Would you...

[BisquitMan]

Would you support a domestic terrorist group if they were for a cause you believe in?

[perdition79]

I have a couple stupid relatives who support fringe groups called the PBA and PAL. It's a bunch of militarized thugs with badges and guns. They go around harassing citizens by highway robbery, extortion, illegal searches and seizures, interrogation, dog shootings and tazings. This group is supported by quite a few foolish people who believe that resorting to Gestapo tactics will preserve their Norman Rockwell ideal of an American Dream (tm) that never existed in the first place. There's a whole colony of their supporters a couple hours north of here, in a compound known as The Villages.

[Thaking]

I have a couple stupid relatives who support fringe groups called the PBA and PAL. It's a bunch of militarized thugs with badges and guns. They go around harassing citizens by highway robbery, extortion, illegal searches and seizures, interrogation, dog shootings and tazings. This group is supported by quite a few foolish people who believe that resorting to Gestapo tactics will preserve their Norman Rockwell ideal of an American Dream (tm) that never existed in the first place. There's a whole colony of their supporters a couple hours north of here, in a compound known as The Villages.

I lol'd

[CoRDiTe]

Would you support a domestic terrorist group if they were for a cause you believe in?

I support PBS. Heh

[nipster]

Would you support a domestic terrorist group if they were for a cause you believe in?

No. Period. End of story.

Unless our government goes all Nazi Germany or Pol Pot, then I sure as fuck would support their overthrow.

I would not support any other "cause"

[blacksheep-1]

The major causes of homegrown terrorism is that a group of people feel they no longer have a say in their own government (or destiny, either way). The US has been able to largely avoid this by being a bottom up, representative sort of government. However there has always been fringe groups that feel they have not been properly represented, the black panthers, ALF, weathermen and others, mostly liberal in bent have been around for years, Lately there have been more right wing Timothy McVey types, but for the most part those folks have acted singly, not in groups. But any time that a group of people feel that their no longer involved in their government it is the catalyst for insurrection.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

I don't support homegrown terrorists. I support homegrown rebels.

[Mcatt]

I wouldn't be opposed to a group that took down drug dealers, pedophiles, and scum bags in general

[HybridSS]

Would you support a domestic terrorist group if they were for a cause you believe in?

Well of course the question can not be answered as asked. More details would be needed.
Mainly in the phrase "a cause you believe in". I believe in many causes I would not commit terrorism for.... science, secularism, education, skeptical thinking, ending marijuana prohibition, project innocence, etc etc.

There are other causes which I could see terrorism being used. But you then have to define terrorism for me. I highly doubt I would blow up little children under any circumstances for any cause....or condone it as a tool by any group.

This one question leads to a very very large discussion regarding morality. And that particular discussion is very complex. It is complex because the moral high ground is a tricky thing to find. There is no objective morality..at least to the degree where we can tabulate the score of which side is factually the morality points leader. But even though morality is subjective to some degree....one is sure to only be considered in moral decline by using the tactics of killing innocents by way of terrorism.

[JonNoH]

Just because a group is labeled domestic terrorists doesn't necessarily mean they're for bombings. In the future talking on a forum like this might be all it takes to get that brand. I take the question more as a, if the government says something is wrong and you believe it's right, would you take a stand and be counted as a "wrongdoer".

I could be going off on a tangent with this

[BisquitMan]

I believe in many causes I would not commit terrorism for.... science, secularism, education, skeptical thinking, ending marijuana prohibition, project innocence, etc etc.

There are other causes which I could see terrorism being used.

I agree. I guess the question then becomes what would it take for you to be OK with terrorist tactics being used and what tactics would be acceptable.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

If politicians and the leaders of the minions are the target then I'm all for it.

[HybridSS]

If politicians and the leaders of the minions are the target then I'm all for it.

so you support the murder of all politicians? Maybe their children too?

[HybridSS]

I agree. I guess the question then becomes what would it take for you to be OK with terrorist tactics being used and what tactics would be acceptable.

It would just have to be some serious repression by govt or group. Hard to define the exact circumstances where I would pick up arms....but it would have to be serious. You might pick out various countries through out history as good examples of repression where those tactics might be justified. Each case IMO wold have to have two factors to consider though.
1) The level of repression
2) available avenues to change
Take for instance...South Africa under apartheid. EXTREME repression....yet I think the route taken by Mandela was far more effective than if he had become a terrorist. Same goes for MLK right here in the US.

Now in a place like Cuba or NK I think you could make a good case for terrorism because repression is high...and avenues to change are incredibly limited.
Now my definition of terrorism would be similar to the insurgent tactics used against us in Iraq that were effective. Road side bombs, sneak attacks etc etc. But I could only justify military targets or targets overtly in support of the oppressor. In Cuba they had informants in each neighborhood who would rat you out for subversive political speech. They were civilians...but IMO fair game.

But note my definition of terrorism here is much like guerrilla warfare. Another persons definition of terrorism might include indiscriminate bombing of buildings with civilians or kidnapping and beheading of children etc etc. I could not see any circumstances that justify this IMO.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Take for instance...South Africa under apartheid. EXTREME repression....yet I think the route taken by Mandela was far more effective than if he had become a terrorist. Same goes for MLK right here in the US.

I'm certain you didn't know this but Nelson Mandela was directly responsible for the murder of at least 300 people, either by his own hand or order. This is why he was tried and went to jail. Of course the politically correct indoctrination machine doesn't elaborate too much on that.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

so you support the murder of all politicians? Maybe their children too?

Just the ones who are destroying America. And the bankers, pharmaceutical companies, AMA and telecom companies lobbying government for their industries.

[BisquitMan]

Take for instance...South Africa under apartheid. EXTREME repression....yet I think the route taken by Mandela was far more effective than if he had become a terrorist.

South Africa is a country I think needs domestic terrorism (or maybe for all the working class to move out and have the country collapse when noone is left to support it). The current politicians are all in support of the poor. A small portion of the country's working class supports the rest of the country and their social welfare programs. Every election, the poor vote for whoever promises them the most. I can say after living there and working with people that have lived there for their entire lives, that country is fucked. The problem is, the "Haves" have too much to loose, so they just live with it rather than take a stand. I see a similar story in the US.

[perdition79]

The difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary is success.

[HybridSS]

I'm certain you didn't know this but Nelson Mandela was directly responsible for the murder of at least 300 people, either by his own hand or order. This is why he was tried and went to jail. Of course the politically correct indoctrination machine doesn't elaborate too much on that.

Mendela was already in jail for years when these organizations began a bombing campaign and direct attacks. Mendela himself was never charged with murder...only sabotage. And that was sabotage of things that dealt direct with apartheid. But again...his most effective time at bringing change was through negotiations and campaigns after being released from jail. He could have gone right back to the sabotage campaign or full blown terrorism....but it was political pressure and negotiations that finally toppled apartheid. Had he resorted to violence after being released from jail....IMO it would have negatively impacted his cause and delayed things.

But dont get too side tracked. The question is when is terrorism justified? You can make a case for South Africa certainly. But IMO in this case the actual violence was not very effective when compared to the other methods used.

Compare that to a more extreme case like Israel and Palestine. Israel IMO is oppressive..especially with the settlement nuts. But what has terrorism gotten the Palestinians? Only justification and cover for the Israeli's actions....and no end in sight.

[HybridSS]

Just the ones who are destroying America. And the bankers, pharmaceutical companies, AMA and telecom companies lobbying government for their industries.

And who decides which ones are destroying America? You and trackstar?

Since you seem to have people in mind here...and you condone terrorism...does that make you a coward?