Is Terrorism Ever justified?

I wouldn't call it propoganda. Bad, some of it, not worth watching, a lot of it, but propoganda? What, the Simpsons and Sesame Street?

Is it just me or are some people overly paranoid? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paranoid? Me?
Maybe my word choice was not perfect but i knew what i meant.

Sesame street wan't all furry animals and multi ethnicity though - there were messages.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just what, exactly, is this "American way"? Please explain it more fully, otherwise one is apt to take that statement as just one more of the many "...hate America" statements.

I would also like you to explain how the "American way" is FORCED upon people who seem obviously against it? Read some of the recent posts in this thread, DarkThorn seems to think that it's like some kind of American conquest, and is thus blaming all American people for what a few free enterprising companies might be selling .......and those products that they sell are being purchased by ......ooooooh, guess who???

Essential suicide?? Huh? Please explain that one, too. It seems a bit deep for me, so be sure to use small words and short sentences!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, paranoid! Look up the word ...you fit the definition quite well.

Who forced your nation's people to watch those programs? And, in fact, who in your nation allowed such "horrid" programs, with such culturally and socially devastating "messages" to be shown in that nation?

Did Americans force that upon people of the world .....or did those people buy it? And if they did buy it, how can you really blame Americans?

Baron Max

 

The American way is one in which material, financial success is the equivalent of moral propriety. If you would like some rational consideration of the issue, please refer to Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (See XRoads for hypertext.) As I do not have present with me the paper copy that has accompanied me these last ten years or so, I will skip citations, which include the overview offered in Giddons' preface. Indictments of that American way can be found variously in literature and culture; Emma Goldman, for instance, writes,

When a child chooses to bow to peer pressure instead of parental admonition, to fad instead of wisdom, he is honoring the American way. When a man chooses sex over love, violence over peaceful attainment, he is honoring the American way. Emma Goldman repented of her attempt to murder an industry boss, stood by her cohort Berkman's side until the end. The industry boss, however, never repented of the fraud and murder that brought his success. The industry boss, who is equally willing to cut his partner's throat as his employee's, is an example of the American way. The Arabic Muslim looks at the demon United States. Yes, Mr. Smith has a good job, makes good money. But he does so at the expense of Nepalese or Bangladeshi textile laborers, at the expense of Arabic petrol workers, with the blessings of those who would extinguish Islam. What is he to think? Mr. Smith is a representative of the American way. American historian Stephen Ambrose writes (The Rise to Globalism, as I recall) of the American businessman as missionary, going forth to spread our gospel of commerce around the globe. Ambrose also pretends that the indigenous tribes throughout the American continent should have no objection to the Spaniard requerimiento.

And think of the Schwarzkopf cycle. Fifty years, from father to son. Sound familiar? Gen. Norman H. Schwarzkopf, on behalf of the United States of America, helped depose the democratically-elected, Marxist-sympathetic prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh. The resulting reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi was, with American blessing, so damnably evil that the people turned to Ayatollah Ruollah Khomeni. We Americans tend to think of Khomeni as evil; crazy suffices. But to think that what we wrought in Iran made someone like Khomeni an attractive alternative? Such is the American way.

Did you ever read Douglas Adams? The Hitchhiker's triology? Do you recall how the Vogons, seeing the virgin planet in all its glory, could only think, "It's got to go"? Does anybody not recognize this notion from American real estate? Indictments of such an attitude reach all the way to Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist. Really, when Craig T Nelson is helping to make the point, the culture is already saturated. What? Really. Think about it. Craig T Nelson, dude.

What can I tell you? The American way represents the height of individualism as a life purpose. John Wayne, Arnold Schwarzeneggar; why is it the Chinese dancer who breaks the template for action heroes? Watch any American romantic comedy. Read a best-seller. Say, the next Tom Clancy or ... um ... whomever. Make it an American. Then turn around and read something like Oates' Because it is Bitter and Because it is My Heart. Seriously; there is no comparison. The average bestselling novel has more of what the typical American moviegoer or television viewer wants. But Joyce Carol Oates? Jack Cady? Seriously; I dare you to make a movie out of Cady's Singleton. Something easier? Try The Jonah Watch; the scene where the ice sheet crashes onto the deck should be inspiring. Point being: Culturally, politically, economically, and spiritually, the American way is separate from the rest of the world.

Surely, everybody wants to be rich. Or at least able to attain resources necessary to life or leisure. But the American way makes it a religion, encourages its acuity. We hear, sometimes, that somebody is willing to evict his own mother for a dollar. We usually hear this from the artist of American antithesis; Leona Helmsley, Donald Trump ... all of them have sought to exploit the law in order to line their own pockets minimally at the expense of other people's lives and livelihoods.

