.......
Printable View
.......
Sure, if he straps himself with explosives we call him a terrorist.
If he orders a B-2 to blow up a school we call him a savior...
Theres shit loads of non-muslim international terrorists all around the world. Check out this site for some more listings (the list is even compiled by the american state department):
http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/te...groupslist.html
but suicide bombings seem to be almost unique to islam.
Until Blair & Bush bomb the Poppy Fields as was promised in the aftermath of Sept 11th they will carry on killing our kids with Heroin.Paying farmers money to stop them from growing the poppy fields really worked I don't think.Bombing the poppy fields would be a cheaper option
Kamekaze pilots were not Islamic ILW.
Muslim terrorist... theres no such thing as a non-terrorist, it all depends on the views of the people and how they define things, the west says "They are directly attacking our way of life, they wish to destroy it and further more have launched attacks which killed and injured thousands of civilians, and the groups responsible are terrorists... muslim terrorist, even the columbians" and the east says "They are directly attacking our way of life they wish to destroy it and further more have launched attacks which have killed and injured thousands of civilians, and the armies responsible are terrorists.... americans terrorists... even the indians"
Its a war between two ideoligies one of materialism and the other of spiritualism, both sides throw accusations around, both sides kill innocence, at the end of the day it all comes down to how you, the individual define terrorism, for many even non-muslims see the suicide bomber of Palestine as a brave soldier and the Israeli sniper the terrorist and then again there are those who see the B-52 (or whatever) bomber as the hero of the hour and the poor shepherd sitting in his farm oblivious to the fact that 2 tons of explosives is going to cook his sheep sooner then he wanted is the terrorist, to me the one who kills the most for no reason is the terrorist. Oh and to stick to the point, the vietnamese used suicide bombings too, send people holding grenades into american camps, blow them selves and some confused soldiers up.... as far as i know not many communists are muslims :P :D
chrisjohn316, labelling or categorizing someone/group has always been human's motto. We are in the day of $$, not human life. Those who advertise, claim and "defend themselves" from "terrorism" don't think that 1 million human die every year around the world from local crimes is "terrorism". and many other examples...... it doesn't end here...... :blink: :blink: :blink:
I think some people are forgetting what terrorists are
sorry that almost certainly isn't terrorism.Quote:
don't think that 1 million human die every year around the world from local crimes is "terrorism"
the point about terrorists is that they don't target the military they instead work by intimidating the civilian populace.
"violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience"
Its not simply about ideology its about the way they operate, terrorists are people who try and influence countries not throught politics or pwer, but by instilling terror and disrupting the everyday lives of civilians. Thats why it is perfectly justifiable to say that someone who straps themself with bombs is a terrorist and someone who orders the bombing of a school (I'm assuming it has some military significance) is not a terrorist.
I disagree ilw, simply because labeling or categorizing someone/group is not a formula or science where proven guidlines without any doubt they would mean the same to everyone. besides, I used that word in qoutation, meaning that there is no absolute to the definition of "terrorism".
I'll give u an example, in 1982 or 83, a friend of mine was on a visit to lebanon, US war ship bombed his family's home minutes before he arrived there. Killing his Mom, 2 sisters and 1 brother of 4mnths old. US claimed there were "palestinian terrorists" in that house. from my friends eyes, what is "terrorism" now and who is the "terrorist" the palastenians or the americans? assuming there were palastenians there, eventhough he only saw his family's bodies there.
