Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

What Is Terrorism (Baby Don't Hurt Me)

245

Posts

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Here's a good one, for example: does the victim of terrorism have to be a civilian in order for it to be terrorism?

    Yes.

    Can you commit acts of terrorism against a military target, and if so, what separates that from a traditional military attack?

    No.
    Uniforms?

    I've always thought the best definition of terrorism is 'a violent act against civilians to produce fear and influence a political outcome'

    911 - Terrorism
    USS Cole - Not Terrorism
    Firebombing of Dresden - Not Terrorism
    Grupo Colina - Terrorism

    The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?

    I think you guys are just too muddled in the negative connotation of terrorism. Because you agree with someone's goals does not make then not a terrorist.

    It's definitely a gray area. If they flew a private jet into the pentagon then yeah, not terrorism. The Pentagon is a military installation. (Edit: Beat'd)

    And I don't know what you mean re: agreeing with someone's goals. If you're referring to me, I should probably clarify, bombing the USS Cole was 100% a dick move and I think everyone responsible for that should be shot, but it wasn't a terrorist act.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?

    The use of a civilian airliner as the weapon makes that a lot murkier.

    Had Al-Qaeda used a missile instead of a Boeing, then I would be perfectly comfortable saying that no, it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.
    Couldn't they just as easily claim the civilians on the plane count as "collateral damage" as our CIA agents do when they use drone attacks to kill 20-40 civilians to target one or two enemy combatants?

    Qingu on
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?

    The use of a civilian airliner as the weapon makes that a lot murkier.

    Had Al-Qaeda used a missile instead of a Boeing, then I would be perfectly comfortable saying that no, it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.

    This here.


    The major target in the 9/11 attacks was a civilian target, using a civilian "weapon" so to speak

    Just because there's a guy in a uniform in the crowd when the bomb goes off doesn't mean it's not terrorism.

    As well, al-qaeda even followed up the attacks with a responsibility claim and political message. It's terrorism bros sorry

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I think that, ideally, the ability to use violent force should be concentrated in the hands of state actors. This idea is the fundamental basis of police action.

    ...

    However, I do think there is a sort of moral superiority when force is carried out by a state as opposed to an individual—having nothing to do with the act itself mind you, but rather with the scheme of organization and accountability that leads to the act. In other words: all things being equal, I am more morally comfortable with acts of force by state actors than by individuals.

    Okay. I agree on the first point.

    The second, however, I'm not sure about. We give states the privilege of force because there are only certain situations in which the use of force is moral. Outside of these situations, states is not acting with the authority of the social contract. In other words, a soldier killing a noncombatant for no good reason - I'm not talking about accidental collateral damage here, or a misidentification of a noncombatant as a combatant in a tense situation, I'm talking about a simple execution-style killing - is not using force for the reasons we agree soldiers should be given the privilege of force. In that moment, he is not actually a state actor - he may have the uniform of one, and the title, and be following the orders of somebody else with a uniform and title - but from a philosophical and moral position he is nothing more than a brutal murderer. He has no moral superiority over any other killer.

    In fact, because we do concentrate this privilege in the hands of state actors, I think we need to apply very close scrutiny to them... which is why I think in some cases the punishment for, for example, police brutality should be greater than similar acts committed by civilians. Great power, as the comic book says, comes with great responsibility.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Literally no one argued that 9/11 wasn't terrorism.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I've evoked Nazis and 1984 in this thread, and we're talking about terrorism. That's got to be some kind of Internet debate hat trick.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?

    The use of a civilian airliner as the weapon makes that a lot murkier.

    Had Al-Qaeda used a missile instead of a Boeing, then I would be perfectly comfortable saying that no, it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.

    This here.


    The major target in the 9/11 attacks was a civilian target, using a civilian "weapon" so to speak

    Just because there's a guy in a uniform in the crowd when the bomb goes off doesn't mean it's not terrorism.

    As well, al-qaeda even followed up the attacks with a responsibility claim and political message. It's terrorism bros sorry
    The ratio of military to civilian targets in Dresden, or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was probably pretty close to those of 9/11.

    Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"? I would argue that 9/11 was wrong less because they killed a bunch of people (which is always wrong) and more because it was not done remotely for any greater good (as you could argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki were—the lesser of two evils)—and specifically because the supposed moral justification for 9/11 is a batshit psychotic medieval cult mythology involving religious intolerance, women's oppression, and flying donkeys.

    Qingu on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    To state my above point a little more concisely...

    The moral calculus regarding force precedes the state privilege of force.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Similarly targeting a political leader, such as Hitler, would be assassination. The only exception I can think of would be if you were killing political leaders as a means of creating fear within the populace. Killing off a slew of judges until no one will take the job so no one will prosecute members of your drug cartel, which would nicely muddy things in a terrorist direction.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?

