Am I wrong? It seems to me that terrorism does work

[rurallib]

Witness the murder of Dr. Tiller. The RW terrorism that killed him has now been able to make abortions near to impossible to access in many states. Pharmacists can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions etc. Politicians will not stand up to these terrorists, police departments have been known to turn a blind eye.
The media is continues to run talking heads who incite people on the edge to commit murder or violent acts. They continue to daily spew unfounded hate for the president and use language that could easily spur an attempt on his life.
Our politicians and those in charge of the airwaves do nothing. Instead the politicians refuse to stand up to decry hate crimes for fear they will be denounced by those on the fringe. Freedom of press is sacrificed to keep the fringe from squawking.
Daily Rush Limbaugh intimidates a whole party and they in turn acquiesce to his every whimper.
I won't even go into what AlQuieda has done to us and our leaders.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Hell, authorities refuse to acknowledge it's "terrorism"....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5767548

[tridim]

2. Of course terrorism works.

BushCo's 8 year campaign of terrorism against Americans is another good example of this. More than half of America shit themselves with fear every time BushCo raised the terra 'lert level.

[rurallib]

4. I usually think of the healthcare bullshit as terrorism by the insurance lobby

and people die every day because of it.

[Orsino]

13. And mighty imperial armies are nearly powerless against it.

That's why it chaps the fascists' asses particularly.

[Fumesucker]

3. I agree... We are a nation of wimps..

Now when the IRA would bomb a pub in the UK, it would be packed as soon as it was repaired and reopened, packed with people saying they refused to fear the terrorists.

"It is curious - curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare." -Mark Twain

[Tim01]

5. But a lot of americans are split on this issue.

The British all think the IRA bombings are bad. There are a lot of americans who think that Tiller is the bad guy.And another big group that think he at the very least is not innocent.

[Fumesucker]

8. Even the polticians on our side won't call it terrorism..

Has Obama called the killing of this doctor terrorism?

I'm so fucking sick of wishy washy politicians that are supposedly on my side I could just :puke:

[T Wolf]

6. It obviously works. Rachel did a great job last night explaining how the reich is succeeding

at making abortion unavailable, even if it remains "legal" in many areas.

The reich is succeeding and until the left fights back, using tactics as strong and successful as they do, we will continue to lose every battle.

But still, our side continues to "take the high road" - to oblivion. Many of us are not willing to surrender. Too bad "our" leaders are.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Yep. Like Yglesias said a few days ago...

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/a-kind-of-terrorism-that-works.php

"Random murder of civilians in order to coerce political concessions doesn’t have a great track-record. But direct action terrorist violence against abortion providers has, I think, proven to be a fairly successful tactic. Every time you murder a doctor, you create a disincentive for other medical professionals to provide these services. What’s more, you create a need for additional security at facilities around the country. In addition, the anti-abortion protestors who frequently gather near clinics are made to seem much more intimidating by the fact that the occurrence of these sorts of acts of violence.

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the efficacy of violence as a political tactic. But in this particular case, I think people tend to understate it. "

[T Wolf]

9. WHich also supports the specific taregeting of certain reich-wing mouthpieces for special

actions.

They would be replaced in a heartbeat by the Fuck News honchos, but the impact and influence of the replacements would be diminished compared to the established stars.

And, if there was some hesitancy on the part of some to take the "hot seat" - that would also be a plus.

Why does our side always resort to losing tactics? Some might question their commitment to winning.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Sorry, you'll never get me to support throwing terrorism-gasoline on the terrorism-fire.

[T Wolf]

11. You prefer to lose. Ever hear of fighting fire with fire? ALL that matters is undoing the damage

that the repukes (and DINOs) have done.

Rather than feel good about having fought the good fight and lost, I would prefer to win.

This attitude extends to the politicians as well as the sheep who will not demand real and significant change from previous Bush policies.

At the rate this new administration and Dem-majority Congress is going, the "victories" of '06 and '08 will have been for nothing.

To use a football analogy, the Dems, trailing by four points, are kicking a field goal from the 10-yard line and losing the game, just to cover the point spread instead of ramming it in for the winning touchdown.

So far, I do not see anything that warrants supporting them next year, or in 2012.

[robdogbucky]

12. Does it work?

Does Terrorism work? Did the terrorism of The Stern Gang during the formation of Israel not only help establish that country, but help sow the seeds of Israel’s policy of Iron Boot and/or the Intifada and the insurrection of a persecuted Palestinian people that continues today?

Did the terrorism of bombings by the radical left and other violence in the ‘60s and ‘70s bring the Viet Nam conflict to an end or did the peaceful non-violence of Moratoriums and the Anti-War movement and the subsequent shift in public opinion?

Let’s not forget that the violence earlier cited herein was/is a two-way street in N. Ireland, with the marches, shootings and bombings of Protestant Unionists aided by the British occupation army and the IRA’s violent factions aided by allies in the south and around the world.

See History of Troubles in Northern Ireland:

“…Political separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of Ireland did not come until the early 20th century, when Protestants and Catholics divided into two warring camps over the issue of Irish home rule. Most Irish Catholics desired complete independence from Britain, but Irish Protestants feared living in a country ruled by a Catholic majority.

Following a period of guerrilla warfare between the nationalist Irish Republican Army (IRA) and British forces, a treaty was signed in 1921 creating the Irish Free State from 23 southern counties and 3 counties in Ulster. The other 6 counties of Ulster made up Northern Ireland, which remained part of the United Kingdom. In 1949 the Irish Free State became an independent republic.

Although armed hostilities between Catholics and Protestants largely subsided after the 1921 agreement, violence erupted again in the late 1960s; bloody riots broke out in Londonderry in 1968 and in Londonderry and Belfast in 1969. British troops were brought in to restore order, but the conflict intensified as the IRA and Protestant paramilitary groups carried out bombings and other acts of terrorism. This continuing conflict, which lingered into the 1990s, became known as "the Troubles."…

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/northireland1.html

And then there was The Great Soul:

“…For Gandhi, ahimsa was the expression of the deepest love for all humans, including one’s opponents; this non-violence therefore included not only a lack of physical harm to them, but also a lack of hatred or ill-will towards them. Gandhi rejected the traditional dichotomy between one’s own side and the “enemy;” he believed in the need to convince opponents of their injustice, not to punish them, and in this way one could win their friendship and one’s own freedom. If need be, one might need to suffer or die in order that they may be converted to love (Shepard 4).
{snip}

To examine whether Gandhi’s programme of Satyagraha was a success, we must first look at his objectives. I have already mentioned two of his aims -- to earn Indian independence, and to do it non-violently. In these, Gandhi was successful. India became independent in 1947, with scarcely any violence toward the British, and Gandhi’s leadership was crucial. The struggle had been difficult and long, but, in the end, Britain simply lowered its flag over India and left.
{snip}

Mohandas K. Gandhi, the “Great Soul,” was anything but a failure. In a world seemingly dominated by violence and hatred, Mahatma Gandhi reincarnated the ancient idea of Ahimsa, non-violence, as the only way of living in peace. His example influenced and inspired many later peaceful struggles, for example the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King, Jr. Despite India’s shortcomings, Gandhi never lost faith in Ahimsa:

"My faith is as strong as ever. <. . .> There is no hope for the aching world except through the narrow and straight path of non-violence. Millions like me may fail to prove the truth in their own lives; that would be their failure, never of the eternal law (Merton 74-75).

http://www.socialchangenow.ca/mypages/gandhi.htm

Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky