Can I can summarise my opinion up as anyone who is fundamentalist to the point that there is only white and black, good or bad, right or wrong, left or right, us or them, is scary regardless of religion, belief, etc. Hey as a former budhist , the tokyo underground saren attacks by a budhist cult??? trust me I never would have thought someone could have twisted a religion which with only one exception has a basic non-interference in the world as part of its intrinsic beliefs
As far as I know Korean Zen is the only exception and that says you can interact to reduce suffering and all oppose the taking of life in any form (which gets bizarre because some budhist can eat meat, one of the reasons I'm no longer, I eat meat and couldn't justify the reasoning that I was given as to why I could eat it)
That's bascially it, discussion should be had, nothing is simply black and white. It may be easier, but it just ain't that way.
smithers_jones said:
Not to get all linquistic on you Michael, but they can, in fact, be both.
The term insurgent refers to persons actively in revolt against an established political order. "Insurgent" doesn't imply or grant any "legitimacy" to a rebellion, nor does the fact you or anyone doesn't see a group as legitimate because you disagree with their tactics or goals make them any less of an insurgency. It makes them insurgents who tactics and/or goals you disagree with.
"Terrorist" on the other hand implies someone who uses particular kinds of tactics. They may be insurgents, state security forces, foreign occupying armies or other actors whose goals might be anything from overthowing an existing political order, to change but not overthrow the existing order, to maintaining an existing political order against insurgent forces.
Well, for the most part I agree. However, in terms of international law, support for insurgencies is defined by the "legitimacy" of the insurgent movement. As a matter of sovereignty "legitimacy" is defined as the relative popular support within the country in question.
Insurgenciey doesn't refer to tactics, only to motive - changing an established regime through popular support. "Terrorism" is obviously a tactic which is also concerned with motive - also changing an established regime, but likely without internal popular support. In Iraq, that level of support is dubious, obviously. However, the waters are muddied by the fact that the legitimacy of the present regime, may also be dubious - in which case, supporting either may be morally questionable, or morally right, depending on your position.
In Iraq it doesn't matter what we call the movement. All that matters is that it appears to have support from abroad and from within - support that shows no signs of weakening (from abroad in any event). Popularity doesn't matter because even if the vast majority of us do not approve of the movement, we haven't come up with a credible method of halting it thus far. We have to do that before we start congratulating the rhetorical word choices of newspapers - choices which have absolutely no effect on the outcome. It's just more of the same "turning the corner" nonsense that we hear with ever development.
chilung
Australia
April 2005
JUL 18, 2005 12:36 PM