Should this be legal?

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Do you think things like this should be legal? This isn't about whether it actually is, but whether you think it should or shouldn't be.

A Danish fashion firm is to sell T-shirts inspired by rebel fighters, with proceeds to go to militant groups.


The T-shirts have as logos the initials of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

The firm, Fighters and Lovers, says it will donate 5 euros (£3) for each T-shirt it sells.

The Colombian government has protested to the Danish authorities over the sale of the T-shirts.

"Financing terrorist groups is unacceptable and goes against all the international norms," Colombian Foreign Minister Carolina Barco told private Caracol Radio on Friday.

"Yesterday our ambassador contacted the Danish government, we sent a protest note and have demanded an explanation."

The designers say Palestianian militant Leila Khaled and Colombian rebel leader Jacobo Arenas were among their inspirations.

Money from the sale of the T-shirts will help finance Farc radio stations in Colombia and a graphics studio in the Palestinian territories.

'Legal problems'
The firm's website warns that purchasers "might experience legal problems because of US or EU 'anti-terrorist' legislation, outlawing financial support to organisations labelled as 'terrorists', including the PFLP and the Farc".



Under Danish legislation introduced in 2002, anyone found guilty of directly or indirectly financing terrorist groups can be jailed for up to 10 years.

Fighters and Lovers spokesman Bobby Schultz told AFP news agency he was unconcerned.

"We are absolutely not worried about being dragged to court and sentenced. It's our customers who decide to buy our T-shirts and support these groups," he said.

"And we have the right to fight for something, for justice or the right to education, which Farc and the PLFP are fighting for."

Drug trade

The Farc has been involved in a 40-year conflict with Colombian state forces and right-wing paramilitary groups, in which tens of thousands of civilians have died.

It has increasingly turned to the illegal drug trade to raise funds.

The PFLP, which combines Arab nationalism with Marxist-Leninist ideology, has carried out suicide attacks inside Israel and against Jewish settlements.

It sees the destruction of Israel as integral to its struggle to remove Western influence from the Middle East.





Company spokesman
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4632578.stm
 
It's a tough call. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. That being said, I wouldn't want people financially supporting any group that attacked civilians.

I want t-shirts supporting the Judean People's Front. :lol:
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It's a tough call. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. That being said, I wouldn't want people financially supporting any group that attacked civilians.

I want t-shirts supporting the Judean People's Front. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Not only is there the part about attacking civilians but when a group makes their goal statement a destruction of a certain people/country such as the PFLP I think it should be a crime to support them financially or otherwise.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It's a tough call. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. [/QUOTE]

This is what most liberals say when they're out there in their OBL shirts at anti-war marches.
 
No, it should not be legal, provided that the relevant government has concluded that the particular group is a terrorist organization. I am not terribly familiar with the groups listed in the article, so, while I assume they are terrorist groups, I am not 100% sure.
 
[quote name='sgs89']No, it should not be legal, provided that the relevant government has concluded that the particular group is a terrorist organization. I am not terribly familiar with the groups listed in the article, so, while I assume they are terrorist groups, I am not 100% sure.[/QUOTE]
That means you would never be allowed to support any revolutionary group since the government they oppose would certainly consider them to be terrorists.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Not only is there the part about attacking civilians but when a group makes their goal statement a destruction of a certain people/country such as the PFLP I think it should be a crime to support them financially or otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Well I agree about the destruction of a certain people. The PFLP does not endorse (nor does any of the notable palestinian groups) the annihilation of the jews. The main goal is to get Israel out of the occupied territories, the destruction of Israel as a zionist entity is more of an idealistic goal. Farc is the overthrow of the governmnet and, in that sense, is simply a revolutionary organization. Not one dedicated to destroying a country or people. Also, I'm not sure what the difference is between a country taking other peoples land or a group stating they wish to take others land.

I don't think supporting a rebel group should necessarily be outlawed. If that were the case then giving money to rebel groups in taliban afghanistan or saddam's iraq would have been a criminal offense. I think the decision comes done to whether you think the terrorist activity is central to the group, or simply one aspect of it. If you decide it is just an aspect of it, then how dominant a role that plays. In my opinion I don't think donating to the PFLP is as bad as FARC, but I really can't decide whether I think it should be illegal. If I were to, I think I would see the donations to FARC as the reason why its illegal, but I really don't know enough about FARC to decide.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This is what most liberals say when they're out there in their OBL shirts at anti-war marches.[/QUOTE]


The British considered people such as our founding fathers and militia as terrorist. Hell the boston tea party could be seen as a terrorist attack. But we see it as patriotic, thats the problem we you conservs you can only see your side.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']OBL[/QUOTE]Yeah, he's a bad seed. Someone should inform the President he's still alive.

And despite what alonzo said, if a given government dictates a group to be a terrorist organization, then fund raising for that group ought to be outlawed in any form. I don't think we'd kindly take to al qaeda fundraisers in the states. Of course, that's a preposterous suggestion, but in the unlikely hypothetical that it could happen, a government should not sit idle while terrorist organizations directly opposed to them collect funds.

