History of Terrorism by Magonsdaughter

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

History of Terrorism

POSTED BY: MAGONSDAUGHTER
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 14:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1206
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, April 2, 2011 6:32 PM

Who knows how long terrorism as a tactic has been around. Certainly one that lesser opponents often use against the stronger to secure a win in a conflict.

Some history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism

The Reign of Terror (September 5, 1793 – July 28, 1794) or simply The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of eleven months during the French Revolution when the ruling Jacobins employed violence, including mass executions by guillotine, in order to intimidate the regime's enemies and compel obedience to the state.[27] The number killed totaled approximately 40,000, and among the guillotined were Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.[28] Putting an end to the Terror, on July 28, 1794, its most well known leader, Maximilien Robespierre, was guillotined by other members of France's ruling National Convention.[29]

The Jacobins, most famously Robespierre, sometimes referred to themselves as "terrorists," and the word originated at that time.[30] Some modern scholars, however, do not consider the Reign of Terror a form of terrorism, in part because it was carried out by the French state.[31][32]

Terrorism was associated with the Reign of Terror in France until the mid-19th century,[30] when the term began to be associated with non-governmental groups.[33] Anarchism, often in league with rising nationalism, was the most prominent ideology linked with terrorism.[34] Attacks by various anarchist groups led to the assassination of a Russian Tsar and a U.S. President.[35]

The 19th century saw the development of powerful, stable, and affordable explosives, and the gap closed between the firepower of the state and dissidents.[36][37] Dynamite, in particular, inspired American and French anarchists and was central to their strategic thinking.[38]

In mid-19th century Russia, many grew impatient with the slow pace of Tsarist reforms, and anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin maintained that progress was impossible without violence.[39] Founded in 1878 and inspired by Bakunin and others, Narodnaya Volya used dynamite-packed bombs to kill Russian state officials, in an effort to incite state retribution and mobilize the populace against the government.[40] Inspired by Narodnaya Volya, several nationalist groups in the ailing Ottoman Empire began using violence against public figures in the 1890s. These included the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, and the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO).[41]

In the 1850s, John Brown (1800–1859) was an abolitionist who advocated and practiced armed opposition to slavery. Brown led several attacks between 1856 and 1859, the most famous in 1859 against the armory at Harpers Ferry. Local forces soon recaptured the fort and Brown was tried and executed for treason.[42] A biographer of Brown has written that his purpose was "to force the nation into a new political pattern by creating terror."[43]

After the Civil War, on December 24, 1865, six Confederate veterans created the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).[44] The KKK used violence, lynching, murder and acts of intimidation such as cross burning to oppress in particular African Americans, and created a sensation with its masked forays' dramatic nature.[45][46] The group's politics are generally perceived as white supremacy, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Catholicism, and nativism.[45] A KKK founder boasted that it was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men and that it could muster 40,000 Klansmen within five days' notice, but as a secret or "invisible" group with no membership rosters, it was difficult to judge the Klan's actual size. The KKK has at times been politically powerful, and at various times controlled the governments of Tennessee, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, in addition to several legislatures in the South.[citation needed]
[edit] Europe

In 1867 the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a revolutionary Irish nationalist group,[47] carried out attacks in England.[48] Writer Richard English has referred to such attacks as the first acts of "republican terrorism," which would became a recurrent feature of British and Irish history. The group is considered a precursor to the Irish Republican Army.[49]

Europeans invented "Propaganda of the deed" (or "propaganda by the deed," from the French propagande par le fait) theory, a concept that advocates physical violence or other provocative public acts against political enemies in order to inspire mass rebellion or revolution. An early proponent was the Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisacane (1818–1857), who wrote in his "Political Testament" (1857) that "ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around." Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), in his "Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis" (1870) stated that "we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda."[50] The phrase itself was popularized by the French anarchist Paul Brousse (1844–1912), who in 1877 cited as examples the 1871 Paris Commune and a workers' demonstration in Berne provocatively using the socialist red flag.[51] By the 1880s, the slogan had begun to be used to refer to bombings, regicides and tyrannicides. Reflecting this new understanding of the term, Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta in 1895 described "propaganda by the deed" (which he opposed the use of) as violent communal insurrections meant to ignite an imminent revolution.[52]

