cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6934|NJ
So at work today i hear somebody ask "jose you half-jewish right?" (nobody ever asks if i'm half christan and puerto rican but anyway) and i said "yeah my father is a jewish" then i was asked my opion on the great isreal/lebanon turf war.

so here is my opion! lets start with the definition.

terrorism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

you see that? i don't see anywhere in that definition that says once you have the buying power to purchase a tank or a jet fighter you are no longer to be a terrorist group.

judging by that definition above if country A has fleet of jet bombers and flew them over country B's capital with the bombay doors open with the intent intent of striking fear OR "TERROR" into the population that would be terrorism. am i wrong?

everyone cried foul at the saudies and threw around the phrase "state sponsered terrorism" i don't disagree with that if the facts merret it
everyone cried foul at Iran for traning hezbola. I agree with that too.

But where do you draw the line if hezbola could afford f-16 humvees, and abrams tanks would you still call them a terrorist group or an army?

from what i gather isreal can hardly afford the military hardware they have in there arsonal. billions of our US tax dollars gets funneled into into the IDF.

So when america trains and eqiups we train and equip an army

when nations unfriendly to the united states train and equip they train and equip "terrorist groups"

in the 80's we "trained and equiped" the contras in south america which turned out to be nothing more then roaming death squads. that killed anyone in there path thought to be friendly to the socalist movement. the U.S. goverment refered to them as "freedom fighters"
these freedom fights sound more like a terrorist group to me

in the end my heart does bleed for those in isreal and in lebanon who are caught in the middle of this. but in the end this its spin. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.


please forgive the nurmous spelling and grammar mistakes i'm not a writer. i'm just trying to put a thought out there.

i welcome any feedback positive or nagative
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6779|vancouver
I might dispute one or two details, but overall I'd say you nailed the whole terrorism thing.  It has a very specific meaning, but the way it actually gets used (in the media) is to exclusively identify the actions of our official enemies.
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6948|Charlie One Alpha
Excellent.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6794

spastic bullet wrote:

I might dispute one or two details, but overall I'd say you nailed the whole terrorism thing.  It has a very specific meaning, but the way it actually gets used (in the media) is to exclusively identify the actions of our official enemies.
Exactly - the word 'terrorist' is a barrier to understanding and a very valuable tool of the propagandists. There should be different terms used - a harsh term for groups who specifically target civilians, and the term 'militant' or something for those who specifically attack military targets and governmental institutions.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-10 08:46:51)

GATOR591957
Member
+84|6865

cpt.fass1 wrote:

So at work today i hear somebody ask "jose you half-jewish right?" (nobody ever asks if i'm half christan and puerto rican but anyway) and i said "yeah my father is a jewish" then i was asked my opion on the great isreal/lebanon turf war.

so here is my opion! lets start with the definition.

terrorism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

you see that? i don't see anywhere in that definition that says once you have the buying power to purchase a tank or a jet fighter you are no longer to be a terrorist group.

judging by that definition above if country A has fleet of jet bombers and flew them over country B's capital with the bombay doors open with the intent intent of striking fear OR "TERROR" into the population that would be terrorism. am i wrong?

everyone cried foul at the saudies and threw around the phrase "state sponsered terrorism" i don't disagree with that if the facts merret it
everyone cried foul at Iran for traning hezbola. I agree with that too.

But where do you draw the line if hezbola could afford f-16 humvees, and abrams tanks would you still call them a terrorist group or an army?

from what i gather isreal can hardly afford the military hardware they have in there arsonal. billions of our US tax dollars gets funneled into into the IDF.

So when america trains and eqiups we train and equip an army

when nations unfriendly to the united states train and equip they train and equip "terrorist groups"

in the 80's we "trained and equiped" the contras in south america which turned out to be nothing more then roaming death squads. that killed anyone in there path thought to be friendly to the socalist movement. the U.S. goverment refered to them as "freedom fighters"
these freedom fights sound more like a terrorist group to me

in the end my heart does bleed for those in isreal and in lebanon who are caught in the middle of this. but in the end this its spin. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.


please forgive the nurmous spelling and grammar mistakes i'm not a writer. i'm just trying to put a thought out there.

i welcome any feedback positive or nagative
In all the threads I don't recall seeing anyone disagree that we the US has not been involved in terrorism ourselves.  Sad but true.
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6865

CameronPoe wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

I might dispute one or two details, but overall I'd say you nailed the whole terrorism thing.  It has a very specific meaning, but the way it actually gets used (in the media) is to exclusively identify the actions of our official enemies.
Exactly - the word 'terrorist' is a barrier to understanding and a very valuable tool of the propagandists. There should be different terms used - a harsh term for groups who specifically target civilians, and the term 'militant' or something for those who specifically attack military targets and governmental institutions.
There is, it's called cowardly.
Jeopardia_Ferdy
Member
+5|6778
I can only repeat myself over and over again...
Read my signature that says all about war and terrorism
Gawwad
My way or Haddaway!
+212|6923|Espoo, Finland
+1 for that. THat's exactly how I feel about it.

Btw, I just saw on the news that they had resently bombed a refugee camp...
Jobarra
Member
+0|6920
Your definition looks like the one from dictionary.reference.com.  Here is another definition on the same page, and I would say this is the actual usage that most of the media refers to:

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]


The main difference between the IDF and Hezbollah is that Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians.  Yes, they may attack military targets if they can get the courage up to do so(not that I blame them, I wouldn't want to face down a Merkava either), but most of their attacks are focused on causing civilian deaths.  It was the same way with the IRA, although the IRA did at least give a warning sometimes when a bomb was set up(not that their attacks were any less targeted at civilians)
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6934|NJ
Well seeing how it's mandatory for all Isreal's to do time in the military, doesn't that mean the kids are the only civilians there?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6794

GATOR591957 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

I might dispute one or two details, but overall I'd say you nailed the whole terrorism thing.  It has a very specific meaning, but the way it actually gets used (in the media) is to exclusively identify the actions of our official enemies.
Exactly - the word 'terrorist' is a barrier to understanding and a very valuable tool of the propagandists. There should be different terms used - a harsh term for groups who specifically target civilians, and the term 'militant' or something for those who specifically attack military targets and governmental institutions.
There is, it's called cowardly.
That's it: Cowardists!
Jusster
Pimpin aint Easy
+11|6716|H-Town
I completely agree with the posted topic and I find it very hard to believe how my country even supports Israel at all.  We pump 10 billion a year into that country (I'm sure must go to its military) only so we can have an ally in the middle east.  I think our relationship with Israel should have ended after they pulled this B.S. > http://www.ussliberty.org/

But of course............they are our ALLIES right?  Go figure


As far as cowards go, Maybe Israel should start attacking Hezