Ethical Terrorists?

[nemafakei]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4045075.stm

You really have to have some respect for these, even if they are cruel!

"Manipur's separatist rebels have often taken such action, particularly against drug dealers and producers of pornographic films."

[Megashrap]

"to instil a sense of morality in society."

If only the U.S.had public executions, instead of the way it is carried out now, I believe it would definitely improve morality in society.

[Dude_Doc]

If only the U.S.had public executions, instead of the way it is carried out now, I believe it would definitely improve morality in society.

It would only cause an uprising. Killing people isn't how you teach other people to be good and obedient, if that is what you want. Teaching, informing them are. Punishing them for the bad they did, but never killing.

[VigilVirus]

Morality shouldn't be taught. It should be learned from personal experiences as there is no such thing as a universal code of morals. Don't force your morals on others.

[Shiroko]

I heard IRA guys used to shoot in the leg dug dealers.

-Shiroko

[GUNWOUNDS]

radical christians blow up abortion clinics..... so yes i guess there is ethical terrorism.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Morality shouldn't be taught. It should be learned from personal experiences as there is no such thing as a universal code of morals. Don't force your stupid fucking morals on others.

some things are pretty damn obvious tho..... like child pornography, rape, murder, cheating on exams, etc, etc.

[Dude_Doc]

Morality shouldn't be taught. It should be learned from personal experiences as there is no such thing as a universal code of morals. Don't force your stupid fucking morals on others.

What experience did you have the first time you drank? Or smoked? None. Would you rather wait until you get cancer or kill someone in drunkdriving before you categorize drinking and smoking as "bad"?

[Digital Guerrilla]

I would not call these terrorists "ethical" I would call them "vigilanties" an ethical terrorist is an oxymoron. If they are going to shoot male teachers in the leg they should shoot female teachers in the leg (I perfer the beating with a bamboo stalk instead) none of this favoritisim based on gender where is the morality in that decision so the punishment should be equal. I do not trust groups like these anyway they start doing the "The Robin Hood schick" and then one day they turn into the Taliban.

[Caid Ivik]

This isn't terrorism. If it was, then we can call so USA courts making death sentences as well.

Morality shouldn't be taught. It should be learned from personal experiences as there is no such thing as a universal code of morals. Don't force your stupid fucking morals on others.

Educating is not forcing. Some things could be provided informatively, some formatively. World is a battleground of memes, and if you are a moral person, it means that one of the memes has already taken over you. One will prevail, always...

[TMA_1]

right cause, wrong means. You dont kill people for those kinds of things, that is my personal opinion. I think that any kind of killing like that is indeed vigilante murder, and is wrong.

[VigilVirus]

By personal experiences I do not exclude outside factors. You can listen to what others say but you should never believe something just because an authority figure tells you it's the right thing. Why not touch the hot stove? If you never touch a figurative hot stove to learn for yourself that it's not something you want to do, you'll never really know for sure. What if touching this figurative hot stove is the greatest thing you would ever experience. Maybe by limiting yourself through the morals of others you are actually limiting your experiences in life.

In this case, teachers are helping students cheat on tests. So what? It doesn't even mention that those teachers had anything to gain from doing this. Maybe some of them just felt sorry for the students when they looked at how hard the test was. You don't know all the circumstances. Why would you condemn someone to death when you don't know all the circumstances?

[Caid Ivik]

People wearing bombs and blowing buses have also no "gain", however I can't force myself to justify it.

[GUNWOUNDS]

By personal experiences I do not exclude outside factors. You can listen to what others say but you should never believe something just because an authority figure tells you it's the right thing. Why not touch the hot stove? If you never touch a figurative hot stove to learn for yourself that it's not something you want to do, you'll never really know for sure. What if touching this figurative hot stove is the greatest thing you would ever experience. Maybe by limiting yourself through the morals of others you are actually limiting your experiences in life.

In this case, teachers are helping students cheat on tests. So what? It doesn't even mention that those teachers had anything to gain from doing this. Maybe some of them just felt sorry for the students when they looked at how hard the test was. You don't know all the circumstances. Why would you condemn someone to death when you don't know all the circumstances?

