Originally posted by flexmoreAnother thing that makes me very uncomfortable is the common occurence of the phrase "I am going to vote for GWB because look at the other options we have". I think it is scary to think that our President for the next 4 years will be voted in for such a reason, ESPECIALLY with the things that are going on right now.
again it comes up, he affects people who do not vote for him. democracy requires a world president voted by all. not just an american (or other superpower of the day) to take that position by force.
NC🙂
"Just today, a woman disrupted the peace (heh, whatever) between Palestinians and Iranians when she bombed an outpost on the Gasza Strip, killing 3 soldiers and 1 civilian.Was she a terrorist?
She even left a video to her kids about what she was going to do.
"
Her target were military. armed, on active service and occupying what she saw as her country. Soldiers from that county have used bombs and rockets in civilian areas they occupy, killing bystanders as well as their intended targets. How is her bomb different from their's?
What exactly is a terrorist? My question is not about the rights and wrongs of the middle east - just why is it only the militarily weak are terrorists?
Originally posted by steerpikeAccording to the online dictionary:
What exactly is a terrorist?
1. A person engaging in planning and execution of heinous acts intended to kill innocent people and scare everyone else.
"The terrorist attempted to hijack the plane, but the other passengers pinned him down and stomped him until his heart stopped."
The second definition is:
A term that applies to any actions designed to create fear among civilians. Terrorists are known to practice terrorism, which takes many forms, such as suicide bombing, hijacking of aircraft, shock & awe, the Patriot Act, and "orange alert".
Anybody can be a TERRORIST. Those who beat up, threaten, and vandalize the houses of Arab-Americans and French-Americans, for instance, are TERRORISTS.
What exactly is a terrorist?Good definiton. If you are fighting a war on terror, you must be able to identify your enemy. And it implies killing soldiers is not a terrorist action- unless you define soldiers as innocent people.
1. A person engaging in planning and execution of heinous acts intended to kill innocent people and scare everyone else.
We would then not call those attacking soldiers in Chechnya, Northern Ireland, East Timor and Iraq terrorists. We may strongly disagree with their actions but terrorist is reserved for those attacking civilians not involved in the war effort.
The chemical bombing of Kurdish villages fits this definition of terrorism. Terrorism can then be practised by a state and use a military airforce. But, if you believe this, was the bombing of Rotterdam, Coventry and Dresden also terrorism? Mass bombings of civilian targets causing hundreds of thousands of casualities was accepted as legitimate by all the many countries in the Allied and Axis coalitions.
Has the West practised terrorism in the past?
No.
That being said, we need to analyze what "Terror" is.
Can we say that "Terror is an act resulting in death of 'one of us', but not an act of war between nations?
For those people who accept "War" as a means of social justice, examples of terror then become events such as...
1 - Murder of (our, but not your, because the winner is always "righteous"😉 spies or suspected traitors during war. (Notice that you can be on either side. Matters not.)
2 - Wanton (planned or willfull) killing of civilians during declared war, such as the Germans and Russians used against entire villages and populations during WWII and Lt. Calley used against Mi Lai in Viet Nam.
3 - Revenge killing by ANY/ALL organized group(s), ie, any committee or gang. In time of war or not. Vendetta.
And as used by those who oppose war in any form...
1 - All of the above. Plus...
2 - Any act that harms another human being. Or animal. Or planet. Or Plant. Or Idea. Or Opinion. Or... but then we digress into pre-civilization at that point.
Notice that I allow for each of the two basic groups of humans on earth?
I can't identify with the second group, ie, "peace at any cost" protagonists. So I will not further comment on them or their beliefs here. "Can't we all just stop thinking and get along?"
As to the first group though. Can we say that "Terror" is a bad thing in the context of "being human", or more simply, as human beings?
If yes then we need to ask further questions. If you think that terror is "ok" under some conditions, then stop reading now. You are a terrorist.
Questions...
1 - Is terror a ligitimate method of addressing wrongs when perpetrated by groups? By individuals?
Amazingly, (some) seem to think that if a gang gathers together and commits terror, it is somehow "ok". But if a single person does the same act, it is wrong. Think that one through. Power in "number of chimps" beating their chests? Yes. Perhaps this is valid. The only reason people gather and "protest" is a sublimninal message of threat though the strength of numbers. Silly, but true. This is why protestors tend to be incapable of self-defense. I digress.
2 - Should we oppose "terror" or let it work itself out?
First, we should examine the Four most obvious options. First is to "oppose" the terrorist. Second is to "ignore" him. Third is to "join" him and last is to "appease" him. Will any of these methods work? Depends on the terrorist, doesn't it.
3 - If a "terrorist" is also a "leader of a nation" is he/she then not a terrorist?
Does the fact that a dictator/elected leader leads a nation confir the right to commit terror upon other groups or individuals? Or indeed upon those who the leader "leads"?
4 - Is the scale of "terror" increased or decreased by the factual count of his followers? If a billion souls support a terrorist, (Bin Laden) is he really one? If nobody supports him, is he automatically one?
(OJ Simpson).
This gets back to the nature of "democracy". The democrat will always say that "every soul is equal", and blindly ignore the fact that under such logic, two cowardly murderers are worth twice as much as a poor mother who works herself into an early grave to love and support her children. If you are a strict "democrat" then you must say that Bin Laden is not a terrorist. But you must also say that two murderers are better than Albert Sweitzer... that Hitler + Goering are worth more than Churchill. The truth is that human attributes are not additive. Nor distributive.
This is a bare bones outline. Very complicated subject. For what it is worth, I have decided the following.
Terrorism must be confronted agressively.
No quarter given or expected.
One can never "win" because one fights others dogma and fanaticism.
To not oppose said "fanaticism" is to capitulate. In the case of Bin Laden it is to allow "all nations on earth to become Islamic Governments". With all that implies. See Afghanistan and pre-Attaturk Turkey. In the case of Sadaam it was to continue the despotic, wanton destruction of free will by acts of murder (against the citizenry) and other nations... see Iraq/Iran war... Iraq/Kuwait war.
More later, perhaps.
"That being said, we need to analyze what "Terror" is.
Can we say that "Terror is an act resulting in death of 'one of us', but not an act of war between nations?"
No. Your definition then includes accidental deaths but not atrocities such as the Nanking massacre - where Japanese soldiers killed civilians - because it occured in an act of war. I believe a terrorist can wear a uniform.
"Murder of spies or suspected traitors during war."
Not terror -spies, saboteurs and traitors are not innocent. They are part of your enemies war effort. This is no different to killinog an enemy soldier
"Revenge killing by ANY/ALL organized group(s), ie, any committee or gang. In time of war or not. Vendetta. "
Why specifically revenge? Most terrorism is a polical act - killing ethnic or religious groups to expel them from a region, deterring dissent , establishing control over a region. Revenge implies the victims were not innocent.
"1 - Is terror a ligitimate method of addressing wrongs when perpetrated by groups? By individuals?"
Terror is killing innocent people to achieve your goals. So it is never justified. The problem is in defining innocence - the citizens of Nazi Germany were supporting the war effort, from making munitions to running railways. So carpet bombing of German cities was not terrorism under that definition. The attack on the USS Cole was not terrorism either - because it was an attack on armed forces.
Has anyone else a definition of terrorism? What exactly are we fighting?
Originally posted by steerpikeIn case you missed it... the assumption is homicide....(Genecide has a "special" meaning in terms of human conflict. It is the elimination of a breeding culture in (possible) competition to your own, not to be confused with "homicide", ie, the act of killing a being.) Accidents don't qualify.
"That being said, we need to analyze what "Terror" is.
Can we say that "Terror is an act resulting in death of 'one of us', but not an act of war between nations?"
No. Your definition then includes accidental deaths but not atr ...[text shortened]... else a definition of terrorism? What exactly are we fighting?
Nanking... was a situation where the Japanese army under direction of the Emporor committed genecide. I didn't miss it. You are just off subject.
Can you tell me the meaning of "politic" in the latin origin? Is it not the same as the "body" of the masses? <edit> There I go again. Being too harsh.
As to the "Cole"... What kind of chicken shi* would stick up for murder of men coming into port in peace time? A certain "steer piker"? I guess so. More power to your Piker. Hope you bag a sheep. Or whatever.
<edit> Why specifically revenge? Because I am smart enough to notice that my enemy sees me as "unjust" just as I see them as "unjust". The Brotherhood of Islam... under Qtub... defined it best by saying that "Until the Caliphie is restored... nothing but war against the barbarians will satisfy Allah. We must be ever diligent in killing the infidels. They are many and We are few". In case you missed it... the need to establish "Islam" as the "one and only true govenment" on earth is what our current discussion is about.
. All enemies... in case you missed it... are by definition "unjust". Therefore any act of "retribution" is best classified as "vendetta".
Nyuck! Had to use "in case you missed it" several times... I wonder?
Originally posted by StarValleyWy]In case you missed it... the assumption is homicide..
In case you missed it... the assumption is homicide....(Genecide has a "special" meaning in terms of human conflict. It is the elimination of a breeding culture in (possible) competition to your own, not to be confused with "homicide", ie, the act of killing a being.) Accidents don't qualify.