    I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."

    We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Okay. I agree on the first point.

    The second, however, I'm not sure about. We give states the privilege of force because there are only certain situations in which the use of force is moral. Outside of these situations, states is not acting with the authority of the social contract. In other words, a soldier killing a noncombatant for no good reason - I'm not talking about accidental collateral damage here, or a misidentification of a noncombatant as a combatant in a tense situation, I'm talking about a simple execution-style killing - is not using force for the reasons we agree soldiers should be given the privilege of force. In that moment, he is not actually a state actor - he may have the uniform of one, and the title, and be following the orders of somebody else with a uniform and title - but from a philosophical and moral position he is nothing more than a brutal murderer. He has no moral superiority over any other killer.

    In fact, because we do concentrate this privilege in the hands of state actors, I think we need to apply very close scrutiny to them... which is why I think in some cases the punishment for, for example, police brutality should be greater than similar acts committed by civilians. Great power, as the comic book says, comes with great responsibility.
    I certainly agree in principle; I think this would be extraordinarily difficult to enforce in practice. And also that police officers and soldiers are human beings who are put into life-and-death situations; it's all well to say they should have increased responsibility and accountability, but everyone makes mistakes and snaps, and it is unrealistic to expect such people not to make mistakes or snap. Unfortunately, when they do so, innocent people are killed.

    This is why we need more robots

    Qingu on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?

    I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."

    We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.

    Well, sometimes its necessary, in a war, to batter an opponent's civilian population to the breaking point, as in the doctrine of total war, because otherwise there would be no end in sight to the war since the civilian population is completely committed to it. Which results in massive acts of terrorism against the enemy population.

    For example, Sherman's march was drastic, but necessary in order to weaken the resolve of the Confederacy. However, its easy to justify such a thing in hindsight. In the eyes of the Southern people, Sherman was a complete monster. In the eyes of the North, Sherman did what was necessary to secure the Union.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I would suggest that the critical component to defining terrorism isn't the terror part -- it's publicity, and specifically the desire of the terrorist actor to get as much of it as possible. Whether we're talking about Basque separatists using explosives to draw attention to their otherwise-obscure political agenda, Khalid Sheik Mohammad streaming the beheading of Daniel Pearl on the Internet, or Timothy McVeigh finally getting his letters published by Fox News after blowing up the Federal Center in Oklahoma City, the desire for intense public attention is what separates a terrorist from other kinds of criminals.

    EDIT: For the military thinkers out there: terrorism isn't defined by the tactic, it's defined by the strategic objective.

    SammyF on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?

    I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."

    We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
    I think terrorism is always wrong, but in some very rare cases it may be the lesser of two evils. Like non-state actors in Vichy France terrorizing Nazi soldiers.

    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    Qingu on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    That's... sheer total goosery

    Violence to obtain basic human rights isn't acceptable because violence begets violence?

    I'm not even sure how to respond to that

    override367 on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I should be slightly less glib about it. What I really think:

    It's a tactic that targets civilians in order to intimidate to achieve some political end.

    Two kinds of terrorism then:

    1) Domestic terrorism is a politically motivated violent felony.
    2) International terrorism is a war crime by a non-state actor. Or, if we recognize non-state actors as capable of being entities capable of waging war, they're just war crimes.

    I do have a problem with usage of the word terrorism though. It's increasingly a word used to justify heinous actions by the government. Why is what happened at Gitmo acceptable to something like half the public? Because those people are terrorists. And the way the right and the media use the term, it's had an implicit adjective "Islamic" added to it. Therefore, the militia types or the murderer of Dr. Tiller can't be terrorists, and neither can the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    The attack against the Pentagon on 9/11 wasn't terrorism then?

    The use of a civilian airliner as the weapon makes that a lot murkier.

    Had Al-Qaeda used a missile instead of a Boeing, then I would be perfectly comfortable saying that no, it wasn't terrorism, it was an act of war.

    This here.


    The major target in the 9/11 attacks was a civilian target, using a civilian "weapon" so to speak

    Just because there's a guy in a uniform in the crowd when the bomb goes off doesn't mean it's not terrorism.

    As well, al-qaeda even followed up the attacks with a responsibility claim and political message. It's terrorism bros sorry
    The ratio of military to civilian targets in Dresden, or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was probably pretty close to those of 9/11.

    Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"? I would argue that 9/11 was wrong less because they killed a bunch of people (which is always wrong) and more because it was not done remotely for any greater good (as you could argue Hiroshima and Nagasaki were—the lesser of two evils)—and specifically because the supposed moral justification for 9/11 is a batshit psychotic medieval cult mythology involving religious intolerance, women's oppression, and flying donkeys.

