Could we take acts of terror as the ultimate expression of despair by people who feel they have nothing to lose?
2007-02-24 20:19:49 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
n0 it is the tool of the oppressor
the ritch can afford to blow up cars
can buy bombs
buy air plane tcketts
the poor who are oppressed dont have two coins to rub to gether
nor can they get time off from work
no its the tool of wealth
money is a faulse god.
2007-02-24 20:34:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is the voice of cowards and religious fanatics (ie. morons). If the people you talk about have nothing left to lose, let them organize a militia and engage in guerrilla warfare. That way they target only the troops and support staff of their enemies.
Blowing up a car bomb in a crowded market place, killing innocent men, women and children, is the work of idiotic cowards.
2007-02-25 11:59:11 · answer #2 · answered by rick m 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
- The Israelis used terrorism against the Palestinians in the 1940s. The PLO didn't begin using terrorism until the 1970s.
- The US overthrow the Iranian democracy in 1953. The islamic revolution didn't spread widely until the 1970s, culminating in the 1979 takeover.
- The Cuban opposition to Batista's dictatorship and american ownership of industry sought democracy. _Castro_ wanted democracy and was part of the peaceful movement (which Batista ruthlessly oppressed and murdered) before turning to communism and violence before leading the overthrow.
- The Irish were victimized by centuries of English brutality but didn't begin to use "terrorism" until the late 19th century. They gave up all methods of "terrorism" in 2006 because the English are willing to negotiate in a reasonable manner.
My point? The so-called "terrorists" rarely resort to violence unless peaceful means no longer work, because their oppressors make peaceful means impossible.
.
2007-02-25 04:36:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
There are many definitions. Please check the following web page for detail information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
However under prevailing atmosphere the best course is to use political means. Use of force is disliked by international community and will not get support from public at large.
2007-02-25 07:23:05 · answer #4 · answered by snashraf 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You could take it that way.
You could also take it as the expression of a group of people who want to subjugate their neighbors and force their views and way of life on them.
2007-02-25 06:07:47 · answer #5 · answered by 63vette 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