Jump to content

The Maquis:


elderbear
 Share


Recommended Posts

Thinking about the Maquis - are they the good guys or the bad? What do you think? How would you label them? Does their plight have any bearing on how you consider the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

 

EDIT: Please don't read too much into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict question ... it's not meant to equate Israelis with Cardassians (I think Nazi Germany would be a better comparison), rather to consider people who are having their homeland change governments ... both Israeli settlers with the possibility of Palestinian rulership, and the Palestinians, under the Israelis. The question was an afterthought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I'm not enough up to date with eiter of the conflicts. But from what I see on tv, I'd say that the Israeli are not even close to being Cardassian. The Cardassians are the worst kind! Their whole society is untrustworthy and you could say that they are bread for it. I wouldn't say the same is true for Israeli. Furthermore it would seem the Maquis attack military targets, while the Palestinians would just as soon attack a bus filled with schoolchildren.

 

Since this is about the Maquis, I say misguided. If it were about the Palestinians, some of them at least, I'd say terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But from what I see on tv, I'd say that the Israeli are not even close to being Cardassian. The Cardassians are the worst kind!

 

Thanks for bringing this up - I left a loaded question tagging onto the post - and it was just an afterthought. Please see my edit above.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom Fighters for sure' date=' the cardassian's could be considered terrorists, trying to move in and take by force what's not thier's, The Maquis are just defending thier homes.............[/quote']

 

Terrorism doesn't mean conquering. They can still be terrorists well defending their homes, terrorism is just a means. Probably what fits them best is Guerilla fighters. They have small numbers so they must use similar tactics and all.

 

Whether or not their actions are moral, i'm not sure if watching a tv show about it gives us enough information to judge. With the whole Palestine, Isreal issue we are exposed to tons of information regarding it yet it is still an extremely compex issue with people taking many different sides. A life of studying the situation would probably brinig you know closer deciding which is the more moral side. And thats what reality really is though not bad vs. good, and thats what was good about the maquis. I mean you felt for them but at the same time aren't sure about them, they are one of the most human aspects of Star Trek I would say.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism doesn't mean conquering. They can still be terrorists well defending their homes, terrorism is just a means. Probably what fits them best is Guerilla fighters. They have small numbers so they must use similar tactics and all.

 

Whether or not their actions are moral, i'm not sure if watching a tv show about it gives us enough information to judge. With the whole Palestine, Isreal issue we are exposed to tons of information regarding it yet it is still an extremely compex issue with people taking many different sides. A life of studying the situation would probably brinig you know closer deciding which is the more moral side. And thats what reality really is though not bad vs. good, and thats what was good about the maquis. I mean you felt for them but at the same time aren't sure about them, they are one of the most human aspects of Star Trek I would say.

 

 

 

You make a good point, and what I say next is in no way meant to be offensive......................I don't know enough about the situation to be accurate, but as far as I'm concerned, waring for any reason what so ever is in my opinion primitive and child like, for instance fighting over land is just plain Stupid, it's a bloody chunk of dirt, I hardly think it's worth Killing over, and yes I know what you might say.....What if someone tried to take your land from you, well I cirtainly wouldn't kill them over it, nothing in this world is worth ending anothers life, not land, not religion, not Money..............NOTHING.....................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After thinking about it for a while I retract this statement................

 

Freedom Fighters for sure, the cardassian's could be considered terrorists, trying to move in and take by force what's not thier's, The Maquis are just defending thier homes.............

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

In Light of this statement

 

"

You make a good point, and what I say next is in no way meant to be offensive......................I don't know enough about the situation to be accurate, but as far as I'm concerned, waring for any reason what so ever is in my opinion primitive and child like, for instance fighting over land is just plain Stupid, it's a bloody chunk of dirt, I hardly think it's worth Killing over, and yes I know what you might say.....What if someone tried to take your land from you, well I cirtainly wouldn't kill them over it, nothing in this world is worth ending anothers life, not land, not religion, not Money..............NOTHING.....................

 

 

 

Violence is not the answer to anything and until we learn this our race will continue to bicker fight and kill each-other.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure sense of the word 'terrorism' implies that there is some kind of terror trust upon people. That TERROR wether it comes from an individual, a rogue group or an established government/army is Stil Terror. And for the same matter, Terror wether its against civilian or against an army base is stil terror.

