CANF and Cuba

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

It has been said time and again on this forum by people on all sides of the debate that human life should be valued equally, not according to nationality. I was just trying to show with a specific example that that is not how it works in reality. That is how it should work, but we shouldn't fool ourselves by saying that it actually does provide the basis for foreign policy. And that is quite definately not anti American as it goes for a lot of other countries too (the UK springs to mind quite prominantly at this point...).

What I am trying to say is that this is not a War on Terrorism unless we go after ALL terrorists. That is never gonna happen so instead we will just continue being unfair to the majority of the world. Thanks for your thoughts guys BTW.

---

I think everyone here has agreed all lives are of equal value, but you are right that is not the basis of America's foreign policy, nor any nation I can think of. Ultimately, governments are responsible for their own population and consider them first.

All terrorists should be hunted and eliminated. A definition of "terrorists" the world can agree on must also be "hunted" and will probably prove much more elusive than Bin Laden. It's apparent the world agrees about Bin Laden's organization and others which are similarly "obvious". The problem for the coalition is fighting terrorism beyond the "obvious". Each country will think it's groups are "ok".

[Barry the Sprout]

I thought this was quite funny that I heard recently. Due to the new Prevention of Terrorism act rushed through over here all sorts of stuff is now illegal. You are considered a terrorist if you wear Che Guevara t-shirts as they encourage revolutionary sentiment. If you wear them then you can be subject to indefinate periods of imprisonment due to this act. That is more of a humorous response to Ronn's point about there being no definition of terrorism. We have one in britain, but it is daft. The definition is so wide it would almost definately include me, and I am a pacifist who would never support violence! The world is weird...

[Barry the Sprout]

Once again, sorry to resurrect an old discussion. But I finally have the time to type out something meaningful.

Ryanamur - you say the difference between CANF and Al-Queda is destruction vs removal. Well they have an interesting way of going about it. The chain of bombs in hotel lobbies springs to mind, they succeeded in killing an Italian tourist and injuring numorous Cubans. Also I think you have slightly misinterpreted Al-Queda's aims. When they say they want the destruction of America they mean the destruction of America in its present form - the destruction of the American way of life not necessarilry the death of very citizen. I would say that in that sense CANF also work for the destruction of Cuba - they attempt to destroy the Cuban way of life. They would say that that is not a bad thing as the Cuban way of life is totalitarian dictatorship. Some Cubans would say that it is a very bad thing as the Cuban way of life is democratic socialism. I would say neither is entirely true if you look actually at the reality of Cuba but that is not the point. My point is that Al-Queda and CANF both have the same aim - destruction of a way of life by any means necessary.

The inference of your point about CANF attempting to remove a "rogue government" is that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists. That misses my point entirely - it is not like CANF's actions have worked so the justification that the deaths are worth it is a little irrelevant IMO. What I actually said was that whether or not what they were doing was right, can you defend their actions? If you have to resort to saying that their aims are ok then it seems to contradict with the war aims so far. For example:

This is a war on terrorism. One of the central theoretical planks of its support is, in the words of T.Blair, that "Nothing justifies terrorist violence.". So if you are going to justify CANF's actions then be prepared for some people to want the right to justify Bin Laden's actions.

My whole point is that we look at Islamic terrorists in a totally different light to all the others. There are groups out there who literally get away with murder and people attempt to justify their actions using their aims. But we then start a war against an Islamic group on the basis that nothing could possibly justify their actions. This is a blatant case of "one rule for us, another for you" and it is an approach that dominates US and EU foriegn policy.

I am confused.

If we have one hard and fast rule, shouldn't it be hard and fast?

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Once again, sorry to resurrect an old discussion. But I finally have the time to type out something meaningful.

Ryanamur - you say the difference between CANF and Al-Queda is destruction vs removal. Well they have an interesting way of going about it. The chain of bombs in hotel lobbies springs to mind, they succeeded in killing an Italian tourist and injuring numorous Cubans. Also I think you have slightly misinterpreted Al-Queda's aims. When they say they want the destruction of America they mean the destruction of America in its present form - the destruction of the American way of life not necessarilry the death of very citizen. I would say that in that sense CANF also work for the destruction of Cuba - they attempt to destroy the Cuban way of life. They would say that that is not a bad thing as the Cuban way of life is totalitarian dictatorship. Some Cubans would say that it is a very bad thing as the Cuban way of life is democratic socialism. I would say neither is entirely true if you look actually at the reality of Cuba but that is not the point. My point is that Al-Queda and CANF both have the same aim - destruction of a way of life by any means necessary.

The inference of your point about CANF attempting to remove a "rogue government" is that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists. That misses my point entirely - it is not like CANF's actions have worked so the justification that the deaths are worth it is a little irrelevant IMO. What I actually said was that whether or not what they were doing was right, can you defend their actions? If you have to resort to saying that their aims are ok then it seems to contradict with the war aims so far. For example:

This is a war on terrorism. One of the central theoretical planks of its support is, in the words of T.Blair, that "Nothing justifies terrorist violence.". So if you are going to justify CANF's actions then be prepared for some people to want the right to justify Bin Laden's actions.

