Alternatives to terrorism

[KukriKhan]

Did Britain leave India?

[Tribesman]

Did Britain leave India?

Did the troops out now policy lead to a split and a rushed bodge job that left millions slaughtered and ethnicly cleansed , a military occupation and wars that remain unresolved 60 years on ?

So I ask again , was ghandi succesful though ?
What were his aims ?
If you can say his only aim was to end british rule in India then you could , but there is a lot more to it than that .
Its like saying the Challenger was succesful on the 28th of january because its intention was to get 7 people to fly up into the sky and it managed that .

[Crazed Rabbit]

3. Economic resistance - Just by looking at GDP's we can easily conclude that by economic might Middle Eastern nations are in a very big disadvantage. If we add that except oil, Middle East is relatively scarce in resources, not to mention high tech products, the gap get's even bigger. So, no chance of winning against the West in this field either.

You can't discount oil. Petroleum products are the primary form of energy in the world. And the middle east has a lot of it; but the rulers often use the natural resources to enrich themselves instead of the whole country.

4. Propaganda resistance - Again the West has huge advantage. Global news networks, satellites, newspapers etc... Again no way for Middle Eastern people to counter and come out on top in this field.

Again I disagree. Many countries control the media and are very effective are raising anger at "The West" whenever its convenient, like in case people wonder why they don't share in some of the oil wealth.

They have a lot of alternatives - one big one being don't get ticked off and become full of hate over petty things.

CR

[Brenus]

“you admit that Ghandi was successful, but that it didn't 'count' because his oppressor was weak?” Yeap. It was successful BECAUSE his opponents didn’t go for the fight… Peaceful protests work only if the oppressor is willing (for whatever reasons) not to use full force.
The non-aggression policy didn’t work on Hitler. War seeker LOVE peace Activists…

“I'm just pointing out that killing other people - innocent people - is not the only choice.”
Of course it is not.
However, in this kind of mind (terrorist) there are NO innocents. That is the entire problem. The victims are part of a system and they are not rebelling against it therefore they are as guilty as their leaders…
If you are under an oppressive regime, and this oppressive regime police, secret service and all other population control tools are trained by a third country, how do you do? You want these others to know what terror is, to know what to feel at 4 in the morning because the neighbour’s door was knocked out… So what can you do? They don’t care of your life, why should you care of their?
Then come the feeling that the helpers of your oppressive regime are de facto THE problem. “Valets of Imperialism” was the expression in use by the communists in the 60 & 70’s. Puppet’s master is probably the one now.
So, if you go this way, it is a WAR. Collateral damage and so, and real desire to strike back…
Sarmatain is from a country where NATO bombs the media Centre because it was “propaganda” Centre for Milosevic.
What would happen if few Serbian soldiers in full uniform would have attacked CNN? You would have heard the outrage against this attack on freedom of media until the sky!!! The vast majority of the journalists didn’t even question this action.
So, why terrorism: because the rules are made but the powerful. They want the weak to play THEIR rules and to be killed. Come with your chest against my Abrams, T82, Leclerc or other armoured vehicles. Meet with my well paid layers to contest in front on my former friends for college but now judge the law I pass in the Parliament to contest the land that my relatives grab few years ago. Possession is title, they say. Come on… Bring it on...

[Sarmatian]

You can't discount oil. Petroleum products are the primary form of energy in the world. And the middle east has a lot of it; but the rulers often use the natural resources to enrich themselves instead of the whole country.

That's the problem, isn't it? Your country is relatively scarce in resources, and you have only one resource that's in demand. If you don't have control over that resource you basically don't have anything.

Again I disagree. Many countries control the media and are very effective are raising anger at "The West" whenever its convenient, like in case people wonder why they don't share in some of the oil wealth.

They have a lot of alternatives - one big one being don't get ticked off and become full of hate over petty things.

CR

Effect of their propaganda is limited. The point of propaganda in this case would be that people in the West see their side of story, so that they change their policies, but they can't reach the western audience, because in time they get to say one word, West can vocalize both War and Peace and Ana Karenina.

And you admit that Ghandi was successful, but that it didn't 'count' because his oppressor was weak? I didn't know about his letters to Europe's 1940's Jews.

I think that Brenus wanted to say that Gandhi was successful because the circumstances were in his favour in that case. He wouldn't not have been successful if, instead British Empire, he'd gone against Nazi Germany.

Sarmatian asked for alternatives to terrorism, and he pointed out that to an oppressed population, terrorism can seem like the only alternative available. I'm just pointing out that killing other people - innocent people - is not the only choice.