    Again, Dresden, committed by state actor, so it's an act of war. We actually already have a term for this, it's called total war

    Also 9/11 was done because of the US's involvement in the middle east and particularly their backing of Israel. Al-Qaeda made it pretty blatant they want to remove US support of Israel. So in their eyes, 9/11 was for a greater good, and wasn't just some kind of religion thing (although certain aspects of Islamic extremism created the method of the attack)
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    haha, what?

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    That's... sheer total goosery

    Violence to obtain basic human rights isn't acceptable because violence begets violence?

    I'm not even sure how to respond to that

    This.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'll give Qingu this: the American Revolution was kind of a ridiculous overreaction to being asked to pay for the war the British fought for the American colonies. But of course, ridiculous overreactions to taxes to pay for things done to benefit Americans is part of our national character, isn't it?

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
    Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA

    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    Edit: Metal Gear Solid 2, re: FF7 and Star Wars—I guess I should explain. The extent to which "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are celebrated in our popular culture, and the complete lack of moral ambiguity over their actions and killings, really bothers me. The Empire (or Shinra, or Cocoon Sanctum, or whatever incarnation) is always cast as evil, and every person working for the Empire, every soldier fighting for the Empire, can be killed without any moral compunction.

    Qingu on
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Well the thing is he cites 2 fictional rebellions (that worked), 2 real ones that worked, then one that's kind of on-going but has been a huge pain for the oppressor.
    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    In modern first world countries, sure. Go outside that to places where the state actor doesn't really mind a few mass graves, and not so much.

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'll give Qingu this: the American Revolution was kind of a ridiculous overreaction to being asked to pay for the war the British fought for the American colonies. But of course, ridiculous overreactions to taxes to pay for things done to benefit Americans is part of our national character, isn't it?

    Eh the king was kind of a dick
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
    Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA

    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    You realize that in many places and times a peaceful march results in lots of dead peaceful people?

    override367 on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Its completely justified to rebel against one's government if it has already broken the social contract.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
    Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA

    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.

    SammyF on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?

    I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."

    We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
    It's the equivalent of throwing up the "killing babies" card in an abortion debate. No one's going to outright say that they think it's ok to "kill babies". Which is why the anti- side always goes for it... they don't care that it's a double-whammy of fallacies or that it completely ignores the original argument.

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Its completely justified to rebel against one's government if it has already broken the social contract.

    Or to quote the Third Countess of Kent you are:
    Some tea drinkin' motherfuckers. Motherfuckers love their motherfuckin' tea.
    Yes, I looked that up in America: The Book.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Again, I think what you are asking isn't really "is it terrorism" so much as "is it wrong"?

    I don't think the vast majority of people are prepared to say "sometimes terrorism is okay."

    We, in this thread might be, because we're the great enlightened thinkers of the Pennius Arcadus salon, but I think we need to take into account the popular connotations of the word we're discussing.
    It's the equivalent of throwing up the "killing babies" card in an abortion debate. No one's going to outright say that they think it's ok to "kill babies". Which is why the anti- side always goes for it... they don't care that it's a double-whammy of fallacies or that it completely ignores the original argument.

    If you discount a whole ton of other factors sure

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    You realize that in many places and times a peaceful march results in lots of dead peaceful people?
    Of course.

    I'm not saying it's wrong for people to risk their lives to fight for basic dignity. I'm saying it's usually wrong, and often counterproductive, to risk your lives to fight for basic dignity by attacking the soldiers.

    Qingu on
  • Metal Gear Solid 2 DemoMetal Gear Solid 2 Demo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    You realize that in many places and times a peaceful march results in lots of dead peaceful people?
    Of course.

    I'm not saying it's wrong for people to risk their lives to fight for basic dignity. I'm saying it's usually wrong, and often counterproductive, to risk your lives to fight for basic dignity by attacking the soldiers.

    You're going to have to define "usually" because right now it just reads like "I'm not saying it's wrong but it's wrong"

    Metal Gear Solid 2 Demo on
    SteamID- Enders || SC2 ID - BurningCrome.721 || Blogging - Laputan Machine
    1385396-1.png
    Orikae! |RS| : why is everyone yelling 'enders is dead go'
    When I say pop it that means pop it
    heavy.gif
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    SammyF wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
    Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA

    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.

    Because truly, there was no violent legacy in post-colonial India.

    legal-india-pakistan-map.gif

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Not after Snake Gandhi fucked them all up.

    GungHo on
    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    SammyF wrote: »
    I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.
    This.

    I should probably say that "my point" is sort of based on the assumption that over time things naturally (and without need of violence) get better.

    Qingu on
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    SammyF wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
    Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA

    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.

    Those circumstances are pretty different, with a lot more issues than just how they gained independence. Just to start, India is at least somewhat homogenous ethnically and religiously, but many African nations are hodgepodges of tribes put together near randomly by European powers divvying up Africa amongst themselves.