That having been said, many a person has made a great deal off of Che Guevara's face, and I don't think that an EZLN shirt should be outlawed in the states. It's a tough call, but in the case of groups clearly opposed and a direct threat to a governing state shouldn't expect their capital earnings campaigns to be embraced by the government.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That means you would never be allowed to support any revolutionary group since the government they oppose would certainly consider them to be terrorists.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. Terrorists by definition target innocent civilians, whereas real rebel groups or "freedom fighters" target the military of their oppressors. So of course it should be illegal to raise money for groups like FARC that are out-and-out terrorist groups. I can't believe you would argue otherwise. What's next, t-shirts commemorating killing schoolchildren at Beslan? After all, they are fighting for a "free" Chechnya...
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It's a tough call. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. That being said, I wouldn't want people financially supporting any group that attacked civilians.

I want t-shirts supporting the Judean People's Front. :lol:[/QUOTE]


I haven't seen that one, but I have seen a t-shirt for the People's Front of Judea.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

And despite what alonzo said, if a given government dictates a group to be a terrorist organization, then fund raising for that group ought to be outlawed in any form. I don't think we'd kindly take to al qaeda fundraisers in the states. Of course, that's a preposterous suggestion, but in the unlikely hypothetical that it could happen, a government should not sit idle while terrorist organizations directly opposed to them collect funds.[/quote]

But we are talking about giving funds to a group that fights a government that you have nothing to do with. Its a given that, if I was a columbian citizen, that it should be illegal to fund farc. The question, for me, is it to the point that other countries should ban funding for it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Terrorists by definition[/QUOTE]
I've yet to find an end-all, be-all defintion of "terrorist".
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I've yet to find an end-all, be-all defintion of "terrorist".[/QUOTE]

It's easy, like I said: people who attack innocent civilians. It would follow that some, but not all, of the folks fighting in Iraq right now are terrorists.

Of course, sometimes terrorists make military attacks as well.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's easy, like I said: people who attack innocent civilians. It would follow that some, but not all, of the folks fighting in Iraq right now are terrorists.

Of course, sometimes terrorists make military attacks as well.[/QUOTE]
So, some guy who beats up a guy in a bar fight is a terrorist, simply because he's attacking a civilian?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']So, some guy who beats up a guy in a bar fight is a terrorist, simply because he's attacking a civilian?[/QUOTE]

Okay, it's a little more complicated than that -- attacks innocent civilians with the intent to terrorize the entire populace.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Okay, it's a little more complicated than that -- attacks innocent civilians with the intent to terrorize the entire populace.[/QUOTE]

So then someone putting spikes in trees to kill timber workers isn't a terrorist?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']So then someone putting spikes in trees to kill timber workers isn't a terrorist?[/QUOTE]

That involves terrorizing a population. He didn't say it had to be a nation or any particular population.

Though, here's a question, is terrorism ever morally acceptable? For example, would terrorist tactics be acceptable if you government was committing genocide? Or is it acceptable if, through one or two terrorist acts, you are almost certain (for the sake of argument you are at least 95% certain) that you can bring great change? This is not to say it should be advocated but, in a few specific situations, can it be morally acceptable? Personally I don't know.
 
Actually AZ he said "... with the intent to terrorize the entire populace."

You can't get much clearer than that.

And terrorism like anything else is always morally justifiable since humans can justify pretty much anything.
 
Yes, but what is the entire populace? Does hamas intend to terrorize sweden? They're part of the world populace. But they terrorize only the populace of Israel.

He didn't specify, it could mean all of any group. Though you could put it in clinton terms and say it comes down to what the definition of "the" is.
 
that's the thing. Terrorism has no real concrete definition.

Even killing isn't necessary for being a terrorist. We just have a bunch of qualifiers that, put together, can produce a very permeable definition.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, but what is the entire populace? Does hamas intend to terrorize sweden? They're part of the world populace. But they terrorize only the populace of Israel.

He didn't specify, it could mean all of any group. Though you could put it in clinton terms and say it comes down to what the definition of "the" is.[/QUOTE]

Except of course no one in their right mind would ever consider the entire populace to be umberjacks and their families who live and work in NW america.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Except of course no one in their right mind would ever consider the entire populace to be umberjacks and their families who live and work in NW america.[/QUOTE]

Wow, we are really getting into semantics here. What about "a person who commits violent acts with the intent to terrorize a larger group"?

Or we can go with Webster:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terrorist
 
[quote name='elprincipe']: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion[/QUOTE]
With that (simplistic) definition, we can prove that President Bush is a terrorist. I don't, personally, believe he's a terrorist in the sense that people have come to know it, which is why using a dictionary defintion for this sort of subject is way out of line.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']The British considered people such as our founding fathers and militia as terrorist. Hell the boston tea party could be seen as a terrorist attack. But we see it as patriotic, thats the problem we you conservs you can only see your side.[/QUOTE]


I can't speak for everyone but I see what our founding fathers did as being honorable because they did not make attacking civilians a means to an end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top