It seems that although we all use the term a lot lately, its meaning is not the same for everyone. How come for example Carlos, Hamas, and Usama Bin Laden are terrorists whereas George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon are not?
ƒ³
Imma have fun with this one
Presumably because Bush, Blair and Sharon are the legally elected political representatives of their countries, whereas last time I checked, Bin Laden was inciting holy war while cowering in a cave somewhere.
Whether or not you agree with their policies, you can theoretically show that by voting them into or out of power. There is no similar way to remove Bin Laden from his position of "authority".
Whether or not you agree with their policies, you can theoretically show that by voting them into or out of power. There is no similar way to remove Bin Laden from his position of "authority".
This is kinda like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", however, most of whom I consider freedom fighters do not:
*Purposefully target women and children
*Purposefully target civilian facilities such as daycares, schools, churches, hospitals
*Use civilians as human shields (one advantage to 9-11 hijacking being public outcry if passenger jets were shot down befoer their intentions were clear, NYT probably would have been critical if they were shot down and their intent was known anyway)
*Recruit children for intelligence gathering, supply running, messaging, or ordinance delivery or detonation (what do you thinkg would happen if the next time a child was spotted counting convoys in Iraq or found running supplies around Palestine and shot or even just detained for it)
*kidnap civilians, including contractors, press reporters, make demands and/or torture/execute them and videotape it
just to name a few, this is an argument of semantics, but I think it's pretty clear what a terrorist is
*Purposefully target women and children
*Purposefully target civilian facilities such as daycares, schools, churches, hospitals
*Use civilians as human shields (one advantage to 9-11 hijacking being public outcry if passenger jets were shot down befoer their intentions were clear, NYT probably would have been critical if they were shot down and their intent was known anyway)
*Recruit children for intelligence gathering, supply running, messaging, or ordinance delivery or detonation (what do you thinkg would happen if the next time a child was spotted counting convoys in Iraq or found running supplies around Palestine and shot or even just detained for it)
*kidnap civilians, including contractors, press reporters, make demands and/or torture/execute them and videotape it
just to name a few, this is an argument of semantics, but I think it's pretty clear what a terrorist is
Instead of writing up my own term, Ill just borrow yours, because it sums it up for me also. Thanks K!kr@cker wrote:
This is kinda like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", however, most of whom I consider freedom fighters do not:
*Purposefully target women and children
*Purposefully target civilian facilities such as daycares, schools, churches, hospitals
*Use civilians as human shields (one advantage to 9-11 hijacking being public outcry if passenger jets were shot down befoer their intentions were clear, NYT probably would have been critical if they were shot down and their intent was known anyway)
*Recruit children for intelligence gathering, supply running, messaging, or ordinance delivery or detonation (what do you thinkg would happen if the next time a child was spotted counting convoys in Iraq or found running supplies around Palestine and shot or even just detained for it)
*kidnap civilians, including contractors, press reporters, make demands and/or torture/execute them and videotape it
just to name a few, this is an argument of semantics, but I think it's pretty clear what a terrorist is
Wraith i also agree with your reply so Now peeps know where i stand also.
Terrorism-
"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
That is the official definition from the US Department of Defense. GWB breaking international law to go to war against Iraq could be terrorism under this definition. Ariel Sharon's actions in Israel most definitely is terrorism, and the Pentagon's repeated threats against Syria, North Korea, and Iran as well.
"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
That is the official definition from the US Department of Defense. GWB breaking international law to go to war against Iraq could be terrorism under this definition. Ariel Sharon's actions in Israel most definitely is terrorism, and the Pentagon's repeated threats against Syria, North Korea, and Iran as well.
Then technically the we the US are terrorists.kr@cker wrote:
This is kinda like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", however, most of whom I consider freedom fighters do not:
*Purposefully target women and children
*Purposefully target civilian facilities such as daycares, schools, churches, hospitals
*Use civilians as human shields (one advantage to 9-11 hijacking being public outcry if passenger jets were shot down befoer their intentions were clear, NYT probably would have been critical if they were shot down and their intent was known anyway)
*Recruit children for intelligence gathering, supply running, messaging, or ordinance delivery or detonation (what do you thinkg would happen if the next time a child was spotted counting convoys in Iraq or found running supplies around Palestine and shot or even just detained for it)
*kidnap civilians, including contractors, press reporters, make demands and/or torture/execute them and videotape it
just to name a few, this is an argument of semantics, but I think it's pretty clear what a terrorist is
Hiroshima ring a bell? We knew with full intent that there were going to be more women and children killed then any military combatants.
