In the OP, a mark of 10 was to be awarded to those organisations “where the cause is a mere excuse to unleash hatred and violence.” Ottto has given that mark to the PLO, the IRA, the “Ulster Union” (by which I am sure he intends to refer to loyalist paramilitaries in Ulster) and the LTTE.
Now, even the worst enemies of the PLO would concede that they do actually want an independent Palestinian state for its own sake, and this is not an objective which they espouse solely because it enables them to “unleash hatred and violence”. Similarly the IRA really do want a united Ireland, the loyalist paramilitaries really do not want a united Ireland, and so forth.
I suspect that Ottto has given these organisations a mark of 10 because he does not favour the objective which they have adopted, or because he believes their objectives are not of sufficient importance to justify any measure of violence. Similarly where Ottto has given some organisations a mark of 0 – the US army in Afghanistan, the Israeli army – it is because he believes that their objectives justify everything that they have done. He is of course perfectly entitled to his views, but what this means is that the scale tells us nothing about the organisations concerned, or the means which they have adopted to further their objectives. It tells us about what Ottto thinks of their objectives (and perhaps also about the quality of the information which Ottto has about the various organisations, the objectives they espouse and the means they have adopted).
Nothing personal, Ottto; this is true for all users of the scale. The marks which barefoot has given exclude any 0s and any 10s, and generally are more closely grouped to the centre of the scale. His average mark (6.6) is slightly higher than yours (6.4). All this means that barefoot takes a more nuanced view of the organisations, their objectives and their methods than you do, and overall he is slightly less tolerant of the use of force than you are, but it doesn’t mean he’s right.
In short, the scale is of some value in enabling us to compare Ottto and barefoot, but is quite useless in enabling us to compare the organisations they have marked and the struggles in which they are engaged.
The scale is useful only in understanding how we understand and justify violence, it was never intended to compare organisations and their struggles. We’d need serious research to do that.
Sparc, again, this is not about terrorists alone. There are several players when you say “organizations which use violence as a means to an end”. Armies, mercenaries, terrorists, freedom fighters and even UN peace keeping forces have a place on that scale. you rank them, you know you do - you think some are better than the others. I suspect you haven’t read my starter post completely. If you’d read it, I’d enjoy this argument better.
Again, your thread is a debate on whether governments (or anybody) should negotiate with terrorists or not. This thread is a fact finder on how we rank organizations which use violence.
Sheesh Kebob! You’re kidding right? You did read the other thread? And you’re not just pretending that you didn’t understand, right? You’re just fooling with me, eh?
Just on the off hand chance that you might be serious: The other thread, written in perfectly ordinary English language contains a definition of terrorism by Dseid. This definition implies that national armies, individuals or any other fucking entity of your free and un-impinged choice can be defined as ‘terrorist’. This thread says the same thing and asks us to slap arbitrary ratings on the same. This rating process serves no purpose except comparison along UDS’ lines, and that is not debate, that’s not even useful.
Sheesh Kebob! You’re kidding right? You did read the other thread? And you’re not just pretending that you didn’t understand, right? You’re just fooling with me, eh?
Just on the off hand chance that you might be serious: The other thread, written in perfectly ordinary English language contains a definition of terrorism by Dseid. This definition implies that national armies, individuals or any other fucking entity of your free and un-impinged choice can be defined as ‘terrorist’. This thread says the same thing and asks us to slap arbitrary ratings on the same. This rating process serves no purpose except comparison along UDS’ lines, and that is not debate, that’s not even useful.
I think the confusion is that you have mixed together the justness of the cause with the method employed. Quoting myself, as refernced in “the other thread”
I think that you are asking for a hodgepodge of two judgements. How much do we believe that a particular cause is just, and how much does that belief offset the degree of distaste for the method used.
So, by fair use of this definition, Hiroshima was terrorism. But the motive, ending WWII was just. Some would argue that the end justified the means. (Do a thread search for such debates that have been had) Even if it did, it doesn’t change the fact that it was a terrorist act. You’d have us synthesize these means and motives into one score, balancing the negative of a horrible terrorist tactic, vs the positive of a cause that has at least been portrayed as just. Our score would then be a function of how bad we felt the terrorism was and how much value we placed on the apparent justness of the cause. A how much do the ends justify the means scale. A composite of two subjective values which only clouds and confuses debate.
For example, two individuals could both give the PLO the same score. One thinks that they want to drive Israel into the sea (still the stated goal of some Palestinian groups, and what Barak has concluded is still Arafat’s long term goal) but doesn’t really think that killing a few dozen at a time is too bad of a thing to do or is at worst morally equivient to a military operation against an army base (a death is a death). The other believes that all they want is enough land to have a state and want to live in peaceful coexistence, sees them as a totally wronged people, but believes that their tactics are evil and intolerable. So both give them a 5.
To all who call me a twit, etc, for labelling the ‘Ulster Union’ terrorists.
READ A FRIGGING BOOK OR TWO. The Ulster Unionists are basically the protestant equivalilant of the IRA.
Of course, I don’t expect the mentally challenged to actually read a book. But even a google search would have shown that the The Ulster Unionist party is to the UDA what the IRA is to various terrorist groups.
TwistofFate, ruadh, jjimm, you are officially on my ‘drooling fools’ list. It will take hard work to remove yourselves from this list.