Yes, the design problem kills people, but it will cost a lot to fix it. Fight Club, anyone? The dirty secret actually made the movie; whether or not to inform the public of a problem is, in fact, a simple comparison of simple mathematical formulae; what will cost more, silence or fixing the problem?

Americans are as confused about the role of wealth in life as Zarqawi is confused about the role of God in what he does. It is easier to subscribe to wealth than propriety, and that is the American way. We treat it like a dirty secret even though we believe it. Much like the man who rapes his own daughter. Shh, don't tell. We will get in trouble, even though we are right. You love me, don't you? I love you. Shh, hush now. I promise you, this is a good thing.

It would be one thing if we were, as a culture, honest about the sum of our values. But we're not. Someone hits me, I hit them back. That's the American way, sure. It's also the human way. But the American way also says that if I think someone might hit me at some time in the future, I ought to kill them now and deny them the opportunity. It's like someone--and someone I respect, at that--told me recently: I should be proactive, should "avoid the damn issues before they occur". Politically we call it "preemptive". As in "preemptive defense", in which you attack someone without provocation because you think they might possibly offend you at some undetermined point in the future.

Would you sell your daughter as a prostitute in order to feed her?

To borrow from an Englishman: "Run, rabbit run. Dig that hole, forget the sun. And when at last the work is done, don't sit down, it's time to dig another one."

Look, the "American way" as I have indicted it makes any ethical consideration about the individual and desire. As much as I would like to blame it on conservative politics, the reality is that everyone else gave in, anyway, so they're all to blame.

As I wrote earlier, "Ask people to be considerate of the future and they call you a liberal elitist, or hippie, or utopian. No, some of us just want the human endeavor to be successful." I'm sorry such a notion confuses you so greatly. Consider it in terms of decisions:

- You can mine a region and make money, but you will extinct a species and disrupt the food chain.
- You can develop a property and make money, but will also destroy the last public access in town to the waterfront.
- You can clear land and make money, but you must also extinct a species of tree, which only grows in the area you wish to develop.
​

The American way says go for the money. It also says to cut corners in education; your profits, and not your children's knowledge and capability, are what is important. Think about it, Max. If you cut off the next generation of the species, the species suffers. If you destroy the next generation, the species dies. According to the American way, however, consideration of the next generation is either hippie utopian bullshit, or a political convenience. It is never, by the American way, a legitimate concern.

Maybe bulldoze a library to make way for condos? Hey, your profits are more important than whether the guy who will mug you and kill your wife in five years ever learned to read, right? After all, profit is the American way.

Any questions?

 

Yeah! Do you actually and truly believe that all that psycho-babble bullshit describes ONLY the "American Way", rather than general human psychology; human selfishness and greed?

Baron Max

 

I was actually pissing about when i posted that message. I loved Sesame street and the simpsons but if you insist on being a sad biscuit arsed prick forever fair enough. I cannot change you.

 

I believe it. All humans are selfish and greedy but most of us are happy not to kill for gain. The American government on the other hand wants or cares for nothing but monetary gain and world domination.

Tell me America is not dominant, tell me your government does not enjoy being a superpower, tell me it does not crave more than it already has. Why is it in Iraq? What is the real reason? Like tiassa said above - America basically attacked Iraq on a whim. They were paranoid that Iraq would one day have the capability to attack them. Hardly ever likely to happen, was it?

 

This thread is about terrorism, and if anyone can justify it. It's not about "The American Way" or anything else.

"Is Terrorism Ever Justified?"

Baron Max

 

Well then - Terrorism is justified because Americas actions according to you are justified.

 

As I wrote before: Surely, everybody wants to be rich. Or at least able to attain resources necessary to life or leisure. But the American way makes it a religion, encourages its acuity.

The American way, as such, is a disease. It is not unique solely to Americans, but it becomes the American way because of its concentration among Americans, its persistence among Americans, and the fact that Americans seem rather quite happy to be sick.

The American way is nothing more than an arrangement of certain "general human" traits that, while not unique solely to Americans, is something that Americans aspire to.

You asked a relevant question. I decided to answer it. I'm sorry if the response confuses you or overloads your circuits.

The reality is that Americans bear such a broad definition of terrorism that yes, terrorism is justified sometimes. If we return to a pre-9/11 definition of terrorism, no, I think terrorism becomes justified only in certain rare, extreme cases, and in those cases should still be called something else.

The United States of America celebrates its early acts of terrorism. Or, if we use a pre-9/11 definition, it is enough to say the tea party was a hell of a protest.

So which definition do you want, Baron Max? I mean, they advertise a beer named after a terroris in this country? Or are they advertising a beer named after a leader of civil disobedience? Do your local teachers ever strike? How about the nurses? Are they overworked, or merely terrorists?

