[Manga] Weakest member of Akatsuki

[JustRob]

Okay fine you win. Deidara isn't a ninja he's a terrorist.

discussion over

[james0246]

^Technically, all of Akatsuki are terrorist, especially those that followed Nagato.

[Killer Bee]

Originally Posted by james0246

^Technically, all of Akatsuki are terrorist, especially those that followed Nagato.

Terrorist = heretic in this world of politics. All you have to do is scream "Witch" and its off to Guantanamo Bay. Terrorist doesn't mean what it used to 20 years ago. Che Guevara, Joan of Arc and the founding fathers of America would be viewed as a terrorist in today's world.

I like to think of Akatsuki as gangsters or old western outlaws ... who operate above the law of the land for their own agenda and gain .. and took what they wanted, when they wanted it.

*queue "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" theme*

[JustRob]

no, that's pirates you're thinking about

[james0246]

^No, terroism is the systematic use of terror to coerce people into following your idealogical stance. Nagato's plan, which the majority of the group knew of and followed, was to create such a catastrophe, that the world would be so scared that they simply stopped fighting. Akatsuki si an almost textbook defintion of a terrorist organization. If you prefer, we can use the word Violent non-state actor, instead of terrorist.

Originally Posted by JustRob

no, that's pirates you're thinking about

LOL, To true.

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by james0246

^No, terroism is the systematic use of terror to coerce people into following your idealogical stance. Nagato's plan, which the majority of the group knew of and followed, was to create such a catastrophe, that the world would be so scared that they simply stopped fighting. Akatsuki si an almost textbook defintion of a terrorist organization.

Lol. So is a certain powerful government....

[Killer Bee]

Damn you guys are fast. I tried to make a change and by the time I did there were like 3 replies.

Well just read my post ^ above and see what I meant

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Killer Bee

Che Guevara, Joan of Arc and the founding fathers of America would be viewed as a terrorist in today's world.

I like to think of Akatsuki as gangsters or old western outlaws ... who operate above the law of the land for their own agenda and gain .. and took what they wanted, when they wanted it.

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Lol. So is a certain powerful government....

While a political party can try to illegitimaze someone's stance by arguing that they are a terrorist, there are key qualifiers that exist in the definition of terrorist, specifically, a terrorist, or the less politically charged phrase Violent non-state actor, invoke their desires not against armed forces, but rather non-combatants, even going so far as to only target civilians. Consequently, the group Akatsuki which seeks to coerce the public through terror, and is more than willing to kill civilians, is a Terrorist organization. They are not revolutionares battling against an oppresive system, nor are they seeking simply materialistic goods (ala a gangster/pirate/ organization). They have a multiple part agenda that is rooted in Nagato's/Pain's ideological ideas concerning the world, and those ideas all lead to the death of innocent individuals.

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by james0246

While a political party can try to illegitimaze someone's stance by arguing that they are a terrorist, there are key quilifiers that exist in the definition of terrorist, specifically, a terrorst, or the less politically charged phrase Violent non-state actor, invoke their desires not against armed forces, but rather civilians, even going so far as to only target civilians.

Without digressing too far off topic or starting a political debate, I would like to point out that this is the 'new' definition of the word terrorist. In other words, this is the definition now used by certain world actors to label whom they wish as a threat to humanity, while they themselves do the same things they accuse their enemies of doing. However, since they are not 'non-state', they cannot be labeled as terrorists under their definition thereof. In fact, the true definition of terrorist is the classical one; the one which you cited above. The word terrorist in its origin has no connection to whether or not someone is a state-actor or not, nor whether or not they chiefly target civilians. With all due respect, this new definition is nothing more than a ploy to clear a clearly guilty party of a crime. You'll excuse my cynicism, but I'm not one for these nonsensical political mind games.

But yeah, other than that, I think it's safe enough to say that Akatsuki are terrorists..... though technically, most terrorists aren't mercenaries as well in the process, but fair enough.

[Yotsuba]

All I can think of is how much I miss Deidara. I know there's no way for him to come back though.. well, maybe there is. This IS Naruto, after all. And his death was for nothing, he didn't even manage to kill Sasuke.

I WANT HIM BACK. He was an awesome character. In the popularity polls, he was ranked HIGHER than Naruto himself. Why kill off such a popular character? Kishimoto is dumb. Then again, even Sasori ranked higher than most of the main characters.

Oh and Deidara WAS a terrorist bomber. He was FORCED to join Akatsuki, don't you guys remember?

[AuroraFlash]

Originally Posted by Yotsuba

All I can think of is how much I miss Deidara. I know there's no way for him to come back though.. well, maybe there is. This IS Naruto, after all. And his death was for nothing, he didn't even manage to kill Sasuke.