    Even if they rebelled peacefully, they still probably would have collapsed into civil wars.

    Edit: Enlightenedbum is right, India was a violent place before and after the British left.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    And again: India was neither peaceful nor stable for a long time after it became independent. Hell, Kashmir is still the most likely trigger of a nuclear war on the planet until Iran gets the bomb and Israel or the US is a threat to do something stupid.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    You're going to have to define "usually" because right now it just reads like "I'm not saying it's wrong but it's wrong"
    The only exemption that immediately comes to mind would be genocide, and that's when "fighting back violently" verges into "self-defense."

    Slavery? I am not sure. It's something I've thought a lot about—was it worth the death of 600,000 people to stop slavery in America? I am of the opinion that slavery would have disappeared naturally with the spread of industrialism. However, this doesn't answer whether fighting back violently against a state trying to enslave you would be morally justified in a time long before industrialization; I'm willing to say it is, but I'm really not sure.

    Qingu on
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Jephery wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
    Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA

    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    I don't think Qingu's doing a great job at advocating his point, but he does have one. Consider the dichotomy between India's civil disobedience against the backdrop of all the violent revolutions that took place towards the end of Colonialism. The violent legacy of post-colonialism is still playing out in Africa today, in the form of unstable governments and not-infrequent attempts at genocide. India, by contrast, is today the world's largest democracy.

    Those circumstances are pretty different, with a lot more issues than just how they gained independence. Just to start, India is at least somewhat homogenous ethnically and religiously, but many African nations are hodgepodges of tribes put together near randomly by European powers divvying up Africa amongst themselves.

    Even if they rebelled peacefully, they still probably would have collapsed into civil wars.

    The reason India is homogeneous is because they violently split up. The Partition of India was a human rights disaster which still has a massive impact on politics and violence in the sub-continent.

    big l on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    The French Resistance in WW2 was absolutely terrorism.

    Sometimes terrorists aren't the bad guys

    I'd find it pretty hard to argue that the thousands of bombs dropped on the civilian populations of Axis countries in the Second World War wasn't terrorism, insomuch as it was absolutely intended to utterly terrorize the civilian population, as well as limit their warfare making capability, indiscriminately. A broken enemy population is not just a huge advantageous it is, potentially, the greatest advantage you could hope for in total war.

    That being said, I can completely understand why it was done. Just like I can completely understand why German bombers struck at London.

    So, either war effectively negates anything as terrorism, or terrorism--in as far as spreading terror--just goes hand-in-hand with older (though not necessarily our current) methods of making war.

    Soviet Partisans absolutely relied on terror as a tool against the German Army. And I can appreciate why they thought they were absolutely justified in doing it. Was it terrorism? Yeah, probably. I certainly bet the Germans did.

    (I have a feeling this is all already discussed, but I wanted to state my agreement.)

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    And again: India was neither peaceful nor stable for a long time after it became independent. Hell, Kashmir is still the most likely trigger of a nuclear war on the planet until Iran gets the bomb and Israel or the US is a threat to do something stupid.
    This is really tangental to the question of a proper indigenous response against colonialist forces.

    I mean, I don't think you're arguing that India would have been more stable or peaceful had Ghandi used violence.

    Qingu on
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    However, unless it's a genocide at stake, I feel pretty confident in saying that using force to fight back against a sovereign state's army is never justified. That includes the Maccabees, the American Revolution, Palestinians, the Rebels in Star Wars, and AVALANCHE in Final Fantasy 7. Violence begets violence, and being occupied and having your religion or ideology shat on is better than perpetuating a cycle of violence.

    I'm not really comfortable with any schema where the morally acceptable response to an invasion or occupation is to bend over and take it in the ass.
    Nonviolent resistance =/= BOATIITA

    There are ways to promote basic human rights that don't involve using violence. And when those ways don't work, I think that with a very few exceptions, actually killing people isn't worth it.

    Edit: Metal Gear Solid 2, re: FF7 and Star Wars—I guess I should explain. The extent to which "rebels" and "freedom fighters" are celebrated in our popular culture, and the complete lack of moral ambiguity over their actions and killings, really bothers me. The Empire (or Shinra, or Cocoon Sanctum, or whatever incarnation) is always cast as evil, and every person working for the Empire, every soldier fighting for the Empire, can be killed without any moral compunction.

    It would be nice if the Government leader and Gorilla Leader fought it out 1v1 in person, preferably with lightsabers, but the reality is that grunts on both sides of a conflict die.

    Armed conflict happens, you can say the aggressors were wrong to invade, you can say the oppressed are wrong to rebel with violence, but sometimes there just aren't alternatives available.

    Dman on
Sign In or Register to comment.