Iron said:I dont see how you can even begin to justify it. The aim is to terrify civilians, so leaders are pressured into conceeding to terrorist terms. You say they may be forced to do this because they are weak? If the state is not seeking to exterminate them, then they have alternative means. If they're after greater independence, that does not justify taking innocent life
Exactly, the label of terrorism, and the categorisation of all terrorism as absolutely evil, the war on terror, is completely meaningless.Iron said:I agree that it can be a handy term for a state, but part of the reason why there's no coordinated international response to it is because one state's baby killer is another state's freedom fighter.
Hate to rain on your parade of utter joy in someone's death, but I'm pretty sure, if atheism is correct, that you don't have a period of realisation wherein you go "Ah, I see atheism's the way of the world. No heaven, just emptiness, nothingness, eternally. Bugger, how upsetting for me". You just go into it.chicky_pie said:When you terrorists die, what waits you is not heaven, 100 virgins or god, but realising that there is no heaven or god when you die, just darkness - and silence. Enjoy Atheism losers.
You are my favourite boser by far of all of them.Graney said:I think it's a really absurd situation where it's okay for the state to kill and dominate people, but whenever individuals organise and fight for their freedom, even if they're fighting against a tyrranous state, it's considered the worst of crimes.
People happily accept that the state should have all this power and are terrified of individuals who fight against oppression. Madness.
I think the intention of a lot of the anti-terror propaganda is to enforce states power and remove individuals liberty to oppose the state by any means necessary.
When I joined bos, way back in 2004, I was a communist, though I didn't really understand what I believed beyond a wikipedia level and certainly couldn't articulately respond to criticisms of my beliefs. I have a huge debt to the bos libertarians, waf, malfoy, yourself, I wonder if I ever would have come to a cohorent political standpoint otherwise.youBROKEmyLIFE said:You are my favourite boser by far of all of them.
Call it "war on radical islam". Honest and blunt, I'd get behind that 100%.Iron said:I think a conception like War on Terror, as intellectually unsatisfying as it is, is necessary
Shuttttttuppppp. *smack*Graney said:Do they? Always, really? A sufficiently powerfull and aggressive state will quickly and easily run over non-violent public resistance. Sometimes violence is necessary. Violence is one of many tools in fighting oppression.
I in no way endorse the actions of the bali bombers, or anyone who would deliberately cause unnecessary harm against civilians. "terrorism" is the loosest of definitions and when applied to the destruction of government, military and civic institutions by groups of individuals, for the purpose of opposing tyranny, I fully endorse this means.
All I'm saying is "terrorism" is not an absolute evil, often less so than war by the state.
How is Obama not classified as a terrorist?Iron said:I agree that it can be a handy term for a state, but part of the reason why there's no coordinated international response to it is because one state's baby killer is another state's freedom fighter. It's impossible to define under international law, without making a state's own military actions look hypocritical.
But we can agree that a state must challenge non-state actors who murder its civilians in the hope of maximizing their bargaining terms. Right now it's just commonsense to take this on a case by case basis, as you say. The Bali bombers, for instance, are terrorists - Obama is not
Fairly certain thems be lawins be gainst them and the indornesians ain't for givin in them terristsIron said:I think that you could argue something like as long as they remain in prison, there's the possibility that tourists would be kidnapped and used to exchange etc