If the struggle over slavery were happening today, The Underground Railroad would be called a terrorist group and Emancipation appeasement

The Americans and the British are no more in the right to complain about terrorist attacks on their soil than the French were over Algeria or the Boers were when the land they had taken from the people was taken back by the people.

Terrorism makes sense and is just, when considered on the scale of peoples and society. When one people enslaves another, whether the chains be made of iron or cash, the master should not pretend to be innocent and the injured party when the slave thrashes, or breaks their chains. Exploitation is no less exploitative when written into law, and in such circumstances, it is the right of the enslaved to disregard such contracts, toss aside the normal niceities, and reclaim themselves.

From the view of peoples, the blame lies squarely on those that would own other people and lands. Only from view of the individual does terrorism usually not make sense. The victims are usually innocent in that they do not understand that they are living off of the exploitation of others. For that reason, terror should be focused primarily on those who should know better, and those most tightly tied to the exploitation. Particular politicians and heads of business bear the most visible blame for this tragedy.

It is the job of just people in an unjust society to make people understand why their actions and privilege create impetus for these acts, and to bring about their end. It is their task to comdemn the acts for being unjust on one scale for being improperly targeted, and being a response to great injustices on another scale.

1. How does European colonialism of Africa in the 19th and early 20th century compare to corporate action in poor nations?
2. How do military and diplomatic responses to movements that would re-nationalize industries in South America compare with earlier issues of that sort in the British colonies of the Americas, Iran in the 1950s, and the european mandates in post-Ottoman middle east?
3. When a nation, through trickery or threat, establishes contracts that bind another to exploitation and servitude, should the latter be free to null those contracts, and if so, should they make payment of some kind to the former?
4. Do recipients of unjustly acquired goods, when such goods would be transparently of dubious propriety were the recipient more educated on world affairs, share in the blame and to what extent and nature, for the extraction of that wealth from victims?
5. Does constant abuse of a people lead to radicalization of a people, and if so, is there a way to end that radicalization?
6. How does increased technology affect the urgency and nature of struggles of this sort?
7. How do racial boundaries change struggles of this sort? In particular, how do the Irish and American struggles (and their end) differ from struggles over Africa, China, and the Middle East?
8. How should justice on the level of peoples relate to justice on the level of persons? Is it possible for an act to be unjust in the second light, but just and appropriate in the first? If so, how should the act be understood as a whole act?
9. Is direct action against exploiters acceptable when legal means have been arranged to support the status quo? At other times? Who counts as an exploiter?