Terrorism? Or fighting for survival

[jackfaire]

In the UK, and the US, and most genuinely democratic countries, it's the ones who lose the election.

Rapscallion

And if the people decided it was just a cycle of corruption? I am not talking some people I mean the majority.

Say a state wanted to leave the union? Wouldn't the act of civil war make the winning party an illegitmate government since they forced it on the losing side?

[Boozy]

Wars of secession aren't usually considered terrorist acts, although they can get pretty nasty. Chechnya is a good example. Neither the Chechen rebels nor the Russian federation were considered terrorist groups by the international community, although I suppose the term was bandied about by some.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Terrorism is never justified. Take the 7/7 bombings, for example. The people who died were not military; they were just ordinary people, going about their business. The terrorists were not interested in protest, they just wanted to murder innocent people for no good reason.

[Slytovhand]

Terrorism is never justified. Take the 7/7 bombings, for example. The people who died were not military; they were just ordinary people, going about their business. The terrorists were not interested in protest, they just wanted to murder innocent people for no good reason.

Well, 7/7 certainly wouldn't fit the 'fighting for survival' idea I was OPing with, and I certainly wouldn't be suggesting that all terrorism is 'justified' anyway.

But, all I ask is - is there any terrorism which can be justified? You've said 'yes', but then provided an extreme opposite example for what I was getting at.

And, as a thought that just came to mind, while we've got this word 'terrorism' and the ideas that come with it, what about what happened in Rwanda?? Tutsi's vs Hutu... complete one-sided battle with machetes and guns - wouldn't that be a form of terrorism?

[Tanasi]

What makes a government illegitimate? I ask because people always say this.

Our government was created out of war.

We left Britain's rule and called it revolution.

We conquered people took their land and called it manifest destiny.

How is our government any more legitimate than say another government that does the same but decides instead of democracy everyone will answer to one guy?

I'll answer your question with another question. In the world today or within the last 100 years name me a benevolent dictator or military government?

[Boozy]

I'll answer your question with another question. In the world today or within the last 100 years name me a benevolent dictator or military government?

Would you consider a monarchy to be a form of dictatorship?

[jackfaire]

Would you consider a monarchy to be a form of dictatorship?

a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Monarchy means their heirs can inherit it's only a dictatorship as long as their rules say no one inherits through blood.

People seem to forget how goverments used to come to power.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

IMO the biggest fault in the 'revolutionary war' line of logic is a subtle but important difference.

What happened there was a revolution, resistance, rebellion, whatever you want to call it, seeking to end a perceived injustice that was forced on them.

What terrorists do, by and large, is attempt to destroy people and things they don't agree with despite the fact that they aren't effected.

That's the basic divide between illegitimate (terrorist) and legitimate (rebel) insurrection/warfare.

Another subtle difference is in the area of methodology.

Ill-legitimate being an attack on civilians and legitimate being an engagement with military forces.

The revolutionary war is legit in both respects. Otherwise we would have followed up victory on NA soil with an attack on Britain and the mass genocide of British people.

[jackfaire]

The revolutionary war is legit in both respects. Otherwise we would have followed up victory on NA soil with an attack on Britain and the mass genocide of British people.

Even if some historians are correct and we cared more about wealth than freedom it would have made no sense for us to do that an ocean seperated us.

[Slytovhand]

I'll answer your question with another question. In the world today or within the last 100 years name me a benevolent dictator or military government?

Fiji......

[Tanasi]

Fiji......

Denied:

Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs)
The Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) is the highest assembly of the traditional chiefs of Fiji, with a small number of specially qualified commoners, who meet at least once a year to discuss matters of concern to the Fijian people. In earlier days this Council had the power to pass laws and regulations binding Fijians but this was removed towards the end of the colonial era when separate Fijian regulations were abolished.

Despite this, the Council's advice is always sought on matters affecting the Fijian people, and it continues to be held in high esteem by all communities in Fiji. The BLV appoints the President of the Republic of Fiji Islands. Currently, the BLV consists of 55 members. Three each are nominated from the 14 provinces, 3 from the island of Rotuma and 6 nominated by the Minister for Fijian Affairs in consultation with the President of Fiji. The current Prime Minister, President and Vice-President are also automatic members while former Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka is a life-member of the Council.

http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?opt...645&Itemid=196

[Tanasi]

Would you consider a monarchy to be a form of dictatorship?

Using this definition, Yes. I understand there's been kings/queens/pricesses/princes that have been considered to be good but somewhere along the way they've all had to surpress someone(s).
Ultimately when power resides with one person that power will be abused.

[Slytovhand]

Denied:

Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs)
The Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) is the highest assembly of the traditional chiefs of Fiji, with a small number of specially qualified commoners, who meet at least once a year to discuss matters of concern to the Fijian people. In earlier days this Council had the power to pass laws and regulations binding Fijians but this was removed towards the end of the colonial era when separate Fijian regulations were abolished.

Despite this, the Council's advice is always sought on matters affecting the Fijian people, and it continues to be held in high esteem by all communities in Fiji. The BLV appoints the President of the Republic of Fiji Islands. Currently, the BLV consists of 55 members. Three each are nominated from the 14 provinces, 3 from the island of Rotuma and 6 nominated by the Minister for Fijian Affairs in consultation with the President of Fiji. The current Prime Minister, President and Vice-President are also automatic members while former Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka is a life-member of the Council.

http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?opt...645&Itemid=196

Countered:

So, you are suggesting that when the military moves against the democratically elected government and forces them out of their rightfully elected positions, and then hands it back to a more acceptable government - that it's either not implying a 'military dictatorship' (for as long or short as you like) or that it's not being 'benevolent'?

[Nyoibo]

If so then what about Saddam?

[Boozy]

Using this definition, Yes. I understand there's been kings/queens/pricesses/princes that have been considered to be good but somewhere along the way they've all had to surpress someone(s).
Ultimately when power resides with one person that power will be abused.

Then I submit the recently-abdicated King of Bhutan for your consideration as a "benevolent dictator" (at least, a benevolent non-elected ruler). He ruled a traditional Buddhist country. His subjects were very happy with monarchic rule up until recently. When it was peacefully determined that the people of Bhutan would be happier trying a democracy, the King stepped down.