IMHO violence against property is considerably less aggressive than abuse and threats aimed at people.
Blowing up, say, the entrance to a federal building is less harmful than causing fear and distress to individuals by threats etc.
Officials are post holders, representatives are those who actively support or otherwise may be seen to represent the government.
You identify then, I assume, with Fatah and Hamas in their acts which do not target civilians.
If one believes strongly in the existence of rules of war and the concept of Just War, then one could (should?) use all means available to avoid such an outcome as an unjust war. Domestic insurgency would, IMHO be morally superior to acquiesences in the waging of an unjust war. Sometimes such insurgency is better coming on the run up to war rather than during its actual course!
Agree
What exactly did you have in mind here then if not killing (or maybe you think that if people die on accident its not ‘killing’)? What exactly ARE ‘violent acts’ in your mind? You certainly implied (strongly) that killing was on the table…or do you think ‘insurgents’ and ‘terrorists’ don’t kill and its all propaganda made up by Bush?
For reference, when someone opens a thread asking ‘When would you become an(d) insurgent or a terrorist?’, then lists things like ‘violent acts’, most rational people will assume they are talking about at least the potential for deaths…since this implies things like bombs and guns against things like ‘indivudual’(s), ‘civilians’ and the ‘government officials’.
Methinks you are having second thoughts about your OP and trying to tap dance it into a better light…
Ok, that takes care of ‘collective property’ (in theory…when one blows up the entrance to a federal building, even at midnight, there is the potential to still cause harm or death to innocent civilians). What about ‘individual property’? Blowing up someone’s home, say, can be both potentially dangerous AND pretty traumatic…for your second level of escellation. No?
-XT
Nothing that could happen to me would incite me to righteous violence… I’m a coward. I have a fear-based morality; I will only assault governments (or people backed by governments) if I am personally powerful enough martially to annihilate all comers (police, armies, whichever) without chance of harm to myself, including imprisonment.
Since I still haven’t yet managed to get hold of an impregnable fortress with a futuristic sci-fi death ray attached, everybody is pretty much safe from me. (When I get one, though, yall’d better watch out!)
Do we?
That’s pretty hypothetical, considering that it’s the same people and organizations attacking both military and civilian targets. You can’t take someone’s actions out of context, and say “Yesterday they massacred 20 schoolchildren, which was wrong, but today they shot at a tank so I guess they’re OK!” It doesn’t work that way.
That aside… depends on what you mean by “identify”. If you mean that I think that they’re right and I’m wrong, then no. But in the sense that I believe that they have a right to resist us - that their pursuing their own interests is perfectly legitimate - then I suppose so. Most wars do not have clear “right” or “wrong” sides, and just as we have the right to fight them, they have the right to fight us.
I’m a soldier, occasionally, and when I put on my uniform I know that certain people will not only start shoting at me, but that they will have a right to shoot at me. So long as they remember that I have a right to shoot at them, too, everything’s cool (although I’d prefer it that nobody got shot; that applies to soldiers on both sides, but especially to me personally).
Self-righteousness has no place in warfare.
Slight hijack to my own post:
So the same goes for the Israeili Defence Forces- one day they are defending the right of their people to exist, the next they are shooting innocent school children and peace protestors. So the “same people and organizations (are) attacking both military and civilian targets. You can’t take someone’s actions out of context, and say “Yesterday they massacred … schoolchildren, which was wrong, but today they shot at a tank so I guess they’re OK!” It doesn’t work that way.”
To Alessan
A though experiment:
Oil dependency brings the West to its knees. Future Iraqs fail to cure the problem, merely making the situation worse with the Arab oil producers on strike or destroying their production plants as they are invaded and creating insurgency throughout the Arab world. A peace accord is reached to allow capitalism to flourish again and the Islamic states to create their Umma. Part of this deal is that the West must no longer favor Israel, but must allow Arabs to return to ‘their’ lands and a fully democratic state be set up with no religious special position for the state. The Arabs become a majority in the area and start to oppress the Israelis.
At which point do you activate any of the five options in my OP?
Personally I would not take part in killing with the intention of killing. I avoided US military service because I believed the Viet-Nam war to be unjust and would have been required to be part of an unjust killing machine. I would have served in a medical unit or as a stretcher bearer, but decided to leave the country completely.
Many ‘terrorist’ campaigns have tried to limit violence to those they see as not ‘innocent’ and to avoid (in mitary terms) collateral damage.
I see violent action as often short of killing people- merely threatening or attacking in just proportion to the wrong inflicted.
The Revolutionary War was fought by a group of people with high ideals that were not accepted by any legal or sovereign authorities- what was proposed was antithetical to the established politics of the time. They won and now they are heros! Many people were killed by military action, effective terrorism and individual score settling during this process. Does this make the founding fathers terrorists who used violence and killing to achieve political ends?
Moot.
Even if the “West” allows the Right of Return, Israel won’t, not without losing a war (yes, even a war against the “West”). And since the only way we’ll admit defeat in such a war will be when foreign armies occupy our entire country, this falls under the “occupation by foreign power” clause I mentioned earlier. Personally, I plan to die in battle long before we reach that stage.
Kind of like what Alessan initially posted. If somehow the US was occupied by some other country, then you can bet I’d be killing/maiming some occupiers with any IED I could get my hands on. Same thing if there were a coup d’etat and an illegitimate government was installed. These are astronomically unlikely scenarios, though, so it is a truly pointless exercise.
Except insofar as it validates the current insurgency in Iraq to a certain extent. There is an “Iraqi” government in place, but whether it is truly legitimate is another matter.
Given that Iraq is currently occupied by forces which are wished ill by a majority of Iraqis, maybe the insurgency is not so surprising and may be quite excusable.
Well, yeah. If it wasn’t for the whole killing civilian thing the insurgency would be pretty much legitimate.
However, just because you have a right to do something, doesn’t make it a smart thing to do. If the insurgents were thinking a bit they’d realize that the messier things are, the longer the Americans would stay.
Legitimacy is overrated.
Yeah, except you left out the killing civilians thing, Pjen. Anyway, though, I do think that some aspects of the insurgency are “legitimate”, in that I understand that if you occupy a country, some of the people will fight you (duh). But, of course, there’s more to the Iraq insurgency than that. There’s a lot of sectarian violence that doesn’t have much to do with the US occupation other than having a situational excuse to cut loose. Bad on us for providing that situational excuse, but like Yugoslavia, it was just waiting to happen.
I think I can safely say that if I didn’t feel inclined to do anything* while a member of an oppressed minority under the brutal Apartheid regime, I certainly can’t conceive of any other circumstances where I might change my mind. So my answer is “never”**
*other than take part in peaceful protest marches, which, while then illegal, still don’t strike me as an example of the OP’s No. 1
Unless we’re invaded by BEMs. Then all bets are off!
What about LGMs?
Possibly worse than BEMs. Especially the Arean kind.
Hmmm… in my case, violent struggle would also be reserved for when/if under an oppressive illegitimate regime, or hostile occupation, if we have exhausted all nonviolent ways out; otherwise then civil disobedience is the extent of my level of action.
And if driven to insurgency, I’d prefer violent action against nonmilitary targets to be focused on such as actually cause harm to the oppressor’s power. So I would stop at classic insurgency, not move into terrorism. Thus, for instance the illegitimate regime’s local Chief Official and his bodyguards would be a fair target; but the preschool his grandchild attends would not. I could see sabotaging an electrical substation or burning down the shopping mall (at 3am when there’s nobody there), to interfere with economic revenue; not so bombing a church/mosque full of worshippers; ans so on.