Founded in Russia in 1878, Narodnaya Volya (???????? ???? in Russian; People's Will in English) was a revolutionary anarchist group inspired by Sergei Nechayev and "propaganda by the deed" theorist Pisacane.[15][40] The group developed ideas—such as targeted killing of the 'leaders of oppression'—that were to become the hallmark of subsequent violence by small non-state groups, and they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age—such as the invention of dynamite, which they were the first anarchist group to make widespread use of[53]—enabled them to strike directly and with discrimination.[37] Attempting to spark a popular revolt against Russia's Tsars, the group killed prominent political figures by gun and bomb, and on March 13, 1881, assassinated Russia's Tsar Alexander II.[15] The assassination, by a bomb that also killed the Tsar's attacker, Ignacy Hryniewiecki, failed to spark the expected revolution, and an ensuing crackdown brought the group to an end.[54]

Individual Europeans also engaged in politically motivated violence. For example, in 1893, Auguste Vaillant, a French anarchist, threw a bomb in the French Chamber of Deputies in which one person was injured.[55] In reaction to Vaillant's bombing and other bombings and assassination attempts, the French government passed a set of laws restricting freedom of the press that were pejoratively known as the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"). From 1894 to 1896, President of France Marie Francois Carnot, Prime Minister of Spain Antonio Cánovas del Castillo, and Austria-Hungary Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria were killed by anarchists.
[edit] The Ottoman Empire

Several nationalist groups used violence against an Ottoman Empire in apparent decline. One was the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (in Armenian Dashnaktsuthium, or "The Federation"), a revolutionary movement founded in Tiflis (Russian Transcaucasia) in 1890 by Christopher Mikaelian. Many members had been part of Narodnaya Volya or the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party.[56] The group published newsletters, smuggled arms, and hijacked buildings as it sought to bring in European intervention that would force the Ottoman Empire to surrender control of its Armenian territories.[57] On August 24, 1896, 17-year-old Babken Suni led twenty-six members in capturing the Imperial Ottoman Bank in Constantinople. The group unsuccessfully demanded the creation of an Armenian state, but backed down on a threat to blow up the bank. An ensuing security crackdown destroyed the group.[58]

Also inspired by Narodnaya Volya, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) was a revolutionary movement founded in 1893 by Hristo Tatarchev in the Ottoman-controlled Macedonian territories.[59][60] Through assassinations and by provoking uprisings, the group sought to coerce the Ottoman government into creating a Macedonian nation.[61] On July 20, 1903, the group incited the Ilinden uprising in the Ottoman villayet of Monastir. The IMRO declared the town's independence and sent demands to the European Powers that all of Macedonia be freed.[62] The demands were ignored and Turkish troops crushed the 27,000 rebels in the town two months later.[63]
[edit] Early 20th century

Revolutionary nationalism continued to motivate political violence in the 20th century, much of it directed against the British Empire. The Irish Republican Army campaigned against the British in the 1910s and inspired the Zionist groups Hagannah, Irgun and Lehi to fight the British throughout the 1930s in the Palestine mandate.[64][65] Like the IRA and the Zionist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood used bombings and assassinations to try to free Egypt from British control.[66]
[edit] Europe

Political assassinations continued into the 20th century, its first victim Umberto I of Italy, killed in July 1900. Political violence became especially widespread in Imperial Russia, and several ministers were killed in the opening years of the century. The highest ranking was prime minister Pyotr Stolypin, killed in 1911 by a leftist radical.

On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were shot and killed in Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Gavrilo Princip, one of a group of six assassins. The assassinations produced widespread shock across Europe, setting in motion a series of events which led to World War I.

