This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Soossie
Doesn't radicalism ussually spring for the idea that a group of people [i](or an individual ussually belong to a group identity)[/i] believe that their life or way of life is threatened on an excistential level. And because they believe, feel or experience that thread to be real they justify using violence. And that the small group of that innitial group that move to actually take up arms are the extremists.
And then even if you are an extremist, ussually on the international stage you only become a terrorist once your violence is aimed at non-combatants and targets you can't legitimise as being part of the system that causes you to grab to arms.
This btw, can actually happen with annyone that feels threatened and want to restore their way of life/liberties.
- Ecological terrorism, where groups believe to fight an enemy that destroys their habitat
- Communist terrorism, where groups believe to fight capitalists that destroy the liberties of those that sell their labor
- Fascist terrorism, where groups believe to fight an enemy that threatens the purity of their group (mainly liberalism and it's progressions)
- Religious groups that feel threatened by secularism or feel that we can only live a virtuous life if the state is controlled by God
...
I actually don't know anny terrorist group that uses "greed" a motivation for terror. Politicians are only the spokespersons of groups that feel this excistential thread and that call for violent sollutions. They do bolster the movements by advancing their way of looking at things in the public discourse. "Ignorance" can be used as a label to define certain terrorists, but it's not nescessary. A slave rebellion (for instance) can get pretty wild and kill off non-combatants and be labeled "terrorists", but I think we can find good arguments why slaves see their life as being excistentially threatened by their masters. I think it's pretty strange to call someone that rebels against their master as a slave "ingorant", that doesn't mean the slave-rebellion can apply terror.
Doesn't radicalism ussually spring for the idea that a group of people [i](or an individual ussually belong to a group identity)[/i] believe that their life or way of life is threatened on an excistential level. And because they believe, feel or experience that thread to be real they justify using violence. And that the small group of that innitial group that move to actually take up arms are the extremists.
And then even if you are an extremist, ussually on the international stage you only become a terrorist once your violence is aimed at non-combatants and targets you can't legitimise as being part of the system that causes you to grab to arms.
This btw, can actually happen with annyone that feels threatened and want to restore their way of life/liberties.
- Ecological terrorism, where groups believe to fight an enemy that destroys their habitat
- Communist terrorism, where groups believe to fight capitalists that destroy the liberties of those that sell their labor
- Fascist terrorism, where groups believe to fight an enemy that threatens the purity of their group (mainly liberalism and it's progressions)
- Religious groups that feel threatened by secularism or feel that we can only live a virtuous life if the state is controlled by God
...
I actually don't know anny terrorist group that uses "greed" a motivation for terror. Politicians are only the spokespersons of groups that feel this excistential thread and that call for violent sollutions. They do bolster the movements by advancing their way of looking at things in the public discourse. "Ignorance" can be used as a label to define certain terrorists, but it's not nescessary. A slave rebellion (for instance) can get pretty wild and kill off non-combatants and be labeled "terrorists", but I think we can find good arguments why slaves see their life as being excistentially threatened by their masters. I think it's pretty strange to call someone that rebels against their master as a slave "ingorant", that doesn't mean the slave-rebellion can apply terror.