Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
| not so hard to answer | by Xavier Morgan | 0 votes | 
|
 
Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: They all speak about terrorism and its danger, as about a group of cruel and bloodthirsty people. In reality these people are products, children born of a system. If all people on Earth could feel respect and become their share of dignity, if the mankind, all countries, the society would have preserved a sense of dignity, if all people would care problems with great attention, there would be no terrorism. Of course, when men come to a foreign country or other people’s territory to conquer, and then those people try to defend and liberate their land. First of all they fight for their freedom, the possibility to continue their lives, for their inner, moral and physical freedom. And in this case it would be a just war, yet it is very difficult to say, that a war can be fair. Every war is unjust. If only causes of wars and terrorism could be wiped out! All the causes are here [in our minds]; it is a result of a work done by few people who wanted to seize control and are interested in power. |
Abbas Beydoun: Exactly that happened some days ago in the war in Lebanon... what Israel has done was considered to be self-defence and legal war but what Hezbollah has done was considered to be terrorism. Killing hundreds of civilians and children and destroying a country was considered to be legal war, but on the other hand, kidnapping two soldiers and killing 8 Israeli soldiers - which is of course very bad thing- was considered to be attack. Nobody asked why that is the case just because Israel is a state and Hezbollah is an illegal militia. Of course, what Hezbollah has done is extremely condemned, but I wonder why we forget when Israel kidnaps ministers, assassinates and kills civilians and destroys the whole country. I also wonder why we make differences when use force is used by a state or by militias... one description should be found for both of them. |
Alvaro Restrepo: I think this is one of the most persuasive questions. It is a fact that the powerful can talk about preventive wars or democratical security or friendly fire and that they use all these abhorrent words, and I believe that those powerful countries that use strategies of selfdefense are also terrorists. For me terrorism is the power of using arms and the possibility to subordinate other people by the fear of death. And I think that all human beings are rulers of the life of others and we are all able to take possesion of the life of other human beings and we are able to destroy it. All these forms are in my opinion terrorism. They are all forms of violence. There are forms of legitimate reaction concerning an oppression and there are extreme forms of reactions because the violence or the oppression have been also extremely. Many times the reaction to what you get is proportional. In my opinion that’s why people react violently to terrorism. They react with a violence of blood. Thus I think that there is a double moral when we talk about selfdefense and about other terrorists that also use their legitimate right of selfdefense. |
|
by Ana Lucy Bengochea | 0 votes |
|
|
Currently video only.
|
by Andries Botha | 0 votes |
|
Andries Botha: Answertext will be available soon. |
Angaangaq Lyberth: Everyone wants to be the right one. Lo and behold, without any exceptions everyone wants to be better than the other. Self-defense and terrorism is in fact the same. No matter how you look at it the end result is always the same. Someone loses. It does not matter who, but someone will lose. So what responsibility do you and I have in eliminating that force we use on one another? How can I defend myself from oppression? How can the oppressor be made aware of being oppressing others? Until we eliminate those you and I we will have a hard time to be equal. And you and I here, we need to be equal. We are equal. It does not matter where we come from. It does not matter who we are. It does not matter what’s happening. You and I we are equal. So you and I we’re responsible for determine all these like self-defense and terrorism, both do not belong amongst us. Both will be eliminated from within us. Peace inevitably will arrive within us and without us. Thank you. |
Anthony Arnove: This is an excellent question and a very timely one, Israel. The term self-defense is routinely used to refer to the right of states. But, at the same time, I think the problem is slightly more nuanced in that the actions of certain states can be termed terrorism, not just the actions of, as the question asks, the weak. So, for example, if a state is an enemy to the United States, states such as Iran or states such as Syria, the term terrorism will be used by the media, by politicians, by the punditry to refer to their actions. So, the concept of state terrorism is permissible as long as it is restricted to our enemies. But, on the fundamental thrust of the question, it is absolutely correct that the right of self-defense has invoked a tremendous hypocrisy and that the term terrorism is used with even greater hypocrisy in the world today. So, for example, the United States, which invades Iraq illegally and unjustly to achieve its imperial objectives in Iraq and beyond that in the Middle East and in the world is acting in self defense and yet, the people of Iraq who are resisting occupation, resisting foreign intervention into their lives and very violent form intervention are considered terrorists for exercising their legitimate right of self defense. And the question of the right of self defense also was – the hypocrisy of how that’s used was also recently exposed with the Israelian invasion of Lebanon, where the right of self defense is systematically denied to the people of Lebanon, while it was repeatedly invoked by the defenders of the war in regard to Israel’s right to protect itself from foreign attack. The issue really couldn’t be more important to interrogate. |
Anuradha Koirala: Force is always used between two powerful leaders; one is strong, the other one is weak. So the weaker one is always – it is always – what is the word – phenomenon that the weaker sex are always dominated so that is why the weaker sex is called terrorism. And if a stronger force uses to defend themselves then they call it self defense. This is the problem. There are so many examples in the world that they themselves call themselves human rights activists and human right followers, but you can see that they are violating the human rights by calling themselves self defense. |
Anuradha Mittal: That’s an excellent question. But, yes, it is true that when the powerful use force it is called self-defense and when the weak use it, it is called terrorism because the powerful have the power and the ability to frame it the way they want it as the Bush administration has done that their acts in Afghanistan, that their acts in Iraq are not called colonization, they are not called aggression, they are not called terrorism, but they are called the right to self-defense. We saw it in the case of Israeli aggression in Lebanon that it was really about the right to self-defense where it was really collective punishment against the people of Lebanon because they have the power to be able to frame it the way they want to. But I think we have to also remember ANC was once called a terrorist organization because the powerful, the apartheid regime, had the ability to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist; and we have to take away that power of framing. We have to shift the terms of the debate in this one and seek their powers so we can actually call that all acts of violence whether conducted by states, whether conducted by the empire called United States of America, that they are still basically nothing but acts of terrorism and they are being committed right now in Iraq, in Afghanistan, around the world where the rich countries are selling their weapons and allowing people to be able to kill each other. |
Ashok Gangadean: This question, I think, is symptomatic of the question of language and the language of dominance. And the culture of dominance because again, in the ego-centric politics the stronger, so to speak, the one that has more force by certain measure of force, will always alienate the other and the weaker. And so the language of dominance will arrogate to itself words in terms like "self-defense" versus "terrorism," imputing to the other that we use force as terrorists, while arrogating to one self, a prejudice, value-charged terms. And this has always been the pattern. And this is not just only in the question of force, but it is across the boards in all aspects of culture. We would say we have the truth and the other is false or alienate or heathen or the delusional or whatever. We judge the other by our own prejudice standards. So I think that’s really what’s interesting in this question, and brings out into mind, can we enter into a form of discourse that’s based upon dialogue and deep dialogue. An equality between self and other, where we don’t inherently put a higher article privileging of oneself over the other, and all of our language and attitudes and dispositions to what the other followed from that. And I think that is something that we need to look at critically and begin to redress it in terms of moving into a culture of dialogue and equality and mutuality and collaboration and mutual respect. Which is the culture of sustainability and the culture of future and of global citizenship. |
Audrey Kitagawa: This is only the use of language and so we have to study how not only we use language, but governments use language, institutions use language to help to shape consciousness in ways that will create either the feeling of loyalty or the feeling of aggression towards the other. Language is very powerful in that it actually creates the other in our minds and it begins the process by which we ultimately dehumanize the other and can do horrible things to the other because we have stripped them of their human face and qualities. So we have to see how the creation of this language as a tool of propaganda is very important so that we can guard against these emotionally explosive languaging that helps us to demonize the other. So it's just a matter of languaging that we use to justify our behaviors on whichever side of the fence we may be on. But regardless of the language that may be utilize, each person has responsibility to ask him- or herself is this appropriate, is this proper, is this right, what is happening here, of which the use of language is manifesting a form of dehumanization for which we must guard against. When I was traveling through the marketplaces of Thailand, I saw banners that said Bush the Great Satan. The president of Iran has indicated the U.S. is a great Satan. The U.S., on the other hand, has characterized three countries as comprising the axis of evil, and so we have to see how language is used to create the other. |
Avi Primor: Well, first of all I do believe that this is not true. This is not the case. If the powerful uses force, he can be or be regarded as a terrorist. Take the example of Hitler. Hitler or his regime have been considered a terrorist state, and the war has not been lead for reasons of self-defence. The weaker and smaller ones who had to defend themselves against Hitler were not regarded as terrorists throughout the world. Well, maybe by the Nazi propaganda, but in world history they are not considered being terrorists. Terror has a specific meaning. Terror does not mean guerilla. Terror does not mean the fight of the weaker one, the smaller one, but a fight against the innocent. Terror means to attack the civilian population, to attack the innocent, to attack the ones who have nothing to do with the fight. That is the meaning of terror. When palestinians hijack planes in Europe, that is terror. When they do send suicide attackers against the civilian population, that is terror. When they do defend themselves against the settlers, on the other hand, when they defend themselves against the army, the occupying army, then they are not terrorists but guerilla fighters. It doesn´t matter whether they are right or wrong, but they are not terrorists. Well, terror is a type of war that cannot be tolerated or accepted, and this has nothing to do with the stronger or weaker ones. by Avi Primor |
Benjamin Fahrer: It’s a very important question about the powerful, and really who is the terrorist? We must look at who is using the term terrorism? Is it those that we labeled as terrorists? Or is it those that are defending themselves from what they call terrorism? I’ve never heard terrorism so much in my life than after 9/11, but not from those who cause such an act, but those who responded. And their response has not been one of self defense. When the powerful are using force, it is not necessarily self-defense. It is an offense, and we know this, they label it as being offensive. It is pretty clear in our world what’s going on, because they even those that they’re doing this, they’re manipulating. But they’re been so blatant about it now at this point that we need to really step-up and hold them accountable for what they saying, and what they’re doing. A self defense? The launching an offensive? If you’re on a basketball court and you have your hoop, your goal. Or on the soccer field and you have your goal, when the ball crosses this court you are in defense. You are defending the goal. When you’re going after the goal, when you’re going after the oil, you’re on the offensive side of the field. That can be a terror to the defensive team. When the offensive comes in so strong and on the basketball court you have five players, on the soccer field you have so many players, on a football field you have so many players and there is rules to the game of how many players you can have when you come into the offensive with way more than what is there of defense. That can be a very onslaught. That can put terror in the hearts of those defending their goal, those defending their land, defending their rights. So, we must first ask who is the true terrorists. |
postings