ilw if an army suspected a civilian building to be a threat... such as in Iraq, Baghdad, civilian bomb shelter filled with.... well civilians got bombed, "terrorists" could say "well hey you know that Embasy had stuff thats a threat so its a legitamate target" i do not defend the actions of either side to me the bombing of civilian shelters is wrong and the bombing of thw WTC is wrong but at the end of the day
terrorism just comes down to your own views, and this pretty much proves it, the way you define it i can come up with something the same, and justify a bombing of some poor guys house,
Israel destroys entire buildings filled with civilians to target one single person, this to me is terrorism, or standing by an airport and launching rockets at tourist is terrorism but both sides say "there was a legitimate military target inside... its not a terrorist act, its war"
so eh... comes down to what you believe dont it :P :D
there is some room for interpretation of the definition of terrorism, but IMO a critical point of it is that the attacks are directed against non-combatants. In the example given the Americans claim there was military significance, whether they were right on this occasion or whether attacks incidentally killed civilians doesn't really make any difference when trying to categorise them objectively. It all hinges on whether their aim was to target indiscriminately and so scare the populace into thinking that anyone is a target, or whether they were targeting combatants and people/property used/supporting these combatants.
meh... lol comes down to your point of view bro, like i said both sides claim it to be legit military targets, the "terrorists" consider US embasies in the mid east and such places to be propagating against there ideals, allowing CIA to get in, sponsoring rebels and so on, i mean try like me to look at it from there point of view and you'll see what i'm talking about, to them these are all legit targets, to palestine the Israeli's are all occupiers, according to basic military rules occupiers are fair game, some one steals a piece of your land you have the right to kick there ass, type of thing, America sees a camera thinks its a grenade launcher, bombs the hell out of reporters hotel room, shoots out a TV station... meh to them it fair game, to Iraqi's its terrorism, a malaysian bombs a night club killing civilians for no reason, he comes out says "its a tool that is used to destroy our way of life" bla bla... terrorism to us, legit target to others,
to alot of people we are the terrorists,
and to another majority we are the victims.
guess we wont know until we die :)
I would agree perhaps that bombing an embassy that is providing support is a valid target and wouldn't class that as terrorism, however, attacking a way of life or a civilian population (like the nightclub bombing) is unequivocally terrorism. I'm sure the geneva convention defines what are and are not legitimate targets, if u wish to argue whether the Geneva convention is valid or not please go ahead and make your case.
lol the convention is way over my head :D but like i said people have there own conventions :P VIEW DAMN IT VIEW lol :) i also step down a little and agree with some of what you say, so lets agree that there are obvious acts of terrorism which can be universally defined... and there are alot more that cannot... :)
correct my interpretation if i misunderstood u w/this sentence.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@7 September 2003 - 08:36
In the example given the Americans claim there was military significance, whether they were right on this occasion or whether attacks incidentally killed civilians doesn't really make any difference when trying to categorise them objectively.
categorization comes before innocent human life? figuring out their intention, comes before innocent human life?
I didn't say categorisation should come before human life, I don't even really understand what that means.
My meaning was that if civilians are not the target, but their deaths are unavoidable in pursuing military targets, then that is not the same as targeting civilians.
eh i agree with you there ilw.... funny thing is... same could be said for the other guys :D :P
To quote an oft-used phrase: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
:ninja:
A country that attacked 4 other countries during the past 10 years should expect this kind of remarks.Quote:
Thats why it is perfectly justifiable to say that someone who straps themself with bombs is a terrorist and someone who orders the bombing of a school (I'm assuming it has some military significance) is not a terrorist.
Military acts are also governed by laws and treaties, so there are also war criminals, just like in real life we have regular criminals (terrorists etc).
It's not the way of life, or any of that bs. Come on guys and girls.
They take Serbia, they are in the Balcans, they take Iraq they are in the Middle East.
yep I completely agree with many of the comments u make and as u look around this section of the forum u see a lot of comments and perhaps antagonism is directed at America. However, America could go on a murderous conquering rampage throughout asia or europe, killing millions as they go; all completely unjustified and in breach of all treaties, however, that still wouldn't make them terrorists.
If it's the title, let's change it: Murderers, slaughters, there are many other to comply with both Arabs and US administration (not only the current one)
Ilw's interpretation of "terrorist" is pointless and stupid, playing semantics.
Who gives a shit what the dictionary definition is?
When someone flies planes into a building and kills 3000 yanks, does that justify the Americans then going to Afghanistan and killing 10's of thousands of innocent Afghanis? How many innocent "foreign" lives is one Yank worth?