My whole point is that we look at Islamic terrorists in a totally different light to all the others. There are groups out there who literally get away with murder and people attempt to justify their actions using their aims. But we then start a war against an Islamic group on the basis that nothing could possibly justify their actions. This is a blatant case of "one rule for us, another for you" and it is an approach that dominates US and EU foriegn policy.

I am confused.

If we have one hard and fast rule, shouldn't it be hard and fast?

---

First point: destruction vs removal. I think you partly missunderstand the issue. It's not about having good and bad terrorist. It's about having your interests endangered and your interests looked after. In the case of Al-Queada, they are detrimental to US (and Western civilizations) interests. Therefore, we want them dead! In the case of CANF, they are not detrimental to US interest. To the contrary, they have an aim that is in the best interests of the US. Therefore, they don't mind them. It's not about morality, it's about interest. Yes, I agree, countries of this world should base their entire policies on morality. However, this is an utopic ideal and it won't happen because we are humans and we seek our survival to the detriment of others! (BTW, if Al-Queada aims at destroying the American way of life, they are essentially trying to destroy America as we know it, dead citizens are nothing more than what we call colateral damage!)

Second point: war on terrorism. Blair might think that it is but the reality of it is that it's not. The UN is not involved and the US is only going after terrorists who were involved in the attacks against the US or that are involved in future attacks against the US. That's the mandate the Senate and Congress gave Bush. Nothing more. This is not a world wide endeavour as far as the US are concerned. It's about protecting the US. Thus, it's not a real war on terrorism but rather retaliation for the terrorists attacks of 9-11.

I'm not justifying any terrorist actions. I despise them and wish them executed because they cause tremendous amount of pain and trouble in this world.

Third point: "one rule for you one rule for us". Tackled at point one so I'll leave it at this! Just remember that someone's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... it's all a matter of perspective!

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

[Skunk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I thought this was quite funny that I heard recently. Due to the new Prevention of Terrorism act rushed through over here all sorts of stuff is now illegal. You are considered a terrorist if you wear Che Guevara t-shirts as they encourage revolutionary sentiment. If you wear them then you can be subject to indefinate periods of imprisonment due to this act. That is more of a humorous response to Ronn's point about there being no definition of terrorism. We have one in britain, but it is daft. The definition is so wide it would almost definately include me, and I am a pacifist who would never support violence! The world is weird...

---

No true. You have to satisfy both part 1 and part 2 of the definition of a terrorist.

Part 1 states:

"Terrorism: interpretation.

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."

I suppose it's possible that your Che Guevara t-shirts may intimidate a section of the population, but would it be likely to cause any of the following...?

Part 2.
" (2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

I guess that they might catch you out under section 2d) if you fail to wash it for a few months... [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hmmm. Think I'd better start demonstrating against it...

[Barry the Sprout]

They count because of points 1.b and 1.c Skunk. It is a stupid example because they will never actually imprison someone for it. But they could do - it is designed to influence the government politically.

The whole thing about this act is that it gives power to a police force that has been described as overtly racist by recent reports. It does worry me that they hae the power to pretty much detain who they please in an atmosphere that will probably mean they will go out and arrest the first muslims they can find. This is almost exactly the scenario before the Brixton riots - and we have already had riots in Bradford and Leeds. So watch this space.

As an example of our police force a friend told me a story a while ago. There is a council estate in Glasgow where they have put all the asylum seekers in one area. To reach this area they have to walk over a footbridge and are regularly attacked by racist youths as they do so. The police did absolutely nothing about it, despite knowing there was a problem they offered no protection to these people. So the asylum seekers held a protest against the police inaction, and some of my friends went up to show solidarity and protest with them. When my friends got there (white guys to the last man) the police told them quietly that they might want to go back as there would be trouble later. The police made no attempt to tell the asylum seekers this.

That is why I have a problem with giving a lot of power to the police at this time.

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skunk:


No true. You have to satisfy both part 1 and part 2 of the definition of a terrorist.

Part 1 states:

"Terrorism: interpretation.

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."

I suppose it's possible that your Che Guevara t-shirts may intimidate a section of the population, but would it be likely to cause any of the following...?

Part 2.
" (2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

I guess that they might catch you out under section 2d) if you fail to wash it for a few months... [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hmmm. Think I'd better start demonstrating against it...

---

Now, I'm no lawyer but this is possibly one of the worst written bill that I've seen so far. Take a look at 1(a) and 2(a-c). What this bill is saying is that murder, assault, rape, DUI, robery (including armed), arson and many other petty crimes are Terrorism... that is ludicrus and a very stupid interpretation of a terrorist act!

I could see if 1(a)(b) and (c) where required, but they certainly didn't pass that message in this Act! The way it is written, 1 (a) is a stand alone and 1 (b) and (c) are linked.

[Ronn_Bman]

Actually not a bad definition if 1A is not a stand alone.

Better would be changing 1B to 1A, 1C to 1B, and joining them with "or" instead of "and". 1A should then be 1C and required to go with the "new" 1A and 1C.

[Ronn_Bman]

OK, that looked confusing [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

*Changes indicated by bold text*

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, or
(b) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."
(c) The action of (a) and/or (b) falls within subsection (2).

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
OK, that looked confusing [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

*Changes indicated by bold text*

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, or
(b) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."
(c) The action of (a) and/or (b) falls within subsection (2).

---

Well said, now that would make sense! [img]smile.gif[/img]