Evil Terrorists
Can someone answer me this one question? What is the difference between terrorists and our own forefathers who founded this country?
This is a major stumbling block for me. Since this country was founded on a revolt against a reigning authority, it is kind of built into our ethos that such a revolt is justifiable, at least under certain circumstances. I would say that those circumstances is when that authority has power over you, but you don't have any representation with that authority, and when that authority represents the interests of others over yours.
Now, do these criteria apply to the U.S.? Certainly, the U.S. and its corporations have a lot of influence over other parts of the world, and other parts of the world do not have representation in our government, and certainly we often act in our own best interests, or those of our corporations, so I would say that the conditions are there to justify some kind of revolt.
This is starting to sound like I think terrorism is okay, but really I'm just trying to say that the problems that the terrorists are trying to solve are real, and that if we don't work to resolve those problems peacefully, then we leave the terrorists no other options. I've said before that I think peaceful protest is a better way to solve these types of problems, but we shouldn't have to wait for that before we try to solve the problems.
I do think that terrorism is justified when peaceful protest is prohibited. For example, in Iraq under Saddam, where peaceful protesters would have been have been imprisoned, tortured and killed, terrorism would have been justifiable.
One difference that has been pointed out between terrorists and the kind of revolutions we've had in the past is the targeting of innocent people. Granted, in any kind of a war, innocent people are going to get caught in the crossfire, but deliberatly targeting innocent people can never be justified. However, in a lot of countries, for example the U.S. and Israel where our leaders are voted into power, the general population can't be considered innocent. We voted our leaders into power, and if we didn't support their policies, the we would vote them out of power. If we don't vote them out of power, then we're not innocent.
posted by LeRoy at 4:19 PM
1 Comments:
LeRoy wrote: What is the difference between terrorists and our own forefathers who founded this country?
Are you serious or just trying to be provocative?
One HUMONGUOUS distinction is: our forefathers were fighting against another organized army who attacked them in their own land while terrorists use innocent people in an attempt to advance their cause. Have you heard of the beheadings of simple worker-bees by the terrorists in Iraq? Did you hear the stories about the combat in Fallujah where 5 "human shields" were executed at the last minute while the terrorists scrambled to their own safety? Have you heard of the terrorists using ambulances as their vehicles of choice from which to shoot the enemy, knowing that we generally abide a different set of standards of ethics and decency during combat? Have you heard of the terrorists using white flags to indicate they were surrendering only to begin shooting while "the enemy" was approaching to take them into custody ( and give them food, medical attention, bedding, clothes, etc )? Have you heard of the terrorists using their own compadres' dead bodies to set off IED explosives when "the enemy" approaches to bury the dead?
And most importantly, do you remember 9/11?
Why are you so quick to vilify America and yet constantly defend Hitler, Hussein, terrorists, etc? I can only hope you are using it to promote dialog and not because you truly believe these things.
BTW, what is it you think the terrorists are fighting FOR? What is it that you say are "the problems that the terrorists are trying to solve [that] are real"?
Are you suggesting for an instant that Osama bin Laden has been trying to work with us towards a peaceful conclusion to what he sees as "real" problems?
You wrote: "I do think that terrorism is justified when peaceful protest is prohibited. For example, in Iraq under Saddam, where peaceful protesters would have been have been imprisoned, tortured and killed, terrorism would have been justifiable."
Now it sounds like you are okay with the US invading Iraq because people under Saddam *were* "imprisoned, tortured and killed" for protesting against Saddam.
You wrote: "One difference that has been pointed out between terrorists and the kind of revolutions we've had in the past is the targeting of innocent people. Granted, in any kind of a war, innocent people are going to get caught in the crossfire, but deliberatly targeting innocent people can never be justified."
That *is* the definition of a terrorist and that does *not* describe our forefathers.
You wrote: "However, in a lot of countries, for example the U.S. and Israel where our leaders are voted into power, the general population can't be considered innocent. We voted our leaders into power, and if we didn't support their policies, the we would vote them out of power. If we don't vote them out of power, then we're not innocent."
Based on everything I've read on this blog so far, I'm assuming you did NOT vote for Bush. Having said that, and because Bush won the recent election, do you claim that you are NOT innocent and that if you are killed by a terrorist that you deserved it?
What about all the people who DIDN'T vote? Innocent or guilty?
Were the people in the World Trade Center Towers guilty or innocent?
Post a Comment
<< Home