Thread: Berlin : Police foil attack on Central Railway Station

Originally Posted by Hoplite

There is a world of difference between killing innocent people who have no chance to fight back and who have no or little involvement in a bad situation and attacking those in power who CREATE the bad situation. If you cant see that...I dont really know what to tell you.

Someone has to decide to draw a line. Striking at the public at large is often the only attack within the reach of those seeking political change as they do not have the means to specifically target those in power and as such feel the need to attack those supporting the station enjoyed by those in power. Is it a fair extension of your position that action not specifically targeted at identified individuals is wrong?

Originally Posted by lutherf

Frankly, I'd be a lot less bent out of shape with the airport searches if they were done by hot chicks in bikini's rather than the dopes of TSA. Somebody really screwed up the marketing of that idea.

I've gone on record as saying we all ought to just be required to fly nude

Originally Posted by Hoplite

There are far more effective ways to do that NOT involving killing large numbers of people.

No doubt, that's why we have the UN and many other organisations

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Certainly but there are plenty of people and even so posters here on this forum that believe destructive, criminal activity has it's place to bring on political change.

Here's a few examples recently posted in regards to the OWS protests here in the U.S. :







How many steps removed is setting off bombs in public places from a willingness to take a bullet while destroying some property when engaged in revolution?

Unfair, by that comparison every soldier who ever fought in a war is a dangerous revolutionary, or reactionary. One man's terrorist IS another's Freedom Fighter, which is one reason among very many why politics is not a trivial activity.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Unfair, by that comparison every soldier who ever fought in a war is a dangerous revolutionary, or reactionary.

No, a soldier employed by the state is an instrument of the state and is neither trained to be a revolutionary nor allowed by regulations or law to be truly reactionary.

The people in Berlin were spared death and destruction to further the goals of others. I happy they aren't burying a lot of victims of other peoples politics.

Yay, terrorism! I am SOOO scared now! I wonder which liberties need to be taken away from me next and which new software is secretly beeing installed by the BKA on my computer because we ALL ARE POTENTIAL TERRORISTS. Yes, that's the way the government should adress the people by now:

"Dear potential terrorists, some of your vicious kind tried to blow up some others of your vicious kind today in Berlin, which again proved that we all,including yourself, cannot trust you. Hence, we have to create more debt to improve monitoring of your private sphere. Please turn off your TV now and be afraid all evening. There will be no supper before sleep this time. Auf wiedersehen."

Originally Posted by Hoplite

I'll never understand the shortsightedness involved with involving civilians in these conflicts. Ultimately, it poisons public opinion against your cause and you do more damage to your movement than you otherwise would have.

I mean if you want to blow things up to make a point, that can be achieved handily without killing people who almost never have anything to do with what's being protested against.

Yeah, the Weather Underground thought that too - until people died.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Someone has to decide to draw a line. Striking at the public at large is often the only attack within the reach of those seeking political change as they do not have the means to specifically target those in power and as such feel the need to attack those supporting the station enjoyed by those in power.

Nonsense. No one is untouchable.

Is it a fair extension of your position that action not specifically targeted at identified individuals is wrong?

Not at all; destroying power stations, highways, telecommunication lines, water mains, corporate property, factories, etc etc are non-specific yet can still be done without loss of life.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Yeah, the Weather Underground thought that too - until people died.

IIRC, the Weather Underground took no special pains to avoid loss of life.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

Nonsense. No one is untouchable.
IIRC, the Weather Underground took no special pains to avoid loss of life.

Your recollection is incorrect. They claimed to take pains to ensure that their targets were unoccupied when they committed their crimes.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Your recollection is incorrect. They claimed to take pains to ensure that their targets were unoccupied when they committed their crimes.

It's a policy they seem to have abandoned that pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

Nonsense. No one is untouchable.

The would-be murderers still chose to strike at the public where they would be trapped and vulnerable instead of seeking out a means to harm the power elite directly.

Not at all; destroying power stations, highways, telecommunication lines, water mains, corporate property, factories, etc etc are non-specific yet can still be done without loss of life.

In fantasy-land.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

The would-be murderers still chose to strike at the public where they would be trapped and vulnerable instead of seeking out a means to harm the power elite directly.

That doesn't mean that has to be the paradigm for all those willing to act.

In fantasy-land.

In reality. If sufficient pains are taken, loss of life can be avoided.

It's slower and more difficult than just chucking a bomb onto a crowded street, but people are more likely to support a movement that strikes back on their behalf if it doesnt target ordinary people.

Why do you think so many people are excited about the Occupy Wall Street movement, even though the crowd has engaged in destructive acts? People WANT to hit back.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

People WANT to hit back.

That doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

That doesn't make it right.

Why not?

If government would just blowup a big building or something ... we could use that to reign terrorists in and invade civil rights. Even better we could blame it on Iran. We have Operation Northwoods as a guidebook, so we could accomplish this quite fast. Never mind I have a different plan: We could say Iranian terrorists are up to no good.

news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20111011no_ny_bail_in_plot_to_assassinate_saudi_am bassador/srvc=home&position=recent
NEW YORK — A man charged in New York City in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States has been held without bail.

Authorities say Manssor Arbabsiar has admitted his role in a $1.5 million plot to kill the ambassador at a restaurant. He hasn’t entered a plea. Tuesday’s largely procedural court appearance in Manhattan lasted only a few minutes.

President Barack Obama’s administration has accused agents of the Iranian government of being involved in the plot. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the thwarted plot will further isolate Tehran.

The press attache at Iran’s mission to the United Nations says the accusation is "totally baseless."