That's one of the points - are those people really innocent? Totally. From our perspective they are. We know that even though we choose the government, there is a limit how much we can influence its policies. But from their perspective, those guys in Washington are just your representatives, they're governing in your name, because you have given them the mandate to do so. It all comes down to you. Not you in particular, but American people in this case. On the other hand, one can point out that not all people voted for the party that's pursuing those policies. Or that a lot of people didn't vote at all.
But, then again, one can say that Western countries don't think too much about that either. Let's say, for argument sake, that Milosevic truly was the only reason so much bad things happened in the Balkans. Western response went from economic sanctions to military interventions. In each of those cases all people of Serbia suffered. The guy who didn't vote for Milosevic suffered just as much as the guy who did. Or myself, who wasn't even eligible to vote at the time.

Another one occurs to me. Become a 'mole' of sorts. Play the game within the system until the desired level of power is achieved (never spilling the beans about your true intentions), then change the system from within.

Within which system? System in western countries or in their own countries?

[JR-]

I think that Brenus wanted to say that Gandhi was successful because the circumstances were in his favour in that case. He wouldn't not have been successful if, instead British Empire, he'd gone against Nazi Germany.

correct, the Empire was always a glorified trading club, we were never going to fight india to hold india from the indians.

[Jolt]

correct, the Empire was always a glorified trading club, we were never going to fight india to hold india from the indians.

There is the very real life example of what you and he wrote. For instance, the democratic government of UK was always subject to public opinion. When Gandhi and other Indians started protesting, and the repression ensued, there was great comotion in Britain because of it.

After the independence, however, some wise indians decided to do the very same thing on Portuguese controlled Goa. That is, protest non-violently for the reintegration of Portuguese India into India. Thing is, the fascist government doesn't really care what the people might come to think of it, since even the nationals themselves are repressed. Furthermore, I'm sure not many people outside Portuguese Goa, and much less in metropolitan Portugal heard of the events.

Anyways, long story short, their plan was to storm Goa and refuse to leave until it was Indian. They began their non-violent protest, refusing to return to India, saying they'd continue in Goa until it was Indian. Therefore the, military was ordered to put down the people, which was followed by several arrest of people who supported Indian Integration. If India was Nazi German colony, Ghandi would have been killed as soon as he started giving trouble.

[KukriKhan]

Did the troops out now policy lead to a split and a rushed bodge job that left millions slaughtered and ethnicly cleansed , a military occupation and wars that remain unresolved 60 years on ?

You make a fine point about 'success', when we look at the (very) big picture.

However, we're discussing " persistent, non-volent, civil disobedience" as a viable tactic and alternative to terrorism. I should have added: "massively supported". Ghandi's tack said, in effect, to Britain: "I will do this thing, and several thousands of my fellows will do it also. We will probably die; but eventually, you will run out of bullets, and your arms will tire beating us; and after the first thousand of us lay dead and dying at your feet, the next thousand will come, and the next thousand, and the next."

What I'm saying is: If we take as given that innocent people are gonna die over this (whatever) issue, the oppressed - however desperate they think they are - still make a choice: "Do I kill or die?"

They'll find plenty of justification for the "kill" option. History, religion, atrocities, can all be summoned to his side of the argument. The "die" option looks stupid to those outside, but takes considerably more courage and resolve, trying to make that death exponentially more meaningful.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's the problem, isn't it? Your country is relatively scarce in resources, and you have only one resource that's in demand. If you don't have control over that resource you basically don't have anything.

They have a lot of control over their oil. Private oil companies - Exxon, BP, etc., only hold 5% of the world's resources all together.

As for non-violent resistance; look at the civil rights movement in the south of the USA. The racists in power didn't go out easy.

CR

[Sarmatian]

They have a lot of control over their oil. Private oil companies - Exxon, BP, etc., only hold 5% of the world's resources all together.

As for non-violent resistance; look at the civil rights movement in the south of the USA. The racists in power didn't go out easy.

CR

I don't claim to be the expert on oil, but from what I know, West still controls the flow of oil. Three major bourses for oil are located in US and UK and all transactions are in US dollars. Barely 6 months ago Iran opened a bourse which is hoped to rival those three, naturally not generating much happiness in the West. Ironically, that was what Iraq had plans to do before US military intervention, and I have a hunch that Western "problem" with Iran is in no small way connected with this...

But let's not digress. That's another problem for another thread.

I think that non-violent resistance is a great idea, but I don't see how it can be applied to this situation. They have a problem with the West, not their own governments. How can they protest non-violently against that? Get several millions on a plane and send them to US, to protest non-violently for a decade in front of the White House? I don't understand how it can practically be done in this instance...