And what about Vietnam? What happened to the "Domino Effect", the excuse the Yanks used to kill 3 million Vietnamese men women and children??
And before you start an argument with me over what your country gets up to and why, I should warn you, I have been involved, deeply.
Who financed Bin Laden? Who sent him to Afghanistan? What was Americas objectives when supplying arms to the Mujahadin? Why did they pull back when the Russians pulled out? Who financed the Taliban?
The only stability that suits America's purpose, is instability!
Terrorism is the "enemy" the Yanks need, if Bin Laden hadn't come along they would have had to invent him!
:(
Elaborate, please.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@7 September 2003 - 07:50
And before you start an argument with me over what your country gets up to and why, I should warn you, I have been involved, deeply.
When they find the situation is out of their hands and the leader they were financing has too much power, they attack the goverment (4 times in a decade is too much even for idiots to understand that they're doing exactly the same thing with every country they attack).Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@7 September 2003 - 15:50
Ilw's interpretation of "terrorist" is pointless and stupid, playing semantics.
Who gives a shit what the dictionary definition is?
When someone flies planes into a building and kills 3000 yanks, does that justify the Americans then going to Afghanistan and killing 10's of thousands of innocent Afghanis? How many innocent "foreign" lives is one Yank worth?
And what about Vietnam? What happened to the "Domino Effect", the excuse the Yanks used to kill 3 million Vietnamese men women and children??
And before you start an argument with me over what your country gets up to and why, I should warn you, I have been involved, deeply.
Who financed Bin Laden? Who sent him to Afghanistan? What was Americas objectives when supplying arms to the Mujahadin? Why did they pull back when the Russians pulled out? Who financed the Taliban?
The only stability that suits America's purpose, is instability!
Terrorism is the "enemy" the Yanks need, if Bin Laden hadn't come along they would have had to invent him!
:(
Sadham possessed these weapon's of mass destruction, of course. Who did provide him with such an arsenal in the 1st place? The Russians? :lol:
Sorry Clocker, not too much. I was in Afghanistan in the early 80's. Went in with different people including Yanks.
No, Billy Dean, that can NEVER be justified. Innocent men, women and children dying for the 'American Way'. Stick it dudes, it's unmitigated crap.
And speaking from an Australian perspective in reference to the recent outcry that the Australian public was mislead by the politicians? Get farkin stuffed, any of the Australian public with half a brain could see there was no real evidence to support invading ANYWHERE! I wasn't misled for a second, it was plainly obvious that the Americans, English and Australians in control, were making it up as they went along. And dragging us along against our will. What did they think NO WAR meant, pack of jerk offs! Yeah, right, they'd win the war and all would be forgiven!
I don't think so, and time is proving how tragically wrong they were. Do they have Saddam Hussein? Nup. Do they have Osama Bin Laden? Nup. Have they stopped terrorism? Nup. The only thing that will stop terrorism is if the yanks keep their pointy goddam noses out of everybody else's business. But of course they won't cos the real issue here is oil, money and power.
I'm not just being pedantic about what makes a terrorist a terrorist, its just plain ignorant to call what america is currently known to be doing in Iraq or Afghanistan terrorism. People like to use the word to evoke its emotional connotations, even when ts not justified.
You're right about the word. I think it's better to call them slaughters than terrorists.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@7 September 2003 - 16:36
I'm not just being pedantic about what makes a terrorist a terrorist, its just plain ignorant to call what america is currently known to be doing in Iraq or Afghanistan terrorism. People like to use the word to evoke its emotional connotations, even when ts not justified.
