I think people should seriously ponder what is "right" and what is "wrong"

[leftofthedial]

in the context of an asymetrical war like that being waged in southern Lebanon and in Iraq.

We are quick to brand the tactics available to insurgents as barbaric, but what options are really available to a population that has political aims but no country?

If the class war in the US goes much further, we may find out first hand just how much the rules change in the context of a guerilla insurgency.

[uppityperson]

1. looting vs finding.

[bloom]

2. exactly nt

[leftofthedial]

4. I think that's an example

Do you mean as in the aftermath of Katrina, when the caucasion couple "found" food and drinks and survived, but black people were being shot for "looting"?

Actually though, I'm thinking in terms of tactics, choice of weapons, use of "terror," political leverage . . .

Apparently, it is "okay" for a political party, for example, the Republican party, to leverage religious extremists to help them seize power. Then they can violate international and domestic laws, wage illegal war in order to achieve political and economic goals, indiscriminately kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilians, etc. As long as that political party has a "country" and a flag under which to operate, it's all acceptable.

But if a political party uses religious extremism for political leverage and uses unconventional tactics to kill hundreds of civilians--all in order to achieve political goals, it is unspeakably barbaric illegitimate terrorism.

I call bullshit.

They are all murdering, thieving lying bastards--Israel, Hezbollah, the GOP, Hamas--all of them. Until we rid the planet of these vermin, we are all culpable to some extent for the crimes they commit in OUR names and with OUR money.

If we have to all become "terrorists" because we have been politically neutered by illegal political cabals, then we need to understand what we are up against and what it will take to fight the good fight.

[uppityperson]

7. I think people use what they have & no absolutes

There are no absolutes. OK, my absolutes are you don't hurt people, you don't hurt things. However, I have done so to prevent a larger harm, so even my absolute is not absolute. Perhaps "try" might help, but even that is too vague.

Fundamentalists are wrong in pressing their way on others. People should be open minded enough to be able to tolerate differences, so long as the no hurting thing goes, which I already said is not absolutely absolute.

Those able to focus enough to pull other like minded people together are usually the narrow minded, the ones that use fear of some sort to really pull people together. This I think is wrong, but how I have seen it happen the majority of times. So, because of this they gain power and push it further on others. And they have the power and weaponry and money to do so.

What it will take to fight the good fight is getting rid of fear. I let an in-law say "raghead" here the other day, did not immediately call him on it because it would be rude to point it out, also I was rather taken aback since the term came from someone I never thought would use it. Anyway, next time I will call bs on whomever does it, not be afraid of what they might think of me. (OK, minor fear, but still. Rambling a bit, thinking as I write to get this response off to you)

Get rid of fear, fear to fail, fear to be hurt, fear that others will not like what you say and look down upon you/not patronize your business, etc, fear of being wrong, fear of being hit or yelled at or disappeared.

They have the pull, the know how of organizing, the money, the weaponry. But they are wrong. Was Ghandi right? Is laying down in front of your enemies, letting them kill you the right way to go? Does any time we use violence continue the cycle? I don't know.

[rucky]

3. Dig a little deeper w/ right and wrong.

Nonviolent civil disobedience is really the only *right* way to go that I can think of. Or reform from within if that's possible.

But you've started a dialogue that needs to be started - about the nature of violence.

[leftofthedial]

5. Although I am a pacifist to a point

I do believe there is a time and there are conditions when violent resistance becomes necessary.

[adwon]

6. There are options

The father of modern guerilla warfare, Michael Collins, felt no need to indiscriminately shoot up his country in order to gain independence. He targeted British occupation personnel and their adjuncts (like the Cairo Gang). The problem, to some extent, is not that people use violence to attain political ends, but they use it without concern for the results it brings. Conventional morality is tossed aside in the name of the struggle or whatever. Excuses are made about the 'necessities of the times.' The truth of the matter is that the average revolutionary leader is little more than Charles Manson run amok. Of course, their opponents, with rare exceptions, seem to believe the Genghis Khan model is appropriate for every situation.

I understand why people choose violence to effect change. I will never understand how they can use it without regard to the costs they incur in the present and in the future. Those who indiscriminately kill civilians, for whatever reason, are nothing more than rabid dogs. They lack morality and they lack any foresight to the predictable results of their actions. These places need Abraham Lincolns, but all they ever get are Thaddeus Stevenses.