When would you become and insurgent or a terrorist?

Great Debates
1

Given the prevalence of illegal acts for political causes in modern society, what are your personal limits about this.

Animal Rights protestors, anti-abortion protestors, Christian fanatics, Iraqi insurgents, extreme Islamic jihadists, and many other individuals and groups decide to break laws and social conventions ranging from Public Disorder to the killing of innocent citizens.

They all claim to be morally justfied by their own core beliefs in law breaking to the extent that explains and excuses their behaviour.

What, for you personally, would be your breaking point for:

1/ Moderate law-breaking behaviour that causes illegal nuisance but no permanent damage.

2/ Violent acts against individual or collective property.

3/ Abusive and threatening acts against government officials and representatives.

4/ Violent acts against government officials and representatives.

5/ Violent acts against civilians.

My break points would be:

1/ Almost any cause about which I felt strongly.

2/ Attempts to engage in aggressive warfare.

3/ Attempted reintroduction of the death penalty. Actual engagement in aggressive warfare.

4/ Attempts to legislate socially inferior status and outcomes for racial or sexual minorities. Actual reintroduction of the Death Penalty.

5/ Attempts to kill or seriously harm such groups en masse.
So tell me, when would your conscience dictate that you become a law breaker, an insurgent or a terrorist.

2

There is no particular point I can conceive of where I might become a terrorist, if by terrorist you means carrying out indiscriminate attacks on civilians. I say that with the caveat that I have never been exposed to a situation where I might have felt that an entire society was against me, and can see that I might view things differently if this were the case.

For the rest of it, well, frankly, even though I have a degree of anonymity here, I don’t feel particularly comfortable discussing, even hypothetically, the possible commission of violent acts aganst individuals or the government.

3

Can you clarify? Are you saying you’d use terrorist tactics to prevent even “attempted” reintroduction of the death penalty? And, you’d be a terrorist if you were an American citizen (since we allow the death penalty)?

Also, you’d resort to terror tactics to prevent someone from attempting certain legislation? You wouldn’t have to have the legislation enacted, just have someone try to legislate it?

Seems like an absurdly low threshold, if I understand you correctly.

4

Nazi Germany 1935

And Items 1-4 are not Terrorist tactics in my book, but insurgency. Terrorism starts at the use of violence against innocents IMHO.

In more detail: I feel that the right to life is sacrosanct, at least in so far as loss of life is potentially avoidable. I would certainly take part in violent action against the state to make it more difficult or impossible to pass such legislation.

In the case of the US I would, if a citizen, probably be willing to operate at level 2 or 3 against the DP, but in a country that has already decided against barbarism that was intending to return to it, I would probably be willing to move to level 4.

5

A very sad state for freedom of speech and liberty. If one cannot discuss theoretically the overthrow of the State for a potential act, then free speech ceases to exist and liberty is extinct.

6

The terrorists have already won!!!

7

So you’re another of those people who believe that the right to life is sacrosanct, and are willing to kill any number of innocent people to protect it?

8

OK, I didn’t see the mapping process. A few more questions:

Are the levels supposed to be in increasing severity? Because it seems like you make a big jump from level 1 to level 2, and then retreat a bit in level 3. IOW, how is level 2 different from level 5?

What is the difference between a government official and a representative?

9

The only way I would turn “insurgent” was if I considered the governing powers that be to be illegitimate. Not wrong - even insanely, suicidely wrong - but illegitimate. If I was ruled by people who had no right to power, or if I was being occupied by a foreign nation, then I’d fight. Otherwise, I have too much respect for the rule of law, and I believe that change is to be had by working through the system.

Either way, I wouldn’t target civilians.

10

I agree that your thresholds seem pretty low. So if your next-door neightbor was a legislator who advocated going to war with another country, you’d feel justified in torching his car or bulldozing his house? If you other neighbor put up a poster saying “I support the death penalty,” you’d beat him up for it? (Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “attempt”?)

11

Upon rereading my post, I’m not sure my thoughts came out clearly. What I mean to ask Pjen is, would you really do violence against government representatives (or their property) merely for advocating positions you strongly oppose?

12

  1. I would need to be pretty pissed off about something. Not just “man work is a drag” or “my girlfriends friends are annoying” pissed off. I mean like Mad Max punching Snake Pliskin in the face while listening to old school Metallica pissed off. Like say invading soldiers killed my family or something.

  2. I would need to feel I had nothing left to lose. Like family and friends and society have all been killed or have oastricized me and no job or a job slaving for the powers that be. Maybe the authorities are after me for some crime, real or fabricated.