In an action called the Easter Rising or Easter Rebellion, on April 24, 1916, members of the Irish Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army seized the Dublin General Post Office and several other buildings, proclaiming an independent Irish Republic.[67] The rebellion failed militarily but was a success for physical force Irish republicanism, leaders of the uprising becoming Irish heroes after their eventual execution by the British government.[68] Shortly after the rebellion, Michael Collins and others founded the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which from 1916 to 1923 carried out numerous attacks against symbols of British power. For example, it attacked over 300 police stations simultaneously just before Easter 1920,[69] and, in November 1920, publicly killed a dozen police officers and burned down the Liverpool docks and warehouses, an action that came to be known as Bloody Sunday.[70] After years of warfare, London agreed to the 1921 Anglo-Irish treaty creating an independent Irish nation encompassing 26 of the island's 32 counties.[71] IRA tactics were an inspiration to other groups, including the Palestine Mandate's Zionists,[72] and to British special operations during World War II.[73][74]
[edit] Middle East

Following the 1929 Hebron massacre of sixty-seven Jewish settlers in the British Mandate of Palestine, the Zionist settlers militia Haganah transformed itself into a paramilitary force. In 1931, however, a more militant Irgun broke away from Haganah, objecting to Haganah's policy of restraint toward Arabs fighting Jewish settlers.[75] Founded by Avraham Tehomi,[76][77] Irgun sought to end British rule by assassinating police, capturing British government buildings and arms, and sabotaging British railways.[78] Its tactic of attacking Arab communities, including the bombing a crowded Arab market, is considered among the first examples of terrorism directed against civilians.[79] Irgun's most famous attack was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel, the British Military headquarters in Jerusalem. Ninety-one people, both soldiers and civilians, were killed.[80] After the creation of Israel in 1948, Menachem Begin (Irgun leader from 1943 to 1948) transformed the group into the political party which later became part of Likud.[81]

Operating in the British Mandate of Palestine in the 1930s, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam organized and established the Black Hand, an anti-Zionist militia. He recruited and arranged military training for peasants, and by 1935 had enlisted between 200 and 800 men. Al-Qassam obtained a fatwa from Shaykh Badr al-Din al-Taji al-Hasani, the Mufti of Damascus, authorizing armed resistance against the British and Jews of Palestine. Black Hand cells were equipped with bombs and firearms, which they used to kill Zionist settlers.[82][83] Although al-Qassam's revolt was unsuccessful in his lifetime, many organizations gained inspiration from his revolutionary example.[82] He became a popular hero and an inspiration to subsequent Arab militants, who in the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt, called themselves Qassamiyun, followers of al-Qassam.

Lehi (Lohameni Herut Yisrael, a.k.a. "Freedom Fighters for Israel," a.k.a. Stern Gang) was a revisionist Zionist group that splintered off from Irgun in 1940.[79] Abraham Stern formed Lehi from disaffected Irgun members after Irgun agreed to a truce with Britain in 1940.[78] Lehi assassinated prominent politicians as a strategy. For example, on November 6, 1944, Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, was assassinated.[84] The act was controversial among Zionist militant groups, Hagannah sympathizing with the British and launching a massive man-hunt against members of Lehi and Irgun. After Israel's 1948 founding, Lehi was formally dissolved and its members integrated into the Israeli Defense Forces.[85]

The 1930s saw the rise of totalitarian regimes in Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany. Both regimes employed terror on an enormous scale.[86] However, and unlike some of the Jacobins who ruled France during its Reign of Terror, the regimes never applied the words ‘terror’ or 'terrorist' to the ruthless actions of their police, nor to the NKVD in the Soviet Union or the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, but only to those who opposed the two dictatorships. Historian R. J. Overy writes, "What is now defined as ruthless state terror was viewed by Hitler and Stalin as state protection against the enemies of the people."[87] Effectively establishing and reinforcing obedience to regime and national ideology, both regimes used surveillance, imprisonment (often in Soviet gulags or German labor or concentration camps), torture, and executions against enemies of the state real and imagined.[88]

[edit] The resistance movement in Europe

Some of the tactics of the guerrilla, partisan, and resistance movements organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II, according to historian M.R.D. Foot, can be considered terrorist.[89][90] Colin Gubbins, a key leader within the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), made sure the organization drew much of its inspiration from the IRA.[73][74] On the eve of D-Day, the SOE organised with the French resistance the complete destruction of the rail[91] and communication infrastructure of western France[92] perhaps the largest coordinated attack of its kind in history[citation needed]. Allied supreme commander Dwight Eisenhower later wrote that "the disruption of enemy rail communications, the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on German security services throughout occupied Europe by the organised forces of Resistance, played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory."[93]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 2, 2011 9:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Also topical, although incomplete - is this hard hitting bit which spares none of the usual suspects any of the blame.