I WANT HIM BACK. He was an awesome character. In the popularity polls, he was ranked HIGHER than Naruto himself. Why kill off such a popular character? Kishimoto is dumb. Then again, even Sasori ranked higher than most of the main characters.

Oh and Deidara WAS a terrorist bomber. He was FORCED to join Akatsuki, don't you guys remember?

Is being a terrorist who randomly bombs civillians better than belonging to an underground organization with the aim to destroy the ninja world?

[JustRob]

Originally Posted by Yotsuba

All I can think of is how much I miss Deidara. I know there's no way for him to come back though.. well, maybe there is. This IS Naruto, after all. And his death was for nothing, he didn't even manage to kill Sasuke.

I WANT HIM BACK. He was an awesome character. In the popularity polls, he was ranked HIGHER than Naruto himself. Why kill off such a popular character? Kishimoto is dumb. Then again, even Sasori ranked higher than most of the main characters.

Oh and Deidara WAS a terrorist bomber. He was FORCED to join Akatsuki, don't you guys remember?

Sorry but Sasuke is Kishimoto's favorite character so he couldn't let him lose

All Akatsuki will be killed anyway, if Sasuke didn't do it, Naruto probably would have

[Killer Bee]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Without digressing too far off topic or starting a political debate, I would like to point out that this is the 'new' definition of the word terrorist. In other words, this is the definition now used by certain world actors to label whom they wish as a threat to humanity, while they themselves do the same things they accuse their enemies of doing. However, since they are not 'non-state', they cannot be labeled as terrorists under their definition thereof. In fact, the true definition of terrorist is the classical one; the one which you cited above. The word terrorist in its origin has no connection to whether or not someone is a state-actor or not, nor whether or not they chiefly target civilians. With all due respect, this new definition is nothing more than a ploy to clear a clearly guilty party of a crime. You'll excuse my cynicism, but I'm not one for these nonsensical political mind games.

But yeah, other than that, I think it's safe enough to say that Akatsuki are terrorists..... though technically, most terrorists aren't mercenaries as well in the process, but fair enough.

Bravo.

I can't give you more rep till I "spread it around" and all that jazz.

The only part I would amend would be that IMO Akatsuki fit the bill of outlaws or gangsters.

Mercenaries? Well that depends. I think all gangsters are mercenaries to a degree. Protection and clout are a form of currency and you definitely enjoy both when you run with the other big dogs. And I guess the promise of being augmented by the King of Hell statue could also be viewed as payment for services rendered.

[Yotsuba]

Originally Posted by AuroraFlash

Is being a terrorist who randomly bombs civillians better than belonging to an underground organization with the aim to destroy the ninja world?

No, I don't think it's better. But then again, you have to remember that Deidara saw his bombs as "art", and himself as an "artist".

It's a twisted viewpoint, sure, but I don't think he saw the things he did as evil. HE wasn't evil. The people that died were just consequences of his art. In his eyes, those people were probably lucky to go out in such a beautiful manner.

That's what I think, at least.

[kk2extreme]

I love deidara, he is like the rock lee of akatsuki, but way better

[Yotsuba]

Originally Posted by kk2extreme

I love deidara, he is like the rock lee of akatsuki, but way better

Hahaha that's an interesting way to look at it.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Killer Bee

Bravo.

I can't give you more rep till I "spread it around" and all that jazz.

The only part I would amend would be that IMO Akatsuki fit the bill of outlaws or gangsters.

lol, lonewolf777 was agreeing that Akatsuki are "terrorist", he simply disliked my use of a more modern umbrella phrase that does not account for state run terrorism.

To put it another way, how would you describe a plan of action that requires thousands of people to die so as to create such fear that war would be disavowed? Does that sound like a mafia hit to you? Or a terrorist action?

[CMSensei]

Originally Posted by kk2extreme

I love deidara, he is like the rock lee of akatsuki, but way better

Nice way of saying it, never expected that..

[Killer Bee]

Originally Posted by james0246

lol, lonewolf777 was agreeing that Akatsuki are "terrorist", he simply disliked my use of a more modern umbrella phrase that does not account for state run terrorism.

To put it another way, how would you describe a plan of action that requires thousands of people to die so as to create such fear that war would be disavowed? Does that sound like a mafia hit to you? Or a terrorist action?

LOL ... I think lonewolf may have meant that he dislikes the way certain groups twist words in order to become exempt from judgement, blame or guilt while transgressing in the same manner. That's why he didn't like the term but you may have missed that, buddy.

[james0246]

^Hm, he seems to have said "I think its safe enough to say that Akatsuki are terrorists..." Maybe I am misreading something, but doesn't that mean Akatsuki are terrorist? If not, I apologies.