like I said originally, this topic will not end. "terrorism" is not science or a series of furmulas to follow and come up with the same conclusion and it's not a matter of opinion, instead it's how that person feels/think at the moment of the question, is this "terrorism"? I think if we agree to that, then maybe, just maybe this topic would PAUSE, for now.Quote:
Originally posted by nikita69@7 September 2003 - 06:28
chrisjohn316, labelling or categorizing someone/group has always been human's motto. We are in the day of $$, not human life. Those who advertise, claim and "defend themselves" from "terrorism" don't think that 1 million human die every year around the world from local crimes is "terrorism". and many other examples...... it doesn't end here...... :blink: :blink: :blink:
You're right about the word. I think it's better to call them slaughters than terrorists. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by sabbath+7 September 2003 - 08:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sabbath @ 7 September 2003 - 08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@7 September 2003 - 16:36
I'm not just being pedantic about what makes a terrorist a terrorist, its just plain ignorant to call what america is currently known to be doing in Iraq or Afghanistan terrorism. People like to use the word to evoke its emotional connotations, even when ts not justified.
Perfect example.
To my way of thinking.....any taking of innocent lives, whether by self detonation or by a war that is waged on the premise of a lie is an act of terrorism. Particularly when that war was purely strategic and had been in progress covertly for years.
nikita69 what you said pretty much goes with what i say, depends on the people, look ilw if the american public all of a sudden turned around decided osama bin ladin is the freedom fighter and the american government is the terrorist... hell they would get rid of bush and vote in a guy who would give bin ladin a medal :P ever since the iraq war alot of people have re-aranged the way they use the word "terrorist", these days i here more people call the brit and US army a terrorist group or oppresors then hamas,
there can be a universal definition of terrorism written in some dictionary, but that definition comes down to how you view it, who do you put next to the definition, the USA would say the definition fits exactly with bin ladin, saddam hussain, Ayetollah Khamena'i, whereas the east would say the definition fits exactly with Bush, Blair, (other names of western politicians), and at the end of day conventions war crimes its all a load of rubbish no one has the balls to convict an american in a war crimes court unless they feel like getting there ass nuked by the US army :P , geneva convention, we have already seen that violated by both americans and british troops in Iraq, so i do not see the US or western armies doing anything that makes them above being called terrorists from a "terrorists" point of view :P.
PS my english is not eloquent so dont expect amazing arguments from me :P
so terrorist has just become an expletive/derogotary term? is it no longer supposed to be justified or make sense? I'm sorry i wasn't informed.
Ilw, your own definition earlier in the thread, calls the USA/UK terrorists.
You defined it to include changing a way of life.........isnt that whats happening in Iraq at the moment?
My own opinions have been said many times before in these threads...but i dont think i ever went so far as to declare USA/UK terrorist states.....
Im sure some of my american friends will correct me if im wrong.... :rolleyes:
My point is simply each country has its own rules, own justifications, own ways just as each individual has his own beliefs, ideas and values, barley any person pays attention to the geneva convention or laws set by countries when they decide whos the good guy, they follow what they find to be moral and just and for each person that changes, to simply say theres a universal definition for whos good and whos bad doesnt make sence in a world that doesnt follow one system and one way, every one has there views wether it be based on religion, international law or basic human morals doesnt really matter, they still define things in a different way, and part of what they define in a different way is whos the terrorists and whos the legal combatents (spelling?) like i said bombing of embasies, sky scrapers, cars, can all be justified in a military way by those groups who do it... they all do, no leader with a brain is going to come out and say "well hey i just felt like killing the guy" he's going to come out with a well thought out reason that is believable and almost justifies the killing of the inocent just as not only terrorist groups but armies have done in the past. and so on.... :P i mean look at the board, each person has his own views, one person saying freedom fighters, other saying oppressors, so on.... so i think we should agree... we are all terrorists.... or something to that affect :P :DQuote:
ilw Posted on 7 September 2003 - 20:00
so terrorist has just become an expletive/derogotary term? is it no longer supposed to be justified or make sense? I'm sorry i wasn't informed.