WWII we used children in the Solomon islands to count and monitor Japanese aircraft because we didn't blend in well.
Do we really want to get into execution and torture by the US. I.E. Vietnam.
So I agree with you this is a matter of semantics. If we are going to hold prisoners by calling them terrorists, the term needs to be defined!
Agreed. Couldn't have said it better.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Terrorism-
"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
That is the official definition from the US Department of Defense. GWB breaking international law to go to war against Iraq could be terrorism under this definition. Ariel Sharon's actions in Israel most definitely is terrorism, and the Pentagon's repeated threats against Syria, North Korea, and Iran as well.
That's the definition. What it entails is completely up to the terrorist, whether it's constant suicide-bombing in crowded areas, preemptively striking a nation with a "Shock and Awe" campaign, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, releasing sarin in a Tokyo subway, or firing missiles into/shelling the Gaza strip. It's all terrorism from one point of view or another, and that will never change as long as each sides have ideals they feel are worth fighting for.The Dictionary wrote:
ter•ror•ism
noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
enforcing surrender agreementsarenotb.........reakinglawint..ernation....zzzzzzzzzz
Good job, were did you learn to geld ?Wraith wrote:
Presumably because Bush, Blair and Sharon are the legally elected political representatives of their countries, whereas last time I checked, Bin Laden was inciting holy war while cowering in a cave somewhere.
Whether or not you agree with their policies, you can theoretically show that by voting them into or out of power. There is no similar way to remove Bin Laden from his position of "authority".
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzhuh? wha? oh......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzkr@cker wrote:
enforcing surrender agreementsarenotb.........reakinglawint..ernation....zzzzzzzzzz
It depends on your perspective, and what your definition of a terrorist is (not everyone accepts the dictionary one, or the defense department one), and what environment you are raised in.oug wrote:
It seems that although we all use the term a lot lately, its meaning is not the same for everyone. How come for example Carlos, Hamas, and Usama Bin Laden are terrorists whereas George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon are not?
Does Well in advanced warnings ring a bell? We Told them straight up what we were going to do and told them to evacuate, they chose to let there people die. And in the end, the Japaneese comanders Killed the emperor for being so arrorgant. Hell we even dropped leafelets and the likes. But that was then and this is now so its apples to oranges. On 9/11 we didnt get any Phonecall nor telegram saying HEY were going to ram into the twin towers with plane's and Kill thousands, you might want to move"GATOR591957 wrote:
Then technically the we the US are terrorists.kr@cker wrote:
This is kinda like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", however, most of whom I consider freedom fighters do not:
*Purposefully target women and children
*Purposefully target civilian facilities such as daycares, schools, churches, hospitals
*Use civilians as human shields (one advantage to 9-11 hijacking being public outcry if passenger jets were shot down befoer their intentions were clear, NYT probably would have been critical if they were shot down and their intent was known anyway)
*Recruit children for intelligence gathering, supply running, messaging, or ordinance delivery or detonation (what do you thinkg would happen if the next time a child was spotted counting convoys in Iraq or found running supplies around Palestine and shot or even just detained for it)
*kidnap civilians, including contractors, press reporters, make demands and/or torture/execute them and videotape it
just to name a few, this is an argument of semantics, but I think it's pretty clear what a terrorist is
Hiroshima ring a bell? We knew with full intent that there were going to be more women and children killed then any military combatants.
WWII we used children in the Solomon islands to count and monitor Japanese aircraft because we didn't blend in well.
Do we really want to get into execution and torture by the US. I.E. Vietnam.
So I agree with you this is a matter of semantics. If we are going to hold prisoners by calling them terrorists, the term needs to be defined!
Well actualy, I support the US policies but what the guy above me said is not true, we kept the emperor in power and we didnt tell them we were going to drop the bomb. We did drop leaflets saying things like "Its over, surender" and stuff. But you cant compare the things we did in WWII to things of today. Thats just beyond stupid. The Germans/Japaneze(didnt spell it right) did do those exact same things to us that they werent called terrorists. Terrorists is a modern term that was first used after WWII Im pretty sure. So yea, what kr@cker said is true and that is what a terrorist is considered for most people in there right mind.
unfortunately the only way to bomb a target in WW2 was to carpet bomb and hope you hit something, great pains are taken to avoid this by most nations now, but accidents still happen
Well, yes and no. But mostly no.Capt. Foley wrote:
Terrorists is a modern term that was first used after WWII Im pretty sure.