  3. Finally, there would need to have access to some sort of terrorist network. I’m not really a lone gunman type. It would have to be like “hey Jim, you know your friends Usef and Achmed who always tell me I’m a credit to the Great Satan…what are you guys doing tonight?”
    And then of course, what kinds of acts of terrorism are we talking about? I don’t really see myself as a suicide bomber or a rock thrower. I could probably figure out how to make a bomb though. Maybe more of a behind the scenes guy.

13

Why do we kill people who kill people who kill people to show that killing people who kill people is wrong?

14

It’s not to show them it’s wrong, it’s to scare them into capitulation.

15

Assuming for a moment that the OP is posing this WRT me still living in America:

Probably as radical as I can realistically project…anything else would be fantasy IMHO. And this would be right at the edge of what I consider ‘realistic’ too boot.

Basically I can see myself protesting (I’ve done it before after all), getting out the vote, and making my displeasure felt through direct contact with my local representatives. Anything more than that and its an America I can’t envision…a fantasy Pjen America. Nor can I envision violent acts of civil disobedience if I lived in Europe (though obviously not all Europeans feel that way :stuck_out_tongue: ).

If there was a total break down of the nation, complete break down of the government and law and order, I suppose I could see myself doing these kinds of things then. As thats not realistically going to happen though, its just the OP’s fanatsy.

If there was a radical change in the fundamental political and government process here in the US…i.e. if GW the First declared himselve to be God King or something along those lines. Again, we HAVE mechanisms to dealing with protesting against the government…mechanisms that don’t involve ‘abusive and threatening acts’. BTW, this one seems it should be level 2 if your list is supposed to be a graduated response…it seems milder (marginally) than your #2 on the list.

Whats the difference between ‘abusive’/‘threatening’ and ‘violent’ acts against the government or representatives? Same answer as above though…the government itself would have to undergo a fundamental change.

Um…never. Even in this fantasy thread and going as far beyond reality as I can think of, I’d NEVER resort to violent acts against civilians. Perhaps in a Mad Max world I could see myself fighting against the government…but I’d never deliberately target civilians. I really don’t see the point myself, and I find it evil in the extreme to target the helpless for political reasons.

Law breaker would be my own extreme (I note thats your first response :stuck_out_tongue: ). Insurgent is in the fantasy Hollywood world of Red Dawn or Mad Max…I suppose there are some extremely low probability scenerios where I’d take up the gun and fight the gubberment for my FREEDOM!

Terrorist? Never. I’d have to shoot myself for a slimy dog cowardly fuckup with delusions of grandure if I ever became a terrorist. YMMV…

-XT

16

No one is stopping you, or anyone else, from discussing this subject, so it would appear both free speech and liberty have not yet bitten the dust. I choose not to discuss this subject at the level of detail you requested. I am at liberty to do so.

Carry on.

17

Unfortunately, I can’t answer the OP without violating Board rules/policy. :mad:

18

Um…your thread was CALLING for revolution on the board. This one is asking your limits. Its a (not so subtle) difference, ya know? I’d say you could answer the OP fine…as long as you don’t incite us to revolution. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

19

The other thing is that any action has to have a chance of actually working before you could even consider it.

So before we can even consider whether it would be justified to bomb the World Trade Center to stop the death penalty, we have to ask whether, in fact, bombing the World Trade Center would be likely to help stop the death penalty.

Thing is, most of these terroristic acts won’t accomplish what the perpetrators claim to want. Bombing abortion clinics doesn’t stop abortion. Blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City didn’t spark a revolution. Sending mail bombs to professors didn’t stop global capitalism. Burning black churches didn’t stop civil rights for blacks.

Bottom line, if you use violence with the desire to achieve some political effect, and that political effect never happens, or you have the opposite effect, then your violent acts are ALWAYS immoral, even if your desired political outcome is moral.

And there must also be no other method possible to bring about the change the proto-insurgent desires. Which is why terrorism or insurgency in one of today’s liberal democracies is absurd. Note that just because everyone else disagrees with your proposed polices, and therefore you can’t get them enacted is not good enough. If everyone disagrees, you have the right to use violence to force them to agree? Interesting. And fascist. The fact that you’re right and they’re wrong is irrelevant. In a democracy you’re guaranteed the right to participate, you can’t be guaranteed the right to the results you desire.

If you hold that you have the right to use violence if the majority is in the wrong, even in a liberal democracy, then everyone else must have that right as well. Which means any time the wrong candidate gets elected, it’s time to pull out your gun. If you don’t want the people you disagree with pulling out their guns every time they lose, why do you have the right to pull out your gun every time you lose? Might makes right? Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi?

20

Do you see anywhere in my OP where I mention killing? And I limited DP opposition to Government Officials who would not be ‘innocents’. And then not including any killing.

Weak point and straw man.