At what point does it become ok to use terrorism on your own country? Like setting bombs, executing people, kidnapping etc. At what point does a government lose its legitmacy?
Wednesday
no peaceful goal has ever been achieved using terrorist actions, so the answer to your question is never.
Pug wrote:
Wednesday
Last edited by steelie34 (2009-08-11 12:53:15)
wut
Never.Macbeth wrote:
At what point does it become ok to use terrorism on your own country? Like setting bombs, executing people, kidnapping etc.
When it does stuff like setting bombs, executing people, kidnapping, etc.Macbeth wrote:
At what point does a government lose its legitimacy?
Look at Iran - their government is losing more and more legitimacy daily. Look at Venezuela - Hugo's regime has been losing legitimacy for at least the last few years.
The fact that this question is coming from near New York and the fact that I am replying from a east bloc country must of raised multiple FBI alarms.Macbeth wrote:
At what point does it become ok to use terrorism on your own country? Like setting bombs, executing people, kidnapping etc. At what point does a government lose its legitmacy?
Also, the answer is never, unless the whole population up-rises, your act of terror won't do shit besides helping the government gaining another pretext to invade another nation.
the idea behind democracy is majority rules... since we have the power to change the government, it should never lose legitimacy, as it is 'by the people, for the people.'
Last edited by steelie34 (2009-08-11 13:16:04)
If only it worked..steelie34 wrote:
the idea behind democracy is majority rules... since we have the power to change the government, it should never lose legitimacy, as it is 'by the people, for the people.'
it doesn't? what part of the US democracy doesn't work? if you don't like something, you are free to get as much support as you need to change it! the fact is that people like to complain, but are too lazy to do anything. so they bitch about how the government is failing them, when they have the power to solve their own problems!!Ioan92 wrote:
If only it worked..steelie34 wrote:
the idea behind democracy is majority rules... since we have the power to change the government, it should never lose legitimacy, as it is 'by the people, for the people.'
Romania is not exactly the same as the USofA...steelie34 wrote:
it doesn't? what part of the US democracy doesn't work? if you don't like something, you are free to get as much support as you need to change it! the fact is that people like to complain, but are too lazy to do anything. so they bitch about how the government is failing them, when they have the power to solve their own problems!!Ioan92 wrote:
If only it worked..steelie34 wrote:
the idea behind democracy is majority rules... since we have the power to change the government, it should never lose legitimacy, as it is 'by the people, for the people.'
But your point is strong and firm, you are right. After my country was left devastated by the communist regime, people somehow stopped giving a shit about politics and politicians. We are now being ruled by a bunch of ex-communist politicians that have no bloody clue how a capitalist society would work. Problem is every dude on the voting card is literally the same, hence people stopping to give a damn.
It is said the next generation will repair the country, who knows I might become the head of the People's National Democratic Party of Romania.
Who knows..
Terrorism is OK if it saves people. Killing people is generally a no-no.
Alpha as fuck.
Never
'nuff said
'nuff said
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Only when the moons of Jupiter and Saturn line up with the center of the milky way, casting an intergalactic shadow on the specific country in question.
that wouldn't really be defined as terrorism...Nyte wrote:
Terrorism is OK if it saves people.
Absolutely true.SEREMAKER wrote:
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
@ken. By your own standards if a government were to start doing these things would it be acceptable to do the same thing to the government and its supporters.
I agree good pointIoan92 wrote:
Absolutely true.SEREMAKER wrote:
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Well, it depends on how you want to look at it. Yes, we do have means by which politicians can be removed from office. However, the 2nd amendment was written as a means to have an armed populace so that the government could be removed if necessary, even by force. This was not just considered a right of US citizens, but a duty.
If a man tries to kill me, then I probably will try to kill him. If you are getting to the point that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", well freedom fighters don't wantonly target civilians - if they did they'd be called terrorists. Terrorism hinges on targeting civilian populations to inflict fear. People fighting for freedom would be pretty stupid to target possible supporters of their cause.Macbeth wrote:
@ken. By your own standards if a government were to start doing these things would it be acceptable to do the same thing to the government and its supporters.
If my government started bombing and kidnapping innocent people, I'd get the fuck out. Would I condemn people for trying to exact revenge on those responsible? Probably not, although ideally peaceful demonstrations would usurp the strong arm of the government in question.
a terrorist doesn't have to target civilans to be labeled a terroristKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If a man tries to kill me, then I probably will try to kill him. If you are getting to the point that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", well freedom fighters don't wantonly target civilians - if they did they'd be called terrorists. Terrorism hinges on targeting civilian populations to inflict fear. People fighting for freedom would be pretty stupid to target possible supporters of their cause.Macbeth wrote:
@ken. By your own standards if a government were to start doing these things would it be acceptable to do the same thing to the government and its supporters.
If my government started bombing and kidnapping innocent people, I'd get the fuck out. Would I condemn people for trying to exact revenge on those responsible? Probably not, although ideally peaceful demonstrations would usurp the strong arm of the government in question.
Anno Domini 1917Macbeth wrote:
At what point does it become ok to use terrorism on your own country?
^^gotta agree with him on this one. I reckon it all depends on your opinion, whereas a lot people in the middle east might see Hamas as freedom fighters, other people see them as terrorists. Hence like sere said, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighterSEREMAKER wrote:
a terrorist doesn't have to target civilans to be labeled a terroristKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If a man tries to kill me, then I probably will try to kill him. If you are getting to the point that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", well freedom fighters don't wantonly target civilians - if they did they'd be called terrorists. Terrorism hinges on targeting civilian populations to inflict fear. People fighting for freedom would be pretty stupid to target possible supporters of their cause.Macbeth wrote:
@ken. By your own standards if a government were to start doing these things would it be acceptable to do the same thing to the government and its supporters.
If my government started bombing and kidnapping innocent people, I'd get the fuck out. Would I condemn people for trying to exact revenge on those responsible? Probably not, although ideally peaceful demonstrations would usurp the strong arm of the government in question.
I guess...but most of Hamas are terrorists. Sure people are entitled to their opinion, but please tell me how targeting and killing civilians is conducive to fighting for freedom, because it isn't.
I might think Larry Flynt is the supreme moral crusader - that could be my opinion - but that opinion is ridiculous - and will be called out as such. Especially by people grounded in reality. Perhaps those that consider Hamas freedom fighters have been fed mis-information to reach that conclusion...but that is a different debate I guess.
I guess we need to establish a definition of "terrorism" to continue this particular tangent.
I might think Larry Flynt is the supreme moral crusader - that could be my opinion - but that opinion is ridiculous - and will be called out as such. Especially by people grounded in reality. Perhaps those that consider Hamas freedom fighters have been fed mis-information to reach that conclusion...but that is a different debate I guess.
I guess we need to establish a definition of "terrorism" to continue this particular tangent.
I'll put it this way... We killed more than just soldiers and politicians during our revolution. It began with terrorism and quickly became a full-on war.