Alternatives to terrorism

[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?