The Poor Man's Air Force
A History of the Car Bomb (Part 1)
http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=8846

Also, typing with a splinted finger sucks, I'll have you know...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 2:36 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Also, typing with a splinted finger sucks, I'll have you know...

F***, right?

Hope you get better soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 4:00 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Some of the tactics of the guerrilla, partisan, and resistance movements organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II, according to historian M.R.D. Foot, can be considered terrorist.[89][90] Colin Gubbins, a key leader within the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), made sure the organization drew much of its inspiration from the IRA.[73][74] On the eve of D-Day, the SOE organised with the French resistance the complete destruction of the rail[91] and communication infrastructure of western France[92] perhaps the largest coordinated attack of its kind in history[citation needed]. Allied supreme commander Dwight Eisenhower later wrote that "the disruption of enemy rail communications, the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on German security services throughout occupied Europe by the organised forces of Resistance, played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory."

Which actions specifically of the WW2 partisan/resistance movements ought to be considered 'terrorist' though? Because everything in that paragraph just sounds like regular guerilla warfare. There's a point where guerilla warfare crosses over into terrorism though, e.g. targeting of civilians (or possibly some point before this).

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 4:17 AM

DREAMTROVE

The resistance was terrorist because they attacked, bombed, etc. civilian govt. targets that were non-military, even if they were Nazi.

We take the same thing. We even called the attack on the Pentagon a terrorist target, which is more questionable in its civilian-ness, it could be called the nexus of the US military machine. But we certainly called the embassy bombings and other attacks on civilian govt. facilities "terrorism."

If you look at intent, the intent of bombing civilian govt. is probably to overthrow the govt, rather than to foster an atmosphere of fear, but it's hardly a novel application of the term.

If you want WWII acts on civilian targets that were done to foster terror, pure terrorism, there were undoubtedly plenty of instances on both sides, but the state-sponsored acts are the most obvious, the bombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan for the allies, and the bombing of London for the Axis.

I would throw in Kristallnacht as an act of terrorism, but the not the holocaust. I'm pretty sure the goals of the holocaust were slave labor and genocide, not fear. The goal of Kristallnacht was fear.

Today, I think the US is just a flat out state sponsor of terror. We've fallen to pretty close to one of the worst non-socialist regimes of modern history, and we do not seem to be reversing course. I believe we just intentionally struck civilian targets in Libya, to foster an atmosphere of fear, and we have done so in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. I also think in all the above countries, and others in the region, that we fund terrorists against the population, contra-style, in an effort to make things so bad that the people will reject their own govt. for its failure to protect them.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 5:12 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The resistance was terrorist because they attacked, bombed, etc. civilian govt. targets that were non-military, even if they were Nazi.

This is what I haven't decided is terrorist or not - the bombing/targeting of non-military state instruments. I guess that it probably is. Technically whether the 'state' in question is an occupying power, or is benevolent or not, shouldn't make a difference I think. But it's hard to separate personal feelings from the cold, objective facts.

Quote:
If you want WWII acts on civilian targets that were done to foster terror, pure terrorism, there were undoubtedly plenty of instances on both sides, but the state-sponsored acts are the most obvious, the bombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan for the allies, and the bombing of London for the Axis.

I don't like using terrorism to describe these actions, because it's 'terror' carried out by the state (not by a lesser opponent/guerilla force). It's 'Ivan the Terrible', not 'Ivan the Terrorist'.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 6:59 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

This is what I haven't decided is terrorist or not - the bombing/targeting of non-military state instruments. I guess that it probably is. Technically whether the 'state' in question is an occupying power, or is benevolent or not, shouldn't make a difference I think. But it's hard to separate personal feelings from the cold, objective facts.

