Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Barįa
Grisu:
ETA cannot be compared to the likes of the ALF, since the majority of the Basque population, be it nationalists or not, are against their actions. Their demands cannot be compared to those of the PLO or ALF.
The Basque country has been part of Spain for hundreds of years. The region is the most autonomous in the whole of Europe, and the fact that the main political parties and their voters condemn ETA should be proof enough that these killers are nothing more than terrorists.
|
Can i assume then that you think ETAīs reasons for fighting are not as worthy as any other organizationīs, just because it has less support?
Since when does the number of supporters validates a cause or not?
Whatīs so diferent between the claims of the PLO and those of ETA? Arenīt both fighting for the right to self rule? Havenīt both used the same methods?
You cannot dismiss a cause just because there are fewer supporters of a certain cause. It is not the "cause" that dictates it to be terrorism or not, itīs their methods and choice of action.
If ETA was to use only politicals tools to achieve their goals, wouldnīt their cause be a valid one?
Take the native americans. They are a minority within the US population. Arenīt they entitled to self rule as any other people on Earth? If they started a war with the US, would they still be terrorists?
"One manīs terrorist is another manīs freedom fighter."
Thereīs a lot of truth in these words. No matter how small the support a group has, no matter how few there are who share their views, for them they will always be freedom fighters. While for the group or nation on the other side of the fence they will be terrorists, seperatists, rebels, insurgents or whatever.
What is "terrorism" anyway?
Is terrorism the use of bombs? The use of suicide bombers?
For me terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians, with whatever means, be it bombs strapped to a manīs chest or a B-52 carpet bombing a small city. Is terrorism ilegitime or illegal?
Not a bit more than any garden variety war, and not a bit less.Is it imoral? Yes it is, just as the use of cluster bombs in a "legal" war. But they donīt share the same "weight" for the masses.
If Hezzbollah or Hammas stopped targeting civilians, and started bombing only true military targets, would they still be terrorists?
And whatīs a "freedom fighter"?
A freedom fighter is that who fights for the liberation and self determination of his group, tribe,people, or race.The number of supporters of a certain cause is irrelevant.
There are many ways of fighting. It could be through civil disobedience, political struggle, or armed fight. If a freedom fighter takes up arms, he doesnīt automatically turn into a terrorist.
As someone once said, "War is the continuation of politics through other means". But arenīt these other groups fighting for their liberation aswell? Isnīt Hammas fighting for the self determination of their people? Arenīt they fighting for their liberation aswell? So when did they stop being "freedom fighters" and became "terrorists"?
Itīs obvious: it was their methods and choice of actions that tilted the scale.
Damn!! Iīm rambling again...
:confused: