Comment Re:Correlation not cause (Score 1) 358
In all of the above scenarios you put forward it required another active influence in the local government. Regardless if it is criminal bribery, lack of proper environmental regulations, or legalized brutality towards civilians the point is it would not be possible if there was not already some form of corruption already in place in that 3rd world country. It is not as if these companies just got up one day and decided they would invade and kill civilians to make a point. Their motive was greed. Terrorists may claim their motive is freedom but it's far more likely their motives are more about staking a claim to power either global or local regardless of why their movement may have started....it is usually quickly forgotten from what I've seen in my limited view through US media.
My point is a corporation can not wilfully go into any governed state and decide to do as they wish. Their actions are sanctioned by the local corrupt government. Even though taking a stand against a corrupt government becomes more and more difficult with the influence of technology, it is still the responsibility of the people of a government to ensure their government listens to the people and does right by them. Surely you could even say the US government with bought laws in congress has its own problems.
A terrorist actively seeks out to murder and inflict great harm to a civilian population to try and deter the will of the people (which as we've seen will never ever work but only aims to polarize the world. Yet we've seen a few terrorist leaders attempt to appeal to the common civilian population of an enemy state because they realize once the people are united with the government in arms against them...no terrorist group can fight against hundreds of millions of people hell bent on their destruction). If you are to equate the active murder of civilians with that of collateral damage or that of the wake of a corporation's greed...then I'm afraid your moral code has been a bit to much open for discussion with college kids looking for a good paper to write...or maybe you're watching the wrong kind of media brainwashing?
The taking or harming of any life is wrong, period. To excuse a terrorist act as an eye for an eye or as some form of retribution is ignoring the entire grey area between what an evil corporation does and what a terrorist does. While I would never agree with any terrorist movement (because they have explored about zero other options and they are not attacking or dealing with their real issues but instead feeding pre-existing feelings of hatred for a grab at power...local multi state government reform is honestly what the focus should have been for them...but that's a bit more risky than pissing off the big oger in the corner) I would at least accept their actions if they kept all of their acts of violence towards valid targets. But then you have to ask yourself of what qualifies as a nation or a voice that should even be listened to.
As horrid as our planet is the point is there are a lot of ways for a terrorist organization to get what they want. The second they attack a civilian population they are immediately viewed by the entire world (rightly so) as a criminal organization that must be put to death. Maybe if they want it to be socially acceptable to kill people they should've started a corporation and bribed off some local government to allow them to pollute and kill off villages of civilians...hmm sounds like a bond movie or something.
I don't believe any civilian in the US is ignorant to the fact that corporations control their lives and the laws they must abide to. Government corruption is nothing new. Based on your sig I would assume you're well aware of the very large LEGAL movement to separate this connection. Anger, hate, and a lust for power are very different vices than greed. You should know the difference. They are both fools you can control with a few carrots in the right places...but one is a lot more destructive than the other. I know that statement maybe hard for you to see given that I'm assuming you're living in a 1st world country...but it wasn't to long ago that everyone on the planet were seconds away from their death all because of anger, hate, and a lust for power. Corporations are a problem but they are a far cry from last century's evil.
My point is a corporation can not wilfully go into any governed state and decide to do as they wish. Their actions are sanctioned by the local corrupt government. Even though taking a stand against a corrupt government becomes more and more difficult with the influence of technology, it is still the responsibility of the people of a government to ensure their government listens to the people and does right by them. Surely you could even say the US government with bought laws in congress has its own problems.
A terrorist actively seeks out to murder and inflict great harm to a civilian population to try and deter the will of the people (which as we've seen will never ever work but only aims to polarize the world. Yet we've seen a few terrorist leaders attempt to appeal to the common civilian population of an enemy state because they realize once the people are united with the government in arms against them...no terrorist group can fight against hundreds of millions of people hell bent on their destruction). If you are to equate the active murder of civilians with that of collateral damage or that of the wake of a corporation's greed...then I'm afraid your moral code has been a bit to much open for discussion with college kids looking for a good paper to write...or maybe you're watching the wrong kind of media brainwashing?
The taking or harming of any life is wrong, period. To excuse a terrorist act as an eye for an eye or as some form of retribution is ignoring the entire grey area between what an evil corporation does and what a terrorist does. While I would never agree with any terrorist movement (because they have explored about zero other options and they are not attacking or dealing with their real issues but instead feeding pre-existing feelings of hatred for a grab at power...local multi state government reform is honestly what the focus should have been for them...but that's a bit more risky than pissing off the big oger in the corner) I would at least accept their actions if they kept all of their acts of violence towards valid targets. But then you have to ask yourself of what qualifies as a nation or a voice that should even be listened to.
As horrid as our planet is the point is there are a lot of ways for a terrorist organization to get what they want. The second they attack a civilian population they are immediately viewed by the entire world (rightly so) as a criminal organization that must be put to death. Maybe if they want it to be socially acceptable to kill people they should've started a corporation and bribed off some local government to allow them to pollute and kill off villages of civilians...hmm sounds like a bond movie or something.
I don't believe any civilian in the US is ignorant to the fact that corporations control their lives and the laws they must abide to. Government corruption is nothing new. Based on your sig I would assume you're well aware of the very large LEGAL movement to separate this connection. Anger, hate, and a lust for power are very different vices than greed. You should know the difference. They are both fools you can control with a few carrots in the right places...but one is a lot more destructive than the other. I know that statement maybe hard for you to see given that I'm assuming you're living in a 1st world country...but it wasn't to long ago that everyone on the planet were seconds away from their death all because of anger, hate, and a lust for power. Corporations are a problem but they are a far cry from last century's evil.
