Mr Presley's terrorism thread

Mr Big Fluffy Matthew has raised some interesting questions. When is violence to achieve a political goal justified? Palestine, Ireland, South Africa, Venezuela, et al. As I’ve said before, one person’s terrorist is another person’s liberator. Where does the motivation come from, and is it legitimate? Educate me.
What is “terrorism” exactly? Does the fight for freedom necessarily condone collateral damage? Who is “guilty”, and who is blameless? What are the parameters of “innocence”? You voted 'em in, mate, and you stood by while they perpetrated horrors and started wars. Are you not guilty by proxy?

People have not been able to agree regarding exactly what constitutes terrorism. But countless groups are labeled terrorists by the UN and other institutions anyways.

It’s a good question and I’m surprised that it got so little attention. I guess that could be because some people’s entire life philosophy could be at risk depending on the findings…

Personally, I think that “terrorism,” as defined by most people, is the only way to fight the US. The US military is WAY too strong. Not that I would wish for anyone to get hurt over there. Not what I’m saying AT ALL. The US defense budget is, single-handedly, larger than that of all other countries in the world combined. That has to mean something. These people are either completely paranoid, or they really have A LOT of enemies. But no, the reality is that said budget is not a “defense” budget, it’s an “offense” budget so to speak, one that comes with its own drawbacks.

It is clear that the US has, over the years, observed very aggressive policies when it comes to “national defense,” often at the demise of diplomacy. The US’s military influence around the planet is tremendous and that is not going to keep everyone happy. Especially not the many who find their lives turned upside down by related conflicts. People lose hope. A lot of suicide bombers do it because they are offered enough money to give their wife and kids a chance to make it past the crumbs of existence. It doesn’t make it right to go kill innocents, of course, but I am just trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who was born on the wrong side of the track and who, somehow, ends up voluntarily strapping explosives to his body. Say what you like, it’s not an easy exercise.

It’s easy to pinpoint a certain action such as blowing up a bus with innocents on board and to make a judgment accordingly, and fair enough. It’s a bit more difficult, however, to understand what actually leads individuals to sacrifice their lives. Skewed ideologies and beliefs? Religion in an extreme form? That’s just bullshit. There ain’t no wealthy terrorists strapping dynamite to their chests or flying jets into the WTC.


Thanks for your contribution, Mr Marboulette. Trying to get my head around this issue as I have for the last 30 years. You’re right. I think this business cuts too deep for most people, and they fear an ideological commitment may doom them. Most people just cut through the crap and hit me in the face for my opinions. Perhaps cyber-credibility is more important.

[quote=“jimipresley”] Most people just cut through the crap and hit me in the face for my opinions.[/quote]I find the exact same thing, except I would not call it cutting through the crap. More like piling up crap by showing off extensive knowledge of specific events related to international politics and by making all kinds of analysis that make them look really well read, educated, and smart. Problem is, while they are busy showing off, people are fucking killing each other if they are not starving. But don’t you tell these people that this nonsense should end NOW. How uneducated does one have to be think that this is even remotely possible considering all the complexity/crap that has been piled on. :whistle:


Maybe you’re not getting much feedback because it’s already been asked: viewtopic.php?f=86&t=35800&hilit=

Mr. Presley would not have been asking so many questions. He would have taken care of business. With karate.