Indigenous fight for Lake Titicaca

[auroraglacialis]

Oh that is not really new news, that terrorism works - But to call people resisting mining corporations to mine their land terrorists is to me incomprehensible. I would by no means call them terrorists. But from the viewpoint of the industrialized, maybe they are - same would probably be true the other way around. So I guess for the RDA, the indigenous NA'Vi fighting back and destroying the dozers certainly would be called "terrorism" and be answered with a "shock and awe" campaign.
So they destroy some objects, inanimate things, risk their own lives to be taken at the hands of the opponents, do not kill or injure innocents and manage to avert the dozers coming to the land of their ancestors? I'd call that resistance that worked. Certainly, it would have been better if the companies retreated upon a friendly request, but obviously that is not what they did and it is not in the Nature of a company to let profit go just because someone asks nicely.

So I'd not say "terrorism works" in that case, but direct activism and fortified protesting worked. They managed to stop the company, unlike the tens of thousands of people who signed the "Stop the Belo Monte Dam petition" - I think that is rather impressive. I would be way to scared to enter into such a fight, but I guess if it was the land I live on, I might as well join in rather than give up.

[Marvellous Chester]

Just about every enemy of the government is a 'terrorist' these days, that word loses more meaning every week. Good to hear that the company has retreated, even if it did cost lives. Got to hand it to those folks who said 'no', some things are just worth dying for I guess Bravo chaps

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Oh that is not really new news, that terrorism works - But to call people resisting mining corporations to mine their land terrorists is to me incomprehensible. I would by no means call them terrorists. But from the viewpoint of the industrialized, maybe they are - same would probably be true the other way around. So I guess for the RDA, the indigenous NA'Vi fighting back and destroying the dozers certainly would be called "terrorism" and be answered with a "shock and awe" campaign.
So they destroy some objects, inanimate things, risk their own lives to be taken at the hands of the opponents, do not kill or injure innocents and manage to avert the dozers coming to the land of their ancestors? I'd call that resistance that worked. Certainly, it would have been better if the companies retreated upon a friendly request, but obviously that is not what they did and it is not in the Nature of a company to let profit go just because someone asks nicely.

So I'd not say "terrorism works" in that case, but direct activism and fortified protesting worked. They managed to stop the company, unlike the tens of thousands of people who signed the "Stop the Belo Monte Dam petition" - I think that is rather impressive. I would be way to scared to enter into such a fight, but I guess if it was the land I live on, I might as well join in rather than give up.

I wouldn't call them terrorists even if they killed the actual people making illegal incursions, but not random property destruction and attempted murder against people who have nothing to do with them. Making a comparison against Avatar is, honestly, pure crap which before now I had only encountered from attempts to justify the marines' actions and honestly never expected to hear from a fan (although I shouldn't be surprised with how many people have already attempted to appropriate Avatar to their own political ends, often directly against the actual message) - it would only be valid if the Na'vi had gone to Earth and started killing/attempting to kill random humans or blowing up buildings - indeed, doing so would almost certainly lose them all sympathy with the friendly human elements - on Earth, 'environmental' terrorists do more harm to their supposed cause than any number of opposition groups.

Noun: Terrorism
terrorism (usually uncountable; plural terrorisms)
1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

"There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."
-Martin Rudner

[applejuice]

Seeing how things have turned in my country I can tell you: they will ask the Canadians to come back or they will simply start exploiting the mineral themselves.