14 Aug 06
Is extreme activism a form of domestic terrorism?
I say yes.
I'm sure that activisim has its rightful place in any free society so one or more persons can vioce their 'opinion or belief' with regard to something they feel strongly about. But at what point does lawful activism become unlawful, then even terrorism? Is it just before any actual violent acts have been committed as in the planning stage of such acts? I think that planning any violent act is the first stage of terrorism.
If any group cannot or will not use legal means to dispute or correct whatever it is they are acting out against and then resort to violence (disrupting businesses, destruction of property, bombing, taking lives, etc), are they not simply terrorists? Is extreme activism the same as terrorism if it plans for then executes violent acts?
Some may argue "their pamphlets and protests did not pursuade" or that "they did not win in court so they have to resort to other means", aka "taking things into their own voilent hands". But wouldn't that make them lawbreakers who then commit terrorist crimes because they will not 'accept'. This is like religious extremists who cannot tolerate anyone not believing as they do, then taking action against them. In my opinion.
14 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sword4damocleswhat if they tried the legal system but it failed them even though they were right, by what means would you think is fair for them to receive justice?
If any group cannot or will not use legal means to dispute or correct whatever it is they are acting out against and then resort to violence (disrupting businesses, destruction of property, bombing, taking lives, etc), are they not simply terrorists?
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by trevor33Then they get to voice their opinion in the next election. If they don't win that then the people have spoken. So endeth the story.
what if they tried the legal system but it failed them even though they were right, by what means would you think is fair for them to receive justice?
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by sword4damoclesYou are assuming that being "lawful" is the only route a person should take, or that it is a universal truth. To many people all throughout the world, our ideas of what constitutes a good society aren't valid. The greatest leaders in the world have never been lawful. George Washington for example was, out of neccessity, a violent person. I'm sure he was considered the equivalent of a "terrorist" by his enemies as well.
Is extreme activism a form of domestic terrorism?
I say yes.
I'm sure that activisim has its rightful place in any free society so one or more persons can vioce their 'opinion or belief' with regard to something they feel strongly about. But at what point does lawful activism become unlawful, then even terrorism? Is it just before any actual vio ...[text shortened]... te anyone not believing as they do, then taking action against them. In my opinion.
The word terrorist as well is misleading. What may be a terrorist in one land is a freedom fighter in another. The government uses this word to label certain individuals as bad (sometimes deservedly so, but sometimes not as well) so that the general population will agree when we kill them, or put them in jail for a long time.
With that out of the way, yes, groups like PETA, who bomb businesses because they can't get legislation passed, are bad. I wouldn't be using the world terrorist however, because the word is being grossly overused and misrepresented in our cultures today. I would say that it is almost inane to move beyond the word "extreme activist."
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by DraxusLawful - if we go into this then you could even say that Hitler believed he was right and lawful to do all that he did. To me it simply means complying with the existing set of laws in place. And in America laws can be ammended - that's the beauty of our system.
You are assuming that being "lawful" is the only route a person should take, or that it is a universal truth. To many people all throughout the world, our ideas of what constitutes a good society aren't valid. The greatest leaders in the world have never been lawful. George Washington for example was, out of neccessity, a violent person. I'm sure he was c ...[text shortened]... oday. I would say that it is almost inane to move beyond the word "extreme activist."
So to you there are no 'terrorists'. Only 'extreme activists'. Fair enough but I say its the same thing, just a play on words. Who cares what it's called.
As for G. Washington, he was a revolutionary right? Did he send troops to covertly cause problems in England? He said 'here we are, come get us'.
At least we see eye to eye on animal activist groups who are violent. But I say they are terrorists, or extreme activists as you would have it.
14 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sword4damoclesJohn Paul Jones was sent by the Continental Navy to the shores of England; he even raided a British village and attacked some British ships right off the English coast. The Americans also invaded Canada which had remained loyal to the Crown. Washington also used spies and covert operations.
Lawful - if we go into this then you could even say that Hitler believed he was right and lawful to do all that he did. To me it simply means complying with the existing set of laws in place. And in America laws can be ammended - that's the beauty of our system.
So to you there are no 'terrorists'. Only 'extreme activists'. Fair enough but I sa o are violent. But I say they are terrorists, or extreme activists as you would have it.
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by sword4damoclesLaws that can be ammended? How innovative and original!
Lawful - if we go into this then you could even say that Hitler believed he was right and lawful to do all that he did. To me it simply means complying with the existing set of laws in place. And in America laws can be ammended - that's the beauty of our system.
And whether or not Hitler believed what he was doing was lawful is of no consequence. It was not. Believing is not enough.
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by sword4damoclesDissent is patriotic.
Is extreme activism a form of domestic terrorism?
I say yes.
I'm sure that activisim has its rightful place in any free society so one or more persons can vioce their 'opinion or belief' with regard to something they feel strongly about. But at what point does lawful activism become unlawful, then even terrorism? Is it just before any actual vio ...[text shortened]... te anyone not believing as they do, then taking action against them. In my opinion.
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZ...And whether or not Hitler believed what he was doing was lawful is of no consequence. It was not. Believing is not enough.
Laws that can be ammended? How innovative and original!
And whether or not Hitler believed what he was doing was lawful is of no consequence. It was not. Believing is not enough.
THAT was my point. Thank you.
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by sword4damocleshitler was voted in my the german public, yes? so as the leader of germany he had the right to make any laws he wished. even it people didn't like them it didn't make them unlawful.
...And whether or not Hitler believed what he was doing was lawful is of no consequence. It was not. Believing is not enough.
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by trevor33So you are saying that all nations are lawful, no matter what they profess or what laws they anact. Right?
hitler was voted in my the german public, yes? so as the leader of germany he had the right to make any laws he wished. even it people didn't like them it didn't make them unlawful.