Re-read the article.... the teachers were getting their pockets stuffed with cash (read: bribes)

Also they arent killing anyone.... just wounding is all.  Dead people cannot learn leassons.

[Digital Guerrilla]

People wonder why it is so hard to find good teachers in third world countries with nut cases like these running around the hillside shooting people. The teachers were wrong of course but seriously shooting them solves nothing it only makes less people want to help educate the students. If these guys are so ethical why do they have to kidnap the teachers?

As for the smut peddlers dealing in the depravcation of children a shot in the leg is not enough nor is there a bamboo stalk big enough.

[Dude_Doc]

If you never touch a figurative hot stove to learn for yourself that it's not something you want to do, you'll never really know for sure. What if touching this figurative hot stove is the greatest thing you would ever experience. Maybe by limiting yourself through the morals of others you are actually limiting your experiences in life.

Then, should you also be able to kill a person, just to "know" it's bad? The thing is, you will find out sooner or later. You'll find out what heat is, and what it does to other materials. Eventually, you WILL toutch a hot stove. Otherwise, you will figure it out logically, ie: heat + stove = hot stove = pain = do not toutch.

I do not need to pour acid on my hands to know it is bad, I figure it out by logic. Many things are.

Why would you condemn someone to death when you don't know all the circumstances?

How do the teachers know the students aren't just playing dumb?

[Acriku]

I would question how hot the stove really is if I never really touched it. I'm a curious individual *shrug*

[GUNWOUNDS]

I would question how hot the stove really is if I never really touched it. I'm a curious individual *shrug*

well all you have to do is see how the stove cooks and burns food to determine that. There is a comic strip of a chemist drinking a vial of chemicals and his colleagues are telling him not to test chemical's toxicity by drinking them.

[Dante]

Morality shouldn't be taught. It should be learned from personal experiences as there is no such thing as a universal code of morals. Don't force your morals on others.

Agreed.

some things are pretty damn obvious tho..... like child pornography, rape, murder, cheating on exams, etc, etc.  I wouldnt call these "morals" ... i would call it common sense.

Depends. Depends on a lot of things, but common sense is as relative as morality.

[VigilVirus]

There shouldn't be an equality of the sexes. I agree that both sexes should have equal rights, but they shouldn't be treated exactly the same. Men and women are significantly different in their nature, character, personality. There will always be favoritism, but the fact is that most people have favoritism for both men and women - one of attraction/"gentlemanliness" and one of gender identity/superiority. The two often equal each other out.

[Ninja_Sher]

The word for this is 'fanaticism', which is even for good cause does not give a good outcome.

ps : I guess too have this type of fanaticism, but in thoery.

    I want to rip of one's tounge and do 72 hit combo with the Nightwolf's   

    finishing move against those who speak ill of Napoleon Bonapat, but 

    serioulsy though I have never tried it on anyone ( fanaticism takes

    absolute madness ).

[Acriku]

well all you have to do is see how the stove cooks and burns food to determine that. There is a comic strip of a chemist drinking a vial of chemicals and his colleagues are telling him not to test chemical's toxicity by drinking them.  That says it perfect IMO.  ;D

Well, common sense isn't common.

[Anathema]

I would say that they're moralistic terrorism, because these guys claim to be doing this for the good reasons. That's a barely useful definition though, because that could apply to Bin Laden or al-Zarqawi to. By our (most of us anyway) standards, "ethical terrorism" is a contradiction in terms.

[Megashrap]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[Dante]

  Only due to the fact most of the types of terrorist's we deal with in general are technologically challenged and deprived.  If they aquired a stockpile of ICBM's it wouldn't be considered small scale would it? or "low intensity warfare."

In which case they would attack governments, rather than 'noncombatants,' wouldn't they? And then that would be warfare, not terrorism.

Neither is using a tactical nuke for the sake of saving thousands of servicemen or womens lives but thats MY beliefs. Reaching this conclusion thinking it is somehow etched in stone by definition is rather silly.

You can't say that terrorism is wrong by default because it is not included in the definition of the word. Not complicated.