I'm Marklar, but the Marklar with your Marklar is that these Marklar all have Marklar, so that what you are saying makes Marklar. If you wish to use one Marklar in Marklar of another Marklar then Marklar just doesn't really mean Marklar.Quote:
Originally posted by noname12@7 September 2003 - 22:08
My point is simply each country has its own rules, own justifications, own ways just as each individual has his own beliefs, ideas and values, barley any person pays attention to the geneva convention or laws set by countries when they decide whos the good guy, they follow what they find to be moral and just and for each person that changes, to simply say theres a universal definition for whos good and whos bad doesnt make sence in a world that doesnt follow one system and one way, every one has there views wether it be based on religion, international law or basic human morals doesnt really matter, they still define things in a different way, and part of what they define in a different way is whos the terrorists and whos the legal combatents (spelling?) like i said bombing of embasies, sky scrapers, cars, can all be justified in a military way by those groups who do it... they all do, no leader with a brain is going to come out and say "well hey i just felt like killing the guy" he's going to come out with a well thought out reason that is believable and almost justifies the killing of the inocent just as not only terrorist groups but armies have done in the past. and so on.... :P i mean look at the board, each person has his own views, one person saying freedom fighters, other saying oppressors, so on.... so i think we should agree... we are all terrorists.... or something to that affect :P :D
As for the point about definition, yeah I suppose I did include attacking a way of life in the definition, i don't remember why exactly because when i look back it doesn't make as much sense as the comments preceding it , but if i take it back it'll look like i'm changing the definition I gave to make the UK/US better, So Marklar it, I'm a national of a terrorist state.
I'm Marklar, but the Marklar with your Marklar is that these Marklar all have Marklar, so that what you are saying makes Marklar. If you wish to use one Marklar in Marklar of another Marklar then Marklar just doesn't really mean Marklar.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw+7 September 2003 - 23:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 7 September 2003 - 23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-noname12@7 September 2003 - 22:08
My point is simply each country has its own rules, own justifications, own ways just as each individual has his own beliefs, ideas and values, barley any person pays attention to the geneva convention or laws set by countries when they decide whos the good guy, they follow what they find to be moral and just and for each person that changes, to simply say theres a universal definition for whos good and whos bad doesnt make sence in a world that doesnt follow one system and one way, every one has there views wether it be based on religion, international law or basic human morals doesnt really matter, they still define things in a different way, and part of what they define in a different way is whos the terrorists and whos the legal combatents (spelling?) like i said bombing of embasies, sky scrapers, cars, can all be justified in a military way by those groups who do it... they all do, no leader with a brain is going to come out and say "well hey i just felt like killing the guy" he's going to come out with a well thought out reason that is believable and almost justifies the killing of the inocent just as not only terrorist groups but armies have done in the past. and so on.... :P i mean look at the board, each person has his own views, one person saying freedom fighters, other saying oppressors, so on.... so i think we should agree... we are all terrorists.... or something to that affect :P :D
As for the point about definition, yeah I suppose I did include attacking a way of life in the definition, i don't remember why exactly because when i look back it doesn't make as much sense as the comments preceding it , but if i take it back it'll look like i'm changing the definition I gave to make the UK/US better, So Marklar it, I'm a national of a terrorist state. [/b][/quote]
When a superpower, you are bound to be ruled by such an administration. You can do nothing to change that, that's why I was not attacking the American people here.
Supporting these acts is another thing
Even though I know you didn't mean to sound like that, you sticked too much to the title and actually sounded just like that.
Of course there is something we can do about it.Quote:
Originally posted by sabbath@7 September 2003 - 15:55
When a superpower, you are bound to be ruled by such an administration. You can do nothing to change that, that's why I was not attacking the American people here.
We have an election coming up and with luck Bush and his greedhead cronies will be ready to retire to the private sector and roll in the nests they've been feathering for the past 3 years.
Unfortunately for whoever comes next, they will have the incredible legacy of bad will inherited from Bush to deal with.
ILW-"Sweet!"
:huh: whats marklar? you lost me :D
See Starvin Marvin in Space- South Park.Quote:
Originally posted by noname12@7 September 2003 - 16:15
:huh: whats marklar? you lost me :D
Marklar.