The problem with any such definition is that, consistently applied, it still ends up including "us". The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua, and they fit kr@cker's criteria quite well. The International Court of Justice agreed, but a veto on the UN Security Council is, of course, a useful thing to have in such cases.Capt. Foley wrote:
So yea, what kr@cker said is true and that is what a terrorist is considered for most people in there right mind.
Terrorism, by any consistent definition, is far more widespread and prevalent than almost anybody who regularly uses the term will concede. In terms of usage, however, it's what the other guy does; never us.
this has been in question, as you probably know<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
On 9/11 we didnt get any Phonecall nor telegram saying HEY were going to ram into the twin towers with plane's and Kill thousands, you might want to move"
I assume you'd agree that the act itself was without question an act of terrorism, and that if someday someone proves it WAS an inside job, what would you think then?
terrorist is a very new term.
I heard someone say that the US doesn't need to follow the Geneva convention because the 'terrorists' weren't either. In one sentence, the USA has an example to set. If things keep up you can expect the rest of the world to follow suit.
America has committed acts of terrorism in the middle east in the past generation, is there any wonder why they are inclined to become 'terrorists'? Fight fire with fire until there is nothing left to burn? The greatest nations are not those that sink to the level of their agitators, but the ones that truly stand up to the ideals of their own creation. I've heard alot of conservatives trash talk the constitution, I just can't understand how conservative values go against the values your country was based on. Get rid of freedom of speech, the press has abused it, lose rights to privacy, etc. The one thing in the constitution that conservatives look highly on is the right to bear arms, which incidentally, is a very liberal concept.
terrorism is a social stigma that can be fought but never overcome. Just like the war on drugs, you can't stop determined people all the time. You could have a police state under martial law and it would still happen, because in that case it's the law terrorizing the people. It makes absolutely no sense to occupy a country and attempt to change the government there when the same hate that is responsible for terrorism exists all over the world, especially at home. Some people claim that racists, fundamentalists, and zealots are dangerous and acting in utter disrespect of human rights. These are the same people that use racial slurrage like 'nagga' and 'raghead'. These are the same ppl who encourage wholesale slaughter of an autonymous group of peole, regardless of whether they commited a crime. These are the same people that would sell out their own grandmothers if it meant getting a bigger cut of the pie. They don't care about anything but personal gain. Out of any group of people in this world, they are the real terrorists, the ones who would kill, rape, pilliage, destroy for future generations the land we hope to exist on later, the ones who would be happy with nobody around them.. Ever, as long as it meant satisfaction in their relentless pursuit of personal gain. These people, by definition, cannot be trusted.
Warlike acts that occur outside of a state of war and do not constitute a war in of themselves?
Under this definition, stuff carried out in WW2 etc wouldn't be acts of terror as nations would be at war with one another, but stuff like 9/11, tokyo and the shit thats going on in Palestine would be.
Under this definition, stuff carried out in WW2 etc wouldn't be acts of terror as nations would be at war with one another, but stuff like 9/11, tokyo and the shit thats going on in Palestine would be.
Their, not there. Some people really need to work on their use of that word, it just makes you look like a dumbass (in you case not true, even if I don't agree with you). Now, they problem with that statement is that that's still threatened use of force against civilians.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Does Well in advanced warnings ring a bell? We Told them straight up what we were going to do and told them to evacuate, they chose to let there people die.
Even then, I fail to see how Dresden can be justified.
Correct, which means that falls into the use of, not threat of, category.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
On 9/11 we didnt get any Phonecall nor telegram saying HEY were going to ram into the twin towers with plane's and Kill thousands, you might want to move"
I also fail to see how being democratically elected excludes someone from committing terrorism. The support of dictatorships which use terrorism by Western nations is, IMHO, terrorism. The reason noone calls them on it is, I believe, that they fear being lynch mobbed, similar to McCarthy era fears.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that Sharon died...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Yes, he has. Israel has a history of militant tactics, though.
well said..Wraith wrote:
Presumably because Bush, Blair and Sharon are the legally elected political representatives of their countries, whereas last time I checked, Bin Laden was inciting holy war while cowering in a cave somewhere.
Whether or not you agree with their policies, you can theoretically show that by voting them into or out of power. There is no similar way to remove Bin Laden from his position of "authority".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHoug wrote:
It seems that although we all use the term a lot lately, its meaning is not the same for everyone. How come for example Carlos, Hamas, and Usama Bin Laden are terrorists whereas George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon are not?
Youre kidding right?
Bin Ladens authority comes from the fact that there are people not just willing to sign some paper, but to die for the cause he represents. Being supported does not equal not being a terrorist.