Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (39955)	8/26/2002 12:39:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for typing that sentence. I think that's where one of the more serious dividing lines on this thread exists. No problem... Where I draw the line between terrorism and freedom fighting is when terrorists directly target innocent civilians. If they want to fight to overthrow a despotic regime, they should limit their attacks to governmental military and police officers, and/or leaders. But I subscribe that this should only be against non-elected politicians. However, if the regime is democratic and everyone has the right to vote, then opposition groups MUST use the prevailing system to have their grievances heard and taking action against such a government would qualify as terrorism in my definition (because such a system represents not just the will of the few, but of the many). Such instances of terrorism against a democratic society would be Timothy McVeigh, the Weather Underground.., black panthers... etc) It has upset me in the past, and would upset me in the future, if the US permitted its client opposition groups to target civilians, because in the end, it's THEIR support you require to achieve a stable replacement government, especially in Iraq. Of course, IMO it's permissible to target groups that may be directly acting on the behalf of a despot, such as an organized criminal group or cartel, but not the average person in the streets. And this is where I draw the line between armed resistance to non-democratic rule/occupation and terrorism aimed only at inflicting societal fear. Most pertinent to this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have no problem with Hamas or PFLP attacking ARMED Israeli soldiers (and abiding by the laws of war with regard to unarmed prisoners). They claim they have a cause and if they are willing to fight and die for it under the current circumstances (occupation), that is their right. Just as the Israelis right to take the actions they deem necessary as well, so long as they are not targeting civilians and taking every practical care to limit civilian casualties. But committing suicide bombings using women and children as weapons to target civilians in restaurants and malls?? That's beyond the pale and rightfully falls under the definition of terrorism in my book. Hawk