Was Martin Luther King, Jr., a terrorist? By the current American regard, yes. And the late Rosa Parks, too. I mean, look at how scared all the white folks were when those sullen Negroes started taking to the streets. Give us civil rights, the Negroes said, or we'll continue to pray and sing in the streets.

And America was terrified.

 

Just saying that doesn't make it true. Do you have any statistics, references of studies, etc to prove what ye're saying? And, more importantly, showing that that "disease" is not also prevalent around the world (some just not able yet to see it to fruition!).

And just what broad definition is that? Please explain. And as importantly, please explain how all Americans accept that definition of terrorism.

No one was killed or injured at the Boston Tea Party. As to other such "terrorist" attacks by early Americans, can you provide one in which the "terrorists" killed/blew up/injured any innocent civilians as the most important part of their plan??

I know of no one on Earth who would accuse MLK,jr of being a terrorist! Just saying such bullshit does not make it true, Tiassa ...please explain what kind of thinking process would show MLK as a terrorist??? ...especially one that would be considered valid by most anyone!

And last but not least, please give us YOUR definition of terrorism ...AND... please tell us if can be justified.

Baron Max

 

Then assuage the fear. How tough is that?

When I figure out how to make the blind see, I'll get back to you.

Are teachers or nurses on strike terrorists? Depends on who you ask. Me? No, they're not. The Bush administration? Yes, they are. People who fight against invading soldiers, formerly called "the enemy", are now called "terrorists". People who disagree with American policy are terrorists by proxy of lending sympathy to terrorists.

And it is not that all Americans accept the definition, else we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Rather, enough of them accept it that it has become the standard, operating definition. Even the "liberal", "conspiratory" media abuse the word "terror".

Not a requirement by either a pre- or post-9/11 definition.

Many of the EIC's port agents were ... ahem ... "persuaded" to resign in an effort to keep the tea out of colonial ports.

Which is why we should be careful about using such reckless definitions of terrorism as Americans are prone to do.

It's pretty simple:

terrorism: The use of warfare against civilians to coerce a body politic through fear when other, reasonable solutions are available.​

At the time that other, reasonable solutions are unavailable, the people can be said to be guilty.

 

And can that be justified?

If I can't get something from my government that I want, after legal, reasonable efforts have failed, am I "justified" in blow up and killing my neighbors so as to attempt to get the government to give me what I want? Is it "justified" in killing a bunch of little kids so as to horrify the government officials and force them to give me what I want?

And equally important, what do we mean by the term "justified"? Does it mean that if ONE person can "justify" something, then it's "justified"?

Baron Max

 

its frikking great to have you back
yay!

 

of course. just as the warmongers accept collateral damage as a consequence of thier intended goals, so do the terrorists. the target is not civilians. they are just a means to an end.

i wonder if you even comprehend why 9/11 occurred. or why it was entirely logical and quite effective.

you got to understand the various perspectives..........there are no real innocents. i hold all americans, myself included, to be responsible for the slaughter of iraqi civilians. i am a thus, a valid target to a iraqi terrorist/insurgent.

as are you
and your loved ones

Emile Henri: "il n'y a pas d'innocents"

 

No, Max. Whether or not terrorism is justified depends on the definition you use. By a pre-9/11 definition, it is very difficult to justify terrorism. As we have treated the word for the past four years, terrorism is actually fairly easy to justify.

But that's the point. When my definition allows some justification of terrorism, I no longer consider it terrorism. Blowing up children at a toy giveaway? Pure terrorism. Blowing up a restaurant in hopes of killing one person? Terrorism, indeed. Bombing a line of police recruits, easy, and part of warfare.

Are you capable of reading four-frame comic strips? Or as you go through, say, a single Doonesbury, do you say, "Not funny, not funny, not funny, I don't get it"?

 

So, Gustav, all ye're saying is that if someone or some group can "justify", say murdering little kids in a school, then you consider it "justified", right?

By the same token, ye're saying that if anyone or any group deems some violent act as "terrorism", then you agree that it IS terrorism?

And if that's so, what's the difference between, say, murder and terrorism? Do you consider murder to be justified if the murderer claims it as justified?

Baron Max

 

Okay ....again, if no one on Earth feels that an act of violence is NOT justified, then you'll agree that it wasn't justified, right? But if there's one single person who feels that the violent act IS justified, then you consider it "justified"? ...even if only one person makes that claim?

Again, what do you mean when you say that something is "justified"? Is it only YOUR idea of justification, or is a general ideal of the word that is usually or normally accepted?

Baron Max

 

No, I'm not.

Baron Max