Yes, but which ones? The one which has held to a ceasefire for a number of years and whose aligned party is genuinely attempting to using the political process to resolve the conflict, or the ones which are still engaging in random sectarian murders and have no aligned political parties? It’s not merely the fact that the poster can’t even get their names right, but the fact that he believes they can all be lumped together generically and assigned the worst ranking possible that indicates he does not have the knowledge to assess their motives and objectives.
barefoot, I won’t add to the criticism of the inherent subjectivity of this scale, since it seems to be your intention merely to draw out the political biases of the respondents. But I wonder if you wouldn’t be better off asking people to explain their feelings about particular groups rather than simply assigning numbers to them. You’d get a better idea of where people really stand on the issues (avoiding the half-empty/half-full problem DSeid mentions), as well as finding out pretty quickly whose opinions are formed from an actual awareness of the groups in question and who is just pulling numbers out of their arse.
On the off-chance you aren’t trolling, the Ulster Unionist Party is a political party. Not a terrorist group. (That’s about the nicest thing you’ll ever hear me say about them, BTW.) They are in no way aligned to the UDA, which is a terrorist group. Even a Google search will show this.
Here is a very good resource on Northern Ireland-based organisations. I really, really strongly recommend you take a look through it, before you embarrass yourself any further.
No, I am not trolling. My debating skills may be lacking, but I even trolling is beneath me
First off, I don’t know if a .uk source will give the needed information to determine if a protestant group is chock full of terrorists or not. I like my information from uninterested, unbiased, third parties. (Hah, good luck, I know).
Second off, the UU is to protestant terrorists what the Palestinean Authority is to palestinean terrorists: A ‘clearing-house’ of sorts, that helps funnel cash, plan actions, etc. While the UU itself may not bloody it’s hands, it’s various step-children, such as the UVF, UFF, etc, most certainly do.
In case you aren’t aware of this, Ottto, many Northern Ireland sites, whether nationalist or unionist, have .uk addresses. Northern Ireland is part of the UK whether you like it or not (I certainly don’t). CAIN is the most widely-respected web resource on the NI conflict, bending over backwards to be as impartial as possible - to the point where extremists on both sides find something to hate about it. It is as unbiased as any source you’ll find.
Now please provide an uninterested, unbiased cite for your claim that the UUP (you can’t even get its abbreviation right!) helps plan loyalist actions.
ottto,
you know very, very little about the situation in northern Ireland.
Very, very little.
lets start with Ulster Unionist.
UUP? PUP? DUP? JPF?
Do you know the difference? which are pro agreement, which are anti agreement?
I put it to you that you have a very tiny understanding of the events that are going on in my country. Please, read up on even the basics of the political scene in Northern Ireland, then come back to me and we will have a proper conversation.
Ottto? Ad hominem attacks against me and TwistOfFat aside, I think you’ll find that the Ulster Unionists (assuming that’s what you meant) are a broad political church, the more extreme wing of which is known as “Loyalism”. There are several political parties involved, some of which are allied to terror groups, and some of which are committed to democratic means to keep Northern Ireland part of the UK - such as the UUP.
Your comprehension of the difference between these groups is evidently woefully inadequate, and I politely suggest you defer to the highly informed people against whom you are failing to argue.
Quite why I have achieved your ‘drooling fools’ list is beyond me, since I haven’t written anything that is vaguely critical of you - rather, I was critical of barefoot’s method of categorization of terrorism. However, please feel free to leave me on the list, as I’d imagine you have more important things with which to concern yourself - such as battling your own ignorance.
I just realised you also called ruadh a drooling idiot, and attempted to correct her on the minutae of Irish politics. Dude, you don’t know what you’ve gotten yourself into.
As someone else pointed out, there are two issues here:
(1) goal/cause/aim
(2) means (including what targets)
So for example, how would we compare:
Group A - a fundamentalist, mad, hate filled organisation who aim solely to destroy and cause havoc out of fury against Western military presence in their country, motivated more by revenge than the desire to change, and having no popular support for their position (let’s say the populace has a free press and hasn’t been brainwashed into accepting the foreign peacekeepers or whatever), but who limited themselves to military targets.
Group B - an organisation in a hideously oppressed nation conquered by another nation, where innocent civilians are killed and tortured daily by the invading nation, who have popular support, a legitimate “moral” cause of independence and freedom from oppression, but who attack mainly or solely civilian targets of the invading nation, rather than its military or government buildings/personnel.
Of course no “resistance” (for want of a neutral alternative to “freedom fighter” and “terrorist”) groups on earth are probably polarised to quite that extent. But there is a huge difference between the PLO and Al Qaeda, for example. Similarly the US army in Afghanistan/Chinese army in Tibet.
TwistofFate and Ruadh are correct. The more you write on this subject, the more you make it clear that you do not understand the meaning of Ulster Unionist.
The phrase describes a wide spectrum of beliefs and values, linked only by the desire that Northern Ireland (part of the Irish province of Ulster) should remain unified with the UK. A small number of Unionists are terrorists, but the vast majority are just ordinary citizens living normal lives.
It’s like calling all socialists terrorist because some terrorists are socialist.
Wow. I have agreed with TwistofFate and Ruadh. I must be getting senile. Conas atá sibh?
