As the great Mohandas
Apologizing for the hijack, but do you have a cite that the majority of the people don’t support the War on Drugs? And what are we classifying as counting as the War on Drugs? US programs in Latin America, harsher sentences for domestic offenders, both? What kind of break down is there between the different aspects of the War on Drugs and public approval for those various aspects? What kind of level of caring is there for the War on Drugs? What I mean by that is it a case like gun control where the issue ranks somewhere around tenth on the priority list for the majority in favor, but first on the list for people against so the minority against get their way?
The reason I bring this up is because “the will of the people” is a fairly nebulous concept, and deciding when a government is actually acting in accordance with or against the will of the people is often extremely difficult to say. I’d just prefer people use those sorts of statements with more caution. On both sides.
As the great Mohandas K. Gandhi once said:
There is a moral equivalency that is obvious to many people. So what if a life hasn’t been lost, if a lifetime worth of work is lost. What has been gained?
I don’t have a cite.and I don’t really want to debate this issue.
But I will say that of the people I’ve talked to,none were in favor of prison sentences for personal users,and granted that is a limited socio-economic portion of the population.
Please don’t quote Gandhi, especially about the loss of life, if you’re NOT a vegetarian. I’m sure he would disapprove of the killing of an animal for your lunch, and grieve its death much more than the loss of a building, be it big or small.
Think about it.
-TGD
How do you know if I am or if I am not vegetarian? You don’t know either way do you? Also, take the quote in the context that it was given. DanielWithrow had said that ELF isn’t as bad as al-Qaeda since they don’t target people. Well, to some targeting property is just as bad as targeting people, the quote is support for that position.
Again, Gandhi is saying that violence, against people OR property is equally bad.
Yes and don’t quote Ghandi if you don’t like the color blue or watching Soprano’s reruns because that is equally relevent to being a vegetarian.
How much should I grieve for the bird that flys into my bay window? Enough to tear down my house?
If you could cure baldness but had to kill a thousand small rodents, wouldn’t you have to make that sacrifice?
Honestly, I just don’t see how the lives of a few rats and chimps are worth causing millions of dollars in damage. It’s not like we are running out of them.
Aside to Herr Ashcroft: I’ll let this whole “USA PATRIOT” act thing slide if you declare some of those PETA/ELF people “enemy combatants” and lock them up.
Everything in moderation, kiddies. Including politics.
Huh?
Okay, first, I’m not a Ghandi-ist. He had views I disagree with, and a single quote from him, devoid of context, doesn’t carry much wait.
Second, I’ve never heard of an ELFer defending what they do on grounds of “bravery” or “sacrifice.” THey generally defend it on grounds of “it’s the right thing to do” – it’s a moral action, not a glory action, for ELFers.
Third, I refuse to believe without a HUGE amount of evidence that
Are you honestly telling me that Gandhi considers smashing someone’s mailbox the moral equivalent of smashing someone’s skull? Are you honestly telling me that anyone believes this?
Erislover, you say,
That’s why I said we need another word. If you ask your average schmoe on the street to describe a typical terrorist, they’ll talk about suicide bombers, plane hijackers, Timothy McVeigh. They won’t talk about ELFers. In common parlance, terrorists are people who cause loss of life.
I’m not saying that ELFers are good guys. I’m saying that they’re not what most folks think of when they use the word terrorist, and what they do isn’t as bad as the mass-murder that the word “terrorist” usually conjures.
Daniel
Criminy. I don’t usually go back and correct my spelling errors, but “a single quote from him…doesn’t carry much wait”?!
I’m not a mouthbreather. Promise.
Daniel
Daniel, I see “terrorist” used all the time in the media to refer to incidents where there is no loss of life, only harm done to property and maybe harm to citizens.
I guess I just feel that the word as distinguishing a class of actions is appropriate. Most people cannot distinguish the proper use of “who” and “whom”, either, though I won’t co-opt their expressions.
Hmm…I still don’t think the word is appropriate.
Think of the feelings you had after September 11th. I know that for me, I felt very literal terror for a week or so, dreaded hearing what was going to happen next, terrified that my girlfriend, who lived in a state capital, might be the next victim of an act of terror.
