Nobody would dispute what the aims of NAMBLA are - but my point was, whereas there may well be individual "terrorists" in this respect the group itself is trying to pursue its aims by peaceful means and through freedom of speech. We may not like what they say of course, but saying and advocating are still different to doing. Where individuals "do" they need to be brought to book.
I cannot understand the claim the the American Civil Liberties Union (to remind people of its full title) is trying to reduce people to serfdom. One may not agree with all their class actions, but they appear to be looking for the balance between the freedom to do something and the freedom not to do something. Sometimes that may make them a pain the foot, but it hardly qualifies for the definition of terrorists.
I have to agree that terrorism can indeed be state sponsored. Total War can be like that but hopefully it has always been started by the other side and the "good guys" drop it as soon as they can.
If I have to judge between dropping napalm on innocent civilians, especially children, and the firebombings you refer to and the crackpot and repugnant aims of NAMBLA I would have to apply the lesser of two evils approach.
The USA has very little experience of civilian horrors, with the exception of 9/11 (and maybe Oklahoma City), on its own soil. For decades we experienced terrorism in Northern Ireland and also on the UK mainland and yet the US allowed terrorists to go to the US on fund raising campaigns.
Just trying to bring a bit of balance to the argument.
"... the American Civil Liberties Union ... hardly qualifies for the definition of terrorists."
It all depends on your definition of 'terrorism', which by the way is a fairly new word and a fairly new concept for our culture.
"I have to agree that terrorism can indeed be state sponsored."
Often it is.
"... Total War can be like that but hopefully it has always been started by the other side and the "good guys" drop it as soon as they can."
True. but historically many of the 'good guys' [usually read as the winners], during those wars also used behind the lines infiltrators to poison water-supplies, destroy bridges, disrupt civil infrastructures, etc. All of which we have done, all of which your culture has done; but by today's definition could well be considered 'terrorism'.
"... For decades we experienced terrorism in Northern Ireland and also on the UK mainland and yet the US allowed terrorists to go to the US on fund raising campaigns."
Again the definition of 'terrorism' comes into play.
Many have felt that civil fighting, political instability, and religous disputes do not make for terrorism. We as a culture have many who would tend to side with the Irish. [Again why did you levy a poll tax against them if not to .... them off? but that is just one small example from among the hundreds of things that the Brits have done to humiliate and destroy the Irish culture. Or at least so they say]
:-)
And as in many other arenas, we allow non-profit groups to exist and raise money, so they can back-door that money to other groups that are far more extreme. By allowing freedom of speach and freedom to congregate, this happens.
We have known and recognized for many years that Greenpeace has funded Earth-First, and while we hunt down earth-first members to stop their fire-bombings, tree-spiking, and money-wrenching; we freely allow Greenpeace to raise money for them.
Some would insist that Greenpeace is a terrorist group. I even attended a school where such opinions were taught. But until prosecutors can gather concrete evidence, we give them the benefit of doubt and assume them to be innocent.
I believe Galen is right about Greenpeace. If you could find and follow the money trail, I'd bet you would find some corporate or individual bank account profits from their activities!
One does not need to look that far away if one lives in a major city. Gangs offer a wealth of terrorist activity to the ordinary citizen. I know of plents of folks in the Bronx and in Brooklyn who don't go out after dark for any reason because of gang activity. It doesn't even have to be dark....there are plenty of drive by shootings in broad daylight to keep most city dwellers in these areas on their toes.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
7
11
21
Popular Days
Apr 17
22
Apr 18
15
Apr 28
11
May 29
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Galen 6 posts
Abigail 7 posts
Shellon 11 posts
outofdafog 21 posts
Popular Days
Apr 17 2005
22 posts
Apr 18 2005
15 posts
Apr 28 2005
11 posts
May 29 2005
10 posts
Trefor Heywood
Abigail (or is it Ron?)
Nobody would dispute what the aims of NAMBLA are - but my point was, whereas there may well be individual "terrorists" in this respect the group itself is trying to pursue its aims by peaceful means and through freedom of speech. We may not like what they say of course, but saying and advocating are still different to doing. Where individuals "do" they need to be brought to book.
I cannot understand the claim the the American Civil Liberties Union (to remind people of its full title) is trying to reduce people to serfdom. One may not agree with all their class actions, but they appear to be looking for the balance between the freedom to do something and the freedom not to do something. Sometimes that may make them a pain the foot, but it hardly qualifies for the definition of terrorists.
I have to agree that terrorism can indeed be state sponsored. Total War can be like that but hopefully it has always been started by the other side and the "good guys" drop it as soon as they can.
If I have to judge between dropping napalm on innocent civilians, especially children, and the firebombings you refer to and the crackpot and repugnant aims of NAMBLA I would have to apply the lesser of two evils approach.
The USA has very little experience of civilian horrors, with the exception of 9/11 (and maybe Oklahoma City), on its own soil. For decades we experienced terrorism in Northern Ireland and also on the UK mainland and yet the US allowed terrorists to go to the US on fund raising campaigns.
Just trying to bring a bit of balance to the argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Trefor Heywood:
"... the American Civil Liberties Union ... hardly qualifies for the definition of terrorists."
It all depends on your definition of 'terrorism', which by the way is a fairly new word and a fairly new concept for our culture.
"I have to agree that terrorism can indeed be state sponsored."
Often it is.
"... Total War can be like that but hopefully it has always been started by the other side and the "good guys" drop it as soon as they can."
True. but historically many of the 'good guys' [usually read as the winners], during those wars also used behind the lines infiltrators to poison water-supplies, destroy bridges, disrupt civil infrastructures, etc. All of which we have done, all of which your culture has done; but by today's definition could well be considered 'terrorism'.
"... For decades we experienced terrorism in Northern Ireland and also on the UK mainland and yet the US allowed terrorists to go to the US on fund raising campaigns."
Again the definition of 'terrorism' comes into play.
Many have felt that civil fighting, political instability, and religous disputes do not make for terrorism. We as a culture have many who would tend to side with the Irish. [Again why did you levy a poll tax against them if not to .... them off? but that is just one small example from among the hundreds of things that the Brits have done to humiliate and destroy the Irish culture. Or at least so they say]
:-)
And as in many other arenas, we allow non-profit groups to exist and raise money, so they can back-door that money to other groups that are far more extreme. By allowing freedom of speach and freedom to congregate, this happens.
We have known and recognized for many years that Greenpeace has funded Earth-First, and while we hunt down earth-first members to stop their fire-bombings, tree-spiking, and money-wrenching; we freely allow Greenpeace to raise money for them.
Some would insist that Greenpeace is a terrorist group. I even attended a school where such opinions were taught. But until prosecutors can gather concrete evidence, we give them the benefit of doubt and assume them to be innocent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I believe Galen is right about Greenpeace. If you could find and follow the money trail, I'd bet you would find some corporate or individual bank account profits from their activities!
One does not need to look that far away if one lives in a major city. Gangs offer a wealth of terrorist activity to the ordinary citizen. I know of plents of folks in the Bronx and in Brooklyn who don't go out after dark for any reason because of gang activity. It doesn't even have to be dark....there are plenty of drive by shootings in broad daylight to keep most city dwellers in these areas on their toes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
There was a terrorist action against Greenpeace by the French government when they arranged the sinking of Rainbow Warrior in Aukland Harbour.
We also have another saying - "today's "terrorist" is tomorrow's politician."
So often this has been the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.