A peaceful protest or terrorism?

[*SunShyne*]

TheStar.com - Canada - Deal reached to reopen 401

Mohawks blocked off a stretch of the 401 today...

Canada’s premiers and territorial leaders issued a rare joint statement Thursday, acknowledging that aboriginals are understandably disappointed and frustrated with the past, but urged protesters to keep today’s campaign “peaceful and law-abiding.”


Earlier, the Mohawk protesters near Deseronto who threatened that they had arms and were ready to use them, parked an old school bus across Highway 2, forcing a steady stream of traffic and heavy trucks to turn around.


“We’ve made no secret that we have guns within this camp,” Brant told The Canadian Press in an interview.

I'm sorry, but isn't this technically classified as terrorism?


I understand why they feel the need to protest, but they're not going to get on anyones good side if they're threatening to use guns and blocking off highways.



A better idea would be to get a whole crap load of people together (I'm talking upwards of 5,000) and march them onto Capital Hill and sit and wait. It's a much better way to get media attention (the way they're going about it right now is just being an annoyance to commuters who are already aware these people are pissed off about shit) and if they sit there long enough, there's a good chance someone in a form of power will address them and listen to them. Learn from Ghandi.


Why is the Canadian government allowing this?? They should all be arrested!



*note: I am not comparing Natives to Iranians or Iraqis or anything like that... but the way they are going about protesting sure has similar traits...*

[mojo]

It is not against the law to acknowledge you have weapons and threaten to use, them unless the threat is directed at individuals. This is similar to the Gov. saying "we have 2 airplanes and a leaky sub, and we are willing to use them."

I don't know all the details but this band seems to enjoy the militant-esque type of protest so i assume our sissypants gov. will just chillax and let it simmer down.

[b0ld]

The only reason why you'd consider it "Terrorism" is simply based on the fact how people have been brainwashed after 9/11 ... If you want to classify it as terrorism then what would you call it when the english, french, spaniards? decided to invade this continent... Foreigners invading your land... slaughtering your people... The way this government has treated natives til this day is inhumane. So they have each and every right to protest. Who are we or the government to impose laws as to what was originally the natives land?

[*SunShyne*]

Originally Posted by mojo

I don't know all the details but this band seems to enjoy the militant-esque type of protest so i assume our sissypants gov. will just chillax and let it simmer down.

As much as I would like to chillax, I know that these people won't.

They're pissed off about the housing and lack of education their communities are receiving amongst other things - I get that, I'd be pissed too.

But threatening to use guns to get people to listen just screams "crazy" and it screams terrorism.

BOLD: I'm curious, what word would you use to describe the situation at hand if you think that the term "terrorism" was unknown prior to pre 9/11?

[b0ld]

Originally Posted by *SunShyne*

BOLD: I'm curious, what word would you use to describe the situation at hand if you think that the term "terrorism" was unknown prior to pre 9/11?

A standoff???

[Jonny Dubbs]

oh dear...

[Jonny Dubbs]

Originally Posted by *SunShyne*

*note: I am not comparing Natives to Iranians or Iraqis or anything like that... but the way they are going about protesting sure has similar traits...*

Are you serious? thats exactly what you are doing, your "note" is a condridiction. You further highlight your ignorance by insinuating "Iranians or Iraqis" are terrorists

I hate the words terrorist and terrorism, its gotten to the point where they are used subjectively as a descriptor..... "The dude in the next cube over just farted, fucking terrorist"

[*SunShyne*]

Oh christ, I could have gone into the Palestinians too, would you have preferred that?

Anyways, news soruces are now saying that weapons have been put on the back burner for a while...

I can uncerstand their reasons, like I had said before, but why this?

[DefJef]

I dont think its terrorism. Its not violent, it's just a pain in the ass like ALL protests usually are.




"Get out of the ray you gard dam Moharkians"

[rustybob]

Saying "we have weapons" is nothing, it's just talk. This is a peaceful protest.

You want an unpeaceful protest? Just look at the shit that homeless protest group here in Vancouver (can't remember their name...). Attacking police, destroying offices, threatening people in their home. That is not peaceful protesting.

[*SunShyne*]

^^ That was a handful of idiots running around like jackasses... I wouldn't call it a protest.

these are the threads by sunshyne that i eagerly await.

[.LxT]

I think the campaign of fear has pretty much succeeded at this point. Everybody and their grandma calls everything that might have a tinge of violence "terrorism." And heck, history shows us there have been groups that took violence to interesting levels [the Weathermen come to mind] but so far people labeled them accordingly - militants, revolutionaries, radicals etc. Sure, some cases of terrorism are not subjective to the point of view of those throwing around the term [that is, Al-Qaeda sees itself as a freedom-fighting organization while the US sees it as a terrorist group] but many can be.

This is a protest that may become [physically] violent. It is neither good nor bad as a result of this and definitely not "terrorist." In the US, the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives the right to bear arms EXACTLY for this reason - to put the government back in check if they screw up too badly. So as we slowly begin to label every group of 5 people with guns or any protesters wearing garments to conceal their identity as "potential terrorists", we're one step closer to voluntarily enslaving ourselves to the will of the masters. If demonstrations are made illegal - or contained and sterilized at the will of the Police / government, how are we to actually speak out when they fuck up?

Or did you think democracy happens only every time you vote?

[wishbone]

a sunshyne thread?

on MY fnk????

It's more likely than you think!

[project.one]

ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
[Origin: 1785–95; terror + -ism]

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorism
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or the perception or threat of imminent violence. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur, in 1999, counted over 100 definitions and concluded that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".
As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.
The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry a strong negative connotation. These terms are often used as political labels to condemn violence or threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, or unjustified. Those labeled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other generic terms or terms specific to their situation, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin, or fedayeen, or any similar-meaning word in other languages.
Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[1] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.
An International Roundtable on Constructing Peace, Deconstructing Terror (2004) hosted by Strategic Foresight Group recommended that a distinction should be made between terrorism and acts of terror. While acts of terror are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including acts, perpetrators of acts of terror and motives of the perpetrators. There is a disagreement on definition of terrorism. However, there is an intellectual consensus globally that acts of terror should not be accepted under any circumstances. This is reflected in all important conventions including the United Nations counter terrorism strategy, outcome of the Madrid Conference on terrorism and outcome of the Strategic Foresight Group and ALDE roundtables at the European Parliament.




There, its right in front of you now. READ!

[Webber]

when a group of ppl come and take over your land, its called being conquered. you don't give shit back after you take it - this has always baffled me

[robyn]

Originally Posted by *SunShyne*

Oh christ, I could have gone into the Palestinians too, would you have preferred that?

i get totally frustrated when people call me on my blatant racism, too

[decypher]

I didn't read the thread but from the above quote someone needs to give SunShyne a history lesson on Palestinians.


Oh and you really can't classify anything as terrorism, to do that you need to bring in value judgments of what is right and wrong. Is this group being wrongly aggressive or is the government wrong for neglecting their communities? Defining terrorism depends on your point of view. Get my drift?


And i wouldn't really say our government is "sissy" and will sit back and let it anti-climax. Just look what happened to the FLQ in Quebec circa 1970s.