Nanking... was a situation where the Japanese army u ...[text shortened]... ed as "vendetta".
Nyuck! Had to use "in case you missed it" several times... I wonder?
So the war on terror is against homicide? Thanks for keeping me informed.
Genecide has a "special" meaning in terms of human conflict. It is the elimination of a breeding culture in (possible) competition to your own,
Agree with your positon on genocode - so that means the Japanese were trying to get rid of the breeding population of Nanking ? Did they forget about the rest of China or where they were going to get around to them later? I always thought they were trying to intimidate the popualtion so they would cease resistance - ie terrorise civilians.
Politic in Latin - sorry, don't speak Latin. How about these definition from www.dictionary.org "Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power:"" So, can you understand how terrorising people can give you power?
As to the "Cole".
I distinguish between the terrorist who kills innocent civilians and someone who attacks a military target. Do you see a difference between someone who attacks an army patrol and an children's school? To say an attack on a military target is not a terrorist attack does not mean approval of the attack. I think the firebombing of Dresden was a dreadful act as well but it was not a act of terrorism. Might be a little hard for you to grasp but keep working on it.
the need to establish "Islam" as the "one and only true govenment"
You will be quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at me next. So the war on terror is a war against Islam?
Nice of you to help me with this. We on the outskirts of the world tend to miss out and not understand the important issues.
It is only sensible that we should base our day to day choices upon that which is conducive to a beneficial outcome. However, as we all know, this is frequently not the reality of the world. Most often reality is that we "re-act" to situations rather than "act" with rational thought bent towards a positive outcome. You can yell at your waitress untill you are blue in the face, your food still won't be ready any sooner. You can honk and flip off every car that drives ever so slightly slower or faster than you, you still won't get home any faster. To do such things is absolutely, definitively, unarguably pointless. Thus is the creation of havok under the pretense banner of productivity in our everyday lives and the world at large.
Likewise, such is the pretense banner being put to use for Islam just as it is in the USA. The world shall never accept absolute rule by Islam brought about by terrorism and guerilla tactics (not that they are anywhere close to it). Likewise, it is immeasureably improbable, if not impossible, to stop terrorism by raw physical force. The notion that one can wage war against an idea by use of physical force is mind boggelingly, numbingly, absurd. If it is Islam waging war against the Western ideals, or the West waging war against the extreme ideals of some of Islam, it is pointless to such a degree that I cannot even begin to convey to attempt to fight an idea with violence.
Both of these efforts are futile in nature due to the means by which their proprietors have elected to carry them out. The equation is simple and yet on both ends of the spectrum we have chosen to ignore the fact that the end solution to this equation fails to address the problem entirely. The end of this equation is death, death of innocents, death of soldiers, death to all. Truck loads of death, and not a shred of progress towards solving the original problem. This is not the first time guns and bombs were used in an attempt to kill an ideal. All previous uses of this tactic failed, just as these attempts shall fail. It is a delaying measure at most, and a dastardly costly one.
To be sure, there are benefits to such wars. There's also some very nice benefits to be gained from actions conducive towards solving your problem (for example.....solving your problem). I leave it unto you my friends to choose which is better. Shall we "re-act" to the situations that are presented to us, or shall we "act" in a manner that is beneficial to us? One has a future, the other treads the same old water no matter how dark and ugly.
Oh, and as a side note, my personal definition of "terrorism":
Action without reflection.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by steerpikeIt seems to me, that a terroist is generally what the government wants to call an "aggressor" they can not link to a legitamate hostile government / offical organisation.
What exactly is a terrorist?
It is all a question of definition, and in the middle east it is pushed to the limit. All Palistians must be terrorists as Isreal does not allow them to have a ligitamate government / army.
It is curious also that, if terrorists win the day, they become freedom fighters and liberators. I am sure the British Government viewed the American uprising as a terrorist act, but such a view just seems silly now.
Andrew
Originally posted by latex bishopWasn't the state of Israel founded by terrorism against the British protectorate anyway?
It seems to me, that a terroist is generally what the government wants to call an "aggressor" they can not link to a legitamate hostile government / offical organisation.
It is all a question of definition, and in the middle east it is pushed to the limit. All Palistians must be terrorists as Isreal does not allow them to have a ligitamate governm ...[text shortened]... iewed the American uprising as a terrorist act, but such a view just seems silly now.
Andrew
And will Sinn Fein be remembered as terrorists in years to come.
Wasn't Nelson Mandela viewed as a terrorist in the 60's?