KPO. I concur. However, the way it is used by the US govt. and media currently and in the past has been consistent that this *is* terrorism, so, as such, the French Resistance et al were terrorists.

Quote:
I don't like using terrorism to describe these actions, because it's 'terror' carried out by the state (not by a lesser opponent/guerilla force). It's 'Ivan the Terrible', not 'Ivan the Terrorist'.

Our govt. has introduced the term "state sponsored terror" to deal with agents and regimes supported by govts, china, iran, and puppet states like NK, etc. If we use this definition, then sure, there's a lot of US-state sponsored terrorism. We have many proxy armies attacking civilian targets in the arab world, and we do so directly.

And, yes, there could easily be another term for it, but this is the one our govt. is and has been using.

I guess the problem is that there's nothing we say about our enemies that is not also true of ourselves at this point, and to create a redefinition to draw such a line would be splitting hairs.

As a nation, we now openly support attacks on govt civilians, and clearly support attacks on pure civilian targets, but we also openly support torture, indefinite detention, assassination and exempting authorities from the law. Add to that a policy of not just unilateral preemption based on a stated threat (Bush Doctrine) but preemption based on a dislike of local policy, (Obama Doctrine) a direct dismissal of the concept of self determination.

Also, for a personal note, I don't believe that democracy is equivalent to self determination. I think it's often a mask for dictatorship. In Egypt, we have assisted in an underhanded manner, the displacement of Mubarak's sham democracy in favor of Suleiman's blatant military dictatorship. Let freedom ring.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 2:10 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Some of the tactics of the guerrilla, partisan, and resistance movements organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II, according to historian M.R.D. Foot, can be considered terrorist.[89][90] Colin Gubbins, a key leader within the British Special Operations Executive (SOE), made sure the organization drew much of its inspiration from the IRA.[73][74] On the eve of D-Day, the SOE organised with the French resistance the complete destruction of the rail[91] and communication infrastructure of western France[92] perhaps the largest coordinated attack of its kind in history[citation needed]. Allied supreme commander Dwight Eisenhower later wrote that "the disruption of enemy rail communications, the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on German security services throughout occupied Europe by the organised forces of Resistance, played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory."

Which actions specifically of the WW2 partisan/resistance movements ought to be considered 'terrorist' though? Because everything in that paragraph just sounds like regular guerilla warfare. There's a point where guerilla warfare crosses over into terrorism though, e.g. targeting of civilians (or possibly some point before this).

It's not personal. It's just war.

Thanks KPO, that was the kind of discussion I was trying to elicit. What is the difference between conventional warfare which kills civilians as collatoral damage, and terrorist tactics which targets civilians? Was it any the less terrifying for the citizens of Iraq that they were/are occupied by the worlds most technologically advanced and powerful miliary force, than it was for New Yorkers around 9/11? Is there any difference in tactics just because someone declares war and sends in their army, than financing terror cells?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 7:52 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think that terrorism is a word that can be applied to many things depending on whose point of view you're using. They say there's a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter sometimes. I'm sure that the Brits thought of the American Revolutionaries as terrorists. It can be a fuzzy line sometimes.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 8:50 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think that terrorism is a word that can be applied to many things depending on whose point of view you're using. They say there's a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter sometimes. I'm sure that the Brits thought of the American Revolutionaries as terrorists. It can be a fuzzy line sometimes.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I basically agree.

I try to use whatever definition we're using, as a nation, but it's hard to apply that to others and not see ourselves fitting that sort of definition.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 3:02 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
They say there's a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter sometimes.

Actually its not a matter of perspective and the line is obvious.

In order to be a freedom fighter you have to be fighting for freedom, as in western, American-style liberty for men and women without regard to race or faith. If you are fighting for those things you are a freedom fighter, if not, you are not.

I think the fine line is between a terrorist and a rebel or guerrilla or even a mob.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 10:57 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Well you certainly have a mighty narrow defintion of freedom. What about freedom from an invading force, or foreign leadership and control?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 5:31 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Well you certainly have a mighty narrow defintion of freedom. What about freedom from an invading force, or foreign leadership and control?

