VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:11:42 03/13/03 Thu
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: Counter Terrorism
In reply to: Perceptor II 's message, "Why terrorism, ALL terrorism, is evil." on 21:23:46 03/12/03 Wed

Muh... lovely reading all this stuff late at night when your brain is half asleep... anyway, lessee if I can compose some kind of reply that can make some vague sense..

First of all, let me point out that Mahatma Gandhi's movement occured *before* the advent of the sub-machine gun. That kind of peaceful movement would not work today IMHO (re: Tiananmen Square).

Secondly, let me point out (yeah, I repeat myself a LOT when I'm tired) that I never for one moment said that terrorism was a good thing -- merely that people don't always do it out of abject malice. Some do. For example, Osama Bin Laden. Others do it for a greater cause. You may not agree with their cause, and even if you did, you may not agree with their methodology - nor am I asking you to. But as pointed out before, terrorism is not a nation, but a concept -- how can you declare war on a concept? Only if the terrorism is being committed by a nation, such as Israel and Palestine (and here we see the US taking sides).

Thirdly, the initial stages of the American war of independence did involve terrorism, as it did terrify colonial British citizens. No, they didn't go over to the UK and bomb Big Ben, but that's because they lacked the resources -- but that doesn't mean that what they didn't wasn't a form of terrorism just because it was comparatively more technologically primitive. I mean, can we say that what happened on September 11 shouldn't be considered a form of terrorism compared to the billions of people who could die from a single blast from the Death Star?

Fourthly, if all forms of terrorism are evil, does this include terrorism committed by the United States? War of independence aside, what about the US's current war against drugs, and the innocent people who are suffering from it? For example, US forces have been covering fields in Columbia with chemicals designed to destroy crops. Sure, it destroys all the drug crops, but at the same time, the Americans are also destroying all the FOOD crops too. Thus innocent people are starving. Doesn't that count as a form of chemical terrorism?

Fifthly, a terrorist may not be committing an act of terrorism out of hate. Often, terrorism is committed out of desperation. For example, a Palestinian suicide bomber would be blowing up an Israeli bus, not necessarily because he hates Jews (although I'll admit that he'd most likely hate Jews -- but let's pretend for a moment that he doesn't), but because he feels that there is no other way to repel the Israeli forces encrouching along the West Bank. What else are the Palestinian people to do? Surrender? They can't take on a US funded and armed Israeli army head on. He may feel that the only way to secure a future for his children is to strike at the only place that he can strike -- he cannot attack the military, so he attacks their civilians. He hopes that the deaths of these civilians will persuade the Israeli government to negotiate peace and stop the further deaths of more civilians -- Israeli or Palestinian. At least, that's what would be motivating a Palestinian suicide bomber in a more ideal world anyway. In reality, he's just another anti-Semitic guy who needs to kill some Jews.

Back to the issue of Iraq...

What is a war on Iraq going to accomplish?
A lot of dead people in Baghdad, that's for sure. Saddam's death? Uncertain.

Right now, Iraq has taken NO aggressive action against another nation. Okay, Saddam may be oppressing his own people, but he's not attacking any other country. If he has any illegal weapons of mass destruction, he's currently not using them.

If Iraq goes to war, Saddam will most likely use his weapons of mass destruction -- which is supposedly the one thing that the US is trying to stop Saddam Hussein from doing in the first place!! Those missiles that we want him to disassemble... they're not being fired. If we attack Iraq, chances are that they WILL be fired!

The US is saying that they don't want Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction, yet they're provoking them to do just that, because if Iraq is attacked, then it will be precisely those weapons that it will use to defend itself. And the victims will be the people or Iraq -- the people that we're supposedly trying to save.

Furthermore, as I pointed out before, Iraq and Al Qaeda currently have no form of allegiance with each other, but if attacked by Allied forces, then the two factions may unite against a common foe.

It is because of these reasons that the United Nations is still trying to pursue other avenues of resolution other than war.

At the moment, Tony Blair seems unsure about whether or not he'll still press on with backing the US if they launch an unauthorised attack. John Howard has pledged full loyalty to the US and it seems certain that Australian troops will be deployed alongside US forces with or without UN approval. If the US and Australia are willing to defy the mandate of the United Nations, then what is the point of being a signatory of the United Nations? Why continue to be a member of the UN if you're not even going to respect its authority? And if the US and Australia are to go against the UN, then how would that not make them rogue nations? By international law I think it would -- and both Bush and Howard would be eligible to stand trial as war criminals in the International Crimes Court.

Okay, my brain has fallen asleep now and I no longer have any idea what I'm talking about.

I having my head shaved tomorrow to raise money for leukemia research... I've raised over $700 so far. Goodbye hair.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.