 

From reading some of the posts above, it seems some people are saying that causing terror against military installation, like what maquis did not really terrorism. But it is terrorism if it is against civilians.

 

Remember the words "shock and Awe"? well another word for that is Terror!! Terror against Saddam and his loyalist but also Terror against the more than 100,000 iraqis that died.

but to make it look good, we call that collateral damage and we show some Cleaned up images, black and white of missiles hitting some building. And we proudly present it saying look how accurate we are in hitting that building.

 

I guess my point is the same as what Yammichi said, War in general is TERROR. You can justify it anyway you like it. You can justify it by saying we are bringing freedom to a country. You may even be right. You can justify it by saying its fighting for the freedom of the land or whatever else.

 

War is ugly and it should be avoided at all cost..unless it comes to your doorstep and u have to defend yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is ugly and it should be avoided at all cost..unless it comes to your doorstep and u have to defend yourself.

 

well as much as we say Violence is not the answer it in the end seems unavoidable dosn't it, because even in defending yourself, your still useing violence............god it's hard to think about............but is thier no solution to this mess that is the human race??????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see them as terrorists,

 

The basic defintion of terrorism :- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives

 

The Maquis was guilty of commiting what is detailed in the definition hence why I would class them as terrorists, also bear in mind they also attacked the federation as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violence is not the answer to anything and until we learn this our race will continue to bicker fight and kill each-other.........

 

We've had thousands of years of using violence to force power over others - has it really worked? Compare the track record of violent power to really change things with the power of non-violent resistance. On a percentage basis, I think you'll find that Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were onto something ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure sense of the word 'terrorism' implies that there is some kind of terror trust upon people. That TERROR wether it comes from an individual, a rogue group or an established government/army is Stil Terror. And for the same matter, Terror wether its against civilian or against an army base is stil terror.

 

From reading some of the posts above, it seems some people are saying that causing terror against military installation, like what maquis did not really terrorism. But it is terrorism if it is against civilians.

 

Remember the words "shock and Awe"? well another word for that is Terror!! Terror against Saddam and his loyalist but also Terror against the more than 100,000 iraqis that died.

but to make it look good, we call that collateral damage and we show some Cleaned up images, black and white of missiles hitting some building. And we proudly present it saying look how accurate we are in hitting that building.

 

I guess my point is the same as what Yammichi said, War in general is TERROR. You can justify it anyway you like it. You can justify it by saying we are bringing freedom to a country. You may even be right. You can justify it by saying its fighting for the freedom of the land or whatever else.

 

War is ugly and it should be avoided at all cost..unless it comes to your doorstep and u have to defend yourself.

 

I think your mistaked, there is a huge difference between a war and terrorism, the "shock and awe" was a punchline for the start of the airal war in iraq, as a bombing campaign the deaths where very light. In a war a army does not delibrately target civilians and is against international law as well against the rules of engagement

 

Terrorists dont see the different and will attack either miltary or civillan targets, without compasion or regret for the causalties.

 

What i would like to ask if you think that a war should only be used as self defence, was our was in Kosovo and Afganistan right? or would you see that as defence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violence is not the answer to anything and until we learn this our race will continue to bicker fight and kill each-other.........

 

We've had thousands of years of using violence to force power over others - has it really worked? Compare the track record of violent power to really change things with the power of non-violent resistance. On a percentage basis, I think you'll find that Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were onto something ...

 

I goto admit us British have had a chequred past on wars from our empire days, but glad we seen the light and decided to give back the countries to the people. I guess we learned from our mistakes lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of us on this forum can agree that war and violence is a horrible solution, although i'm sure most of us aren't in a situation like the maquis are in which could possibly drive us to violence. Although alot of people, including myself speak non-violence, i'm sure there is a point where we would resort to it, it can at times look like such a simple solution, or last desperate act, almost like an adrenalline rush, and your instincts start to control you. Even though i'm sure we all have that point that would drive us to violence i'm not sure if it is truly ever a solution except for in the short term, although i think about what I would do in the federations position when the borg invaded and I have no idea what I would do then?? That would be intersting topic, non-violent means of repelling the borg, or would violence be neccesary? Would there be a way to minimize the fighting??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...