I imagine that Israelis feel this way a lot. their enemies deliberately instill terror in them as a means to achieve an effect.
ELFers, from what I’ve read about their justifications, talk of inflicting economic costs on their victims: they’re trying to make logging, or development, or animal testing, prohibitively expensive by vandalizing and destroying equipment. They’re not trying to terrify people: they’re trying to hit their wallet.
Is it legal? Hell no. Is it democratic? Of course not. Is it moral? I have mixed feelings about it. (For example, if a group of Australian aborigines destroys a test-well in order to protect their ancestral lands, I have a hard time condemning them).
But if terrorism consists of deliberately inflicting terror on people in order to force them to acceed to your demands, I don’t think it qualifies. It qualifies as something criminal, but I don’t think terrorism is the right word for it.
Daniel
From Elf’s press releases:
and
Hell, that phrase is all over their site.
Now, does it really matter if you are a Gandhi-ist or not? Look at results.
Gandhi and his non-violent ways led to the political independence of what now amounts to one fifth of the worlds population.
What successes, if any, do terrorist organizations have that can match, or even come close, to that?
Well, Adam, last I checked, terrorists managed to oust the Sandanistas from power in Nicaragua. Terrorists have vastly depleted the number of doctors in the US willing to perform abortions. Terrorists may yet succeed in luring the US into a war that will estrange the US from most of the Middle East.
But what does that have to do with anything? What does Gandhi have to do with anything? What does “no compromise” have to do with anything? You’ve got me confused. We’re not arguing about their efficacy, or their adherence to Ahimsa principles, or even whether they’re hypocrites. We’re just arguing over whether the word “terrorist” describes them adequately.
Daniel
Using “fear of losing vast sums of money” to achieve political goals is still using fear to achieve political goals, to me. Agree to disagree?
the_great_dalmuti-who are you to tell us who we can and cannot quote?
So now ONLY vegetarians can quote Ghandi?
Wow.
Erislover, I see a difference between using “fear” and “terror.” If I write my congressman and say, “You’d better not vote to go to war with Iraq, or else I’m gonna vote for your opponent in November,” I’m using fear to achieve a political objective. But I’m not a terrorist.
I think that we run the risk of diluting the power of the word “terrorist” if we apply it to any criminal who hopes her crimes will achieve a political objective. Maybe “political criminal” would be a better word?
Daniel
adam yax, let’s not forget that America was born from terrorism. Do you think the Revolutionary Army sat around and played poker and ate sausages with the Redcoats, trying to peacefully develop a plan to nonviolently achieve independance? Nope, it was ugly. Bombings, kidnappings, murder, all in the name of politicaly idealism, freedom, and liberty. The same exact thing most of today’s terrorists are striving for.
erislover, look at the recent MLB strike. Those ridiculous athletes were attempting to impose the fear of “losing money” in the team owners, in order to achieve political/legal goals. Are they terrosists? Certainly no one would label them as such.
Should all labor unions be considered terrorist organizations? Certainly, they use (or at least used to) the fear of strikes to achieve political goals? Is this terrorism?
And still, no one has attempted to tackle my previous question of: Why are governments of the world not suject to being called terrorists. In the public’s eys, governments make “mistakes,” big corporations have “oversights”, yet non-commercial non-governmental entities use “terrorism.”
But all three of these “blunders” are essentially the same thing, which have resulted in both the loss of life and property. Tiananmen Square. Shell in Africa. Nike in China. Rainforests in Equador. Afgan wedding party. Exxon in Alaska. Stoning of that poor woman in Nigeria. Bombing of Hiroshima. The Gap in Cambodia. Japan’s Comfort Women in WWII. East Timor.
Were any of those considered terrorism, or those involved tried as terrorists?
Does the fact that the ELF blew up some buildings even come close to any of the atrocities I mentioned above?
I don’t like the ELF, and frankly, I think they’re a bunch of morons. They should be tried as criminals, not terrorists. As ** DanielWithrow**, and I think the term “terrorist” is a heavily subjective, imflated, vague buzzword.
If we are going to judge one person, group, or organization, then we need to judge all people, groups, or organizations by the same standards. Otherwise, all of this “terrorist hunt” is not at all a progression, but rather just a regression to McCarthyism and the Red Scare.
-TGD