Thanks
Agreed
You loose the moral high ground when violence is a means to an end
Violence is almost always a means to an end. People don’t tend to engage in violence for its own sake. They engage in violence because violence or the fear of violence works.
Well, I failed the Pepsi Taste Challenge once so probably I couldn’t.
For me, the OP brings up the question: “If a group uses despicable means to support a particular ideal, is the stated ideal necessarily unsupportable?”
Granted, I would likely say that using despicable means does not lead me to support a particular ideal.
Even there, if I assume the people were possibly good but forced to extremes, their avtions might edge me to consider their cause as something not to reject without consideration.
Re heads of state, etc. I also remember how “shock and awe” sounded a lot like “foisting terror” when I heard it back in the day.
charred and crunchy …
If you take away the terrorism, I would say nearly all the motives of the parties are noble, had they been pursued by non-violent means. The only ones that are not honorable are those who committed terrorism for personal gain. Most terrorism is based on economic, political ar religious grounds which are perfectly acceptable positions when they are pursued non-violently.
What if its for instance to keep the blacks oppressed?
I said nearly all.
Are you really asking whether oppressing blacks is a noble goal, whether through violent or non-violent means? There exists some uncertainty in your mind?
You’re just trolling. He was talking about how ideals of most terrorists were actually something you could sympathize with.
Al-Qaeda, the PLO, and other Arabic terrorist groups have a legitimate beef with Israel and their relationship with America. They use despicable means to voice their displeasure (to say the least!!!) but the key issues at stake are at least reasonable.
Basically, yes – one nation’s terrorist is another nation’s freedom fighter.
I disagree, but maybe we should start a separate thread on that.
I do agree that, stipulating the personhood of fetuses, the pro-life killers would be doing something good. Abortion is becoming increasingly hard to obtain in large swaths of the US, and I think the fear among doctors of being murdered may play into that difficulty. If that effect is really happening, then the pro-life killers are saving lives.
Of course, without that stipulation, those murderers are even worse than normal murderers, since their killing has such a pernicious secondary effect (of denying medical care to people who need it).
Well, let’s not go too far. I said they might be noble goals, not that i sympathized with them. Al Qaeda has some noble goals, such as wanting the US out of Saudi Arabia. I don’t agree with that, but it is not an unreasonable goal from their perspective, if it is pursued non-violently. Your example of racial oppresion for oppression’s sake is not defensible, however.
Not all terrorism performed at an individual level is carried out for the cause they officialy espouse.
Terrorist groups attract psychopaths,sociopaths and those who get a thrill out of killing and destruction for the sake of it.
There are also those who might have some sympathy for the cause they’re supposedly fighting for but who’s main drive is money and personal power within their community.
Perhaps they are psychotic enough to enjoy murder & destruction, but if it’s for a cause you believe in with your whole heart…well, let’s put it this way. Would you die for your country, or your religion? If you felt you were absolutely right? Many people would do that, even if you wouldn’t – and that’s what it’s all about, killing and/or dying for a cause you fully believe in.
It’s U.S. against T.H.E.M., of course…if we believe in a common cause which is counter to terrorist methods, then nuking the Middle East into oblivion (or at least trying to talk things out) is karma-balanced.
Many business CEO’s and corporate raiders would agree with that statement.
I prefer to make the other bloke die for his country or religion.
As to your second point most CEOs or corporate raiders wouldn’t leave a bomb in a pub or shop to kill people virtually at random , (It could even be people who support their cause) purely so that their neighbours would feel frightened enough to kow tow to them; and buy them pints in the pub.
Leaving aside whether the US should have attacked Iraq at all, being much better at delivering military power on an opponent’s forces can in no way be considered as terrorism.