Freedom needs a narrow definition or its meaningless.

What about freedom to oppress women or support shelter terrorists? There are lots of things people can do, freedom isn't about everything its only about what's right.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 11:14 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Hmmm, you don't think that an idea of 'right' might be somewhat subjective? That what you see as right, someone else may see as abhorrent?

It seems to me that you would probably define 'freedom fighters' = people like me and "terrorists" = people like them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 8:50 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Hmmm, you don't think that an idea of 'right' might be somewhat subjective? That what you see as right, someone else may see as abhorrent?

Right and wrong is not now nor has it ever been subjective.

Your argument is merely a means to excuse wrong behaivor. It allows you to make bad decisions without guilt and to excuse the bad decisions of others.

Your argument excuses so much. Racism, abuse of women, theft, slavery, etc. You can't name an evil act that someone, somewhere did not think as "right". In fact you would judge everyone insane regardless of what acts they are committing. Work hard and support your family, go crazy and kill your family...all ok with you because by your definition there is no way for anyone to know right from wrong.

I hold people accountable because, like most folks, I know right from wrong even if I sometimes through act or ommission make a bad choice.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 11:46 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Hmmm, you don't think that an idea of 'right' might be somewhat subjective? That what you see as right, someone else may see as abhorrent?

Right and wrong is not now nor has it ever been subjective.

Your argument is merely a means to excuse wrong behaivor. It allows you to make bad decisions without guilt and to excuse the bad decisions of others.

Your argument excuses so much. Racism, abuse of women, theft, slavery, etc. You can't name an evil act that someone, somewhere did not think as "right". In fact you would judge everyone insane regardless of what acts they are committing. Work hard and support your family, go crazy and kill your family...all ok with you because by your definition there is no way for anyone to know right from wrong.

I hold people accountable because, like most folks, I know right from wrong even if I sometimes through act or ommission make a bad choice.

You are wrong about me on so many levels it is hard to know where to start, you insulting bastard. I am accountable for all my actions, and I don't support or condone racism, theft, slavery et al.

But I do know beyond doubt that assuming that all people throughout the world see the world the same as I do creates the road to perdition. As much as it might perhaps suit me to have everyone believe the same things and hold the same values, they just don't and they never will. So I, like you, have a choice. We can condemn those who don't believe as we do, we can force our value systems on them - and that seems to have been the road that the US has taken in the past 50 or so years - or we can accept that there are differences and let others live their lives according to their world view. Now, there might be some differences that we can never tolerate. For me, the thought that the US still executes its citizens is totally abhorrent to me, and I think your gun laws are ridiculous. They go against everything that I believe. Do I have the right to interfere with your value system? Well, the way I see it is, I have the right to critisize and to campaign, but in the end they reflect the value systems of your government and probably I shouldn't be interfering. I'm not entirely sure as I write that I believe that about execution. However, even though I think they are wrong and stupid, many of your citizenry see it differently.

I can live with the concept that I have values which I believe in, but also know that they are not universal values. You on the other hand, prefer the simplistic and dangerous assumption that your values are the only worthy ones, and everyone should think as you. Good luck with that!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 12:17 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
In order to be a freedom fighter you have to be fighting for freedom, as in western, American-style liberty for men and women without regard to race or faith. If you are fighting for those things you are a freedom fighter, if not, you are not.

Hmm, so by this criteria the Muhajideen who fought the Soviet occupation in Aghanistan could not be considered freedom fighters?

"Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."
--- Ronald Reagan

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:42 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree with Hero that there are certain things that are universally right or wrong, no matter what someone says about it. Going and killing your cousin for no reason, just because you felt like it is wrong. Rape is wrong, even if some people think its fun. I think Meghan'sDaughter's statements about right and wrong being subjective in all cases are a dangerous slope.

I agree with Meghan's about how one can't force others to agree with them, one can campaign, share how they believe, be an activist, can even help get laws changed, but one cannot force someone else to believe as they do. It just doesn't work.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE