word “terrorism” by using the definition of the word “terror” and omitting any redundant and/or superfluous phrases there may be. Therefore, terrorism is the systematic use of violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. I think this is a pretty good definition of “terrorism.” Now, with this definition in mind, what do I think about terrorism?

There is a point which I would like to make about terrorism. All states and governments, every class dictatorship throughout history has been, is, and will be a terrorist entity. All governments use terror to enforce themselves. The terrorism of some governments, however, is more obvious than that of others. Robespierre’s France hardly concealed its terrorism at all. This should need no further explanation. France today also uses terrorism though its terrorism is concealed. I will explain. Say there is a law in France against stealing. There probably is. Now say a poor man steals a loaf of bread and is caught. That man must either submit to the will of the French government which will likely demand, among other thing, that he pay for the loaf and that he be somehow punished or else there will be violence inflicted upon him (should he resist arrest, try to escape from jail, etc.). If I go back to my definition of terrorism, I see that it is the systematic use of violence committed by groups (the French government in this case) in order to intimidate a population or government (the individual thief and the whole population of thieves in France in this case) into granting their demands (accepting the law against stealing in this case). Terrorism is neither an explicitly good thing nor an explicitly bad thing. Terrorism itself is merely a tactic, a means to an end. Like all means, it can be justified by the end just so long as the end itself is justified.

I differentiate a terrorist from a guerrilla or freedom fighter by their choice of targets; the terrorist deliberately selects civilian targets while the other two attack military or political targets, thought they may share other methodologies. I do try and avoid the word as much as possible though, as these days it really can mean anything depending upon whom you're talking to.