0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I also do not understand how any terrorist group could be given so much sway over a country, for they now must know that if they let a bomb off or attempt to let a bomb off, the government of the country in question will start adding in all kinds of new laws and then each time it happens again add even more.
This really is a issue of resolving/removing the terrorists motivation (economic and theological) and Helping the security service to prevent them happening in the future! New laws don't do either!
Well it seems also that a terrorist today has more sway over government policy than a citizen. That cannot be right! Citizens don't have much say, but a terrorist should have even less surely.
Surely it is more important rather than increasing our laws, to ask why exactly are they attacking us?
I just don't buy the ´they hate our freedom line´; especially when delivered by the politicians that also seem to hate them to!
If believe this to be a war, then you must except that as all wars are economic, economic motivation lays behind this group. IRA independence for Ireland, ETA again independence for pas basco they are ultimately economically motivated- in these cases, economic freedom from Britain and Spain.So I would argue that really rather than this fight against terrorism to be a fight against a hatered of freedom, it is really the expression of the desire of certain elements who have influence in the middle east to be economically free of the west.
Those that put the bombs are really nothing more than the puppets of others, manipulated into killing themselves and others in the belief that they act for God
Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 20:53:21This really is a issue of resolving/removing the terrorists motivation (economic and theological) and Helping the security service to prevent them happening in the future! New laws don't do either!Agreed!The point about new laws is that it makes politicians look like they are doing something (even if that something is useless, but at least they think it looks better than doing nothing, even if doing nothing may be the best thing to do).Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 20:53:21Well it seems also that a terrorist today has more sway over government policy than a citizen. That cannot be right! Citizens don't have much say, but a terrorist should have even less surely. But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process. If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.
Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 20:53:21Surely it is more important rather than increasing our laws, to ask why exactly are they attacking us? That would be sensible, but not political - a politician never admits he is wrong, and to ask why these people are attacking us is dangerously close to saying we may have got things wrong.
Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 20:53:21I just don't buy the ´they hate our freedom line´; especially when delivered by the politicians that also seem to hate them to!Maybe the first question to ask is: who are they?.Any large political group is composed of many different subgroups, each with different reasons for doing as they do.Clearly, both Afghanistan (here I am talking more about the 1980s than the 2001 war), and Iraq post 2003, have had a significant impact on the matter, as has the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (if only in its symbolism, even if maybe not so much in being a direct source of campaign).One of the reasons clearly is, as was raised by Mr Andrews in the topic regarding sending men to Mars, it is that people need to feel they can make a difference, and so when people feel powerless to make a difference in any other way, they take desperate actions.
Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 20:53:21If believe this to be a war, then you must except that as all wars are economic, economic motivation lays behind this group. IRA independence for Ireland, ETA again independence for pas basco they are ultimately economically motivated- in these cases, economic freedom from Britain and Spain.So I would argue that really rather than this fight against terrorism to be a fight against a hatered of freedom, it is really the expression of the desire of certain elements who have influence in the middle east to be economically free of the west.I agree that it is a desire for freedom from interference from the West, but I think it is wider and deeper than merely economic freedom (bear in mind that Al Qaeda was born, as much as anywhere, in Saudi Arabia, which has significant economic freedom, but is still substantially a political puppet of the West).
Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 20:53:21Those that put the bombs are really nothing more than the puppets of others, manipulated into killing themselves and others in the belief that they act for GodWith this I agree - but this goes back to saying there are many groups involved in this, and each see their role in a different light.
Quote from: another_someone on 02/07/2007 21:31:29But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process. If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.Well it depends doesn't it, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by Britain, but today is excepted that really he was more of a freedom fighter, who fought against the injustice of apartheid.
But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process. If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.
Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 21:58:35Quote from: another_someone on 02/07/2007 21:31:29But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process. If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.Well it depends doesn't it, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by Britain, but today is excepted that really he was more of a freedom fighter, who fought against the injustice of apartheid.This goes back to one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.This is shown most starkly when one looks and Bin Laden. So long as Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, he was a freedom fighter; but when he turned his attentions to America, he became a terrorist.To Bin Laden's eye's, it was all part of the same war - a war of independence from foreign interference in Muslim lands, and he had no reason to distinguish between Soviet or American interference. It is only the American perspective which, understandably, regards American interference as positive, and Soviet interference as negative, and so regarding the same action taken against the Soviets as the act of a freedom fighter, while the act taken against America is an act of terrorism.
Yeah, so in terms of Afganistan how would you assess who really is a terrorist of freedom fighter?I suppose really you look to the group or persons who work for the benefit of the afganistani people before themselves. So really I think neither america or russia work in those term nor bin-landen for that matter. The guy who ran the north allience seems to be the only one who really worked in a good vain there, the lion of the desert? Can remember his name. He was killed just before 9/11 by al Qaeda.So as a question how do you step out of a conflict and asses who really is working for the benifit of the population?
Quote from: jolly on 02/07/2007 23:32:30Yeah, so in terms of Afghanistan how would you assess who really is a terrorist of freedom fighter?I suppose really you look to the group or persons who work for the benefit of the afganistani people before themselves. So really I think neither America or Russia work in those term nor bin-landen for that matter. The guy who ran the north alliance seems to be the only one who really worked in a good vain there, the lion of the desert? Can remember his name. He was killed just before 9/11 by al Qaeda.So as a question how do you step out of a conflict and asses who really is working for the benefit of the population? Who is working for the benefit of the population, or who believes themselves to be working for the benefit of the population?
Yeah, so in terms of Afghanistan how would you assess who really is a terrorist of freedom fighter?I suppose really you look to the group or persons who work for the benefit of the afganistani people before themselves. So really I think neither America or Russia work in those term nor bin-landen for that matter. The guy who ran the north alliance seems to be the only one who really worked in a good vain there, the lion of the desert? Can remember his name. He was killed just before 9/11 by al Qaeda.So as a question how do you step out of a conflict and asses who really is working for the benefit of the population?
The commander I think you are referring is Ahmad Shāh Mas'ūd, who was a very skilful commander, but there is no reason to believe he was any more or less altruistic than many other of the war lords (and formed part of the post communist administration that was riven with infighting and corruption, and that finally was brought down by the Taliban),
or even other guerilla/terrorist leaders - such as Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reynoso, who formed the Shining Path movement in Peru, who, like Bin Laden, could easily have lived a comfortable life life without having to expose himself to the risks of leading a movement that indulges in violent politics. This is not to judge whether these people actually did act in their nations best interest, only that they acted not out of self interest, but in the belief (even if delusional) that they were acting for some wider good.