Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
it seems to me that there is some grouping of different violent acts / groups that may make the argument difficult to analyze. it would seem that lumping in 'suiciders/homicide bombers' in with all 'terrorist' actions as though it is the only type of action representative of such groups makes the positions difficult to separate. personally, i can't support or 'justify' those types of actions; i think they are 'wrong' and in fact, frequently counterproductive. but that's not to say that all violent acts committed by typically disadvantaged, militarily outclassed people can be condemned, at least to my mind. as roach stated: i think it depends who they are, why they are doing what they are doing, and how they go about it.
the particulars of the israeli / palestinian conflict get a little hairy, to mind; there is so much hatred between some portions of those populations, so much history to it, and so many different factions involved that i think its easy to simply generalize all involved as being unethical. that's a whole different can of worms - perhaps a detailed thread discussion of terrorism in that context would make more sense. taking it as a general example, however, and calling it representative of all 'terrorist' groups is dangerous. i mean, look at our own founding fathers, so to speak. not the part with the native americans; the part with the british  |
I don't think I have generalized any one group. Nor terrorist activities as a whole. We really haven't gotten that specific.
To my mind, if you view people who haven't a direct impact on the forces that are keeping you oppressed as disposable, then I do not support your actions. Period. For example, since we seem to be focusing on the Palestinian situation, I find attacks on Israeli military outposts and checkpoints to be legitimate paramilitary maneuvers. Now, of course, I realize that these sorts of attacks are inferior as such for two reasons: 1. they are not adequately equipped to fight them and 2. attacks like this don't make a blip on the radar screen as far as demoralizing their enemy. They know what works and what works is a threat to the peaceful lives of ordinary citizens. Just as we knew when we engaged, for instance, in "shock and awe" in Iraq and the firebombing of Edo during WWII. Not to mention "the bombs." Which leads to a very key point that shapes my outlook on this subject. How much difference is there, really, between the oppressed and the oppressor? Within the ranks of the oppressed you have people in power. People who will never put themselves into the line of fire, but who will recruit the ones feeling the crunch of oppression most acutely. Both sides do this. In both sides you will find exploitation of the most disadvantaged, the struggle for power and control of resources (particularly money), corruption and greed, the abuse of authority and ever escalating levels in the acceptable use of violence as a means of obtaining and maintaining order. Just because one has the means to do so on a larger scale, doesn't necessarily make the other more virtuous and entitled. And I think this observation is exemplified in the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians in the middle east, as well as the key supporters of the respective sides, including the US.
...and I've already said far more than I intended to, so I'll stop now, abruptly yet without lament...