Aurors & the war v terror was Re: Crouch Sr/Jr + WW + DE's mark

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 37783

Ali wrote:
> Grey Wolf wrote:
> 
> > Wars involve some sort of big confrontation, like two armies facing 
> > each other, or invasion by numbers. Voldemort's Reign of Terror is 
> > exactly what's implied in it's name: terrorism, trying to take over 
> a country by frightening everyone into submission.
> > 
> snip
> 
> A  possible example of the Aurors vs. DeathEaters similarity is North 
> > Ireland's terrorism problem, and the way the English goverment 
> tried to solution it: by going in with the army. The trouble is that 
> the motives  of one and another are not comparable, but the situation 
> is (more or less) the same.
> .
> I've thought about the comparison between the Aurors and the British 
> Army, and their respective fights against terrorism, But I can't 
> really see a connection. I think you're right, the motives were very 
> different and the situation vastly different.
> 
><snip: very good description of NI problems>
> 
>  Are you arguing that the British Army stooped to a level that was no
>  better than the terrorists they were fighting? It is certainly 
> stated in canon that some on the "Goodside" of JKR's war against 
> terror used methods such as the Unforgiveable Curses, conviction 
> without trial, which seems to me to have toppled them from their 
> moral highground. The British Army made some terrible "mistakes", and 
> the Government did at one time use Internment as a way of gathering 
> suspected, but unconvicted terrorists. Perhaps on this aspect, at 
> least there are some similarities.

You did, indeed, understand me perfectly. I was saying that the 
situation (specific attacks from both sides instead of general violence 
of a war) is alike in the Reign of Terror and the terrorism in NI. The 
trouble with the example, as you have correctly stated, is that the 
origins of the terrorism in either case are so different that it cannot 
be used to explain neither.The point, however, stands: NI demonstrated 
that trying to stop terrorism by using military methods is unlikely to 
help, and I think that it didn't help either during the Reign of 
Terror. I write from a country ravaged by terrorism, and I know that 
policial methods are much more effective than military ones, even 
though it doesn't look like it at the begining. The lesson to learn: 
you cannot fight violence with violence. The comparison holds because 
terrorism, independently of it's high (or low) "moral reasons" is 
always _*BAD*_ and any cause that takes to fighting to defend it is not 
worth fighting for.

Resuming: the *situation* (not the reasons) of the Reign of Terror is 
similar to the situation of NI during the last 50 years: two sides 
which do not face it other directly but were the terrerist attack the 
army in the darkness, by killing singular people and trying to attack 
morale, while the army takes prisoners and (in the Reign of Terror), 
executes them without judgement.

> Ali
> 
> This is certainly not an argument in favour of terrorism - which I 
> deplore - only a recognition that its necessary to understand its 
> root causes, before it can be stamped out.

I feel exactly the same but, being somewhat cynical of the human 
nature, I know that moral standards exist for a few years and, 
afterwards, it's root causes are reduced to "they pay us for not 
killing them; what an easy life; let's keep it that way"

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf (as sometimes happens with my discussions, this has gone the 
road of OT, so I'd prefer any further discussion of terrorism, except 
if HP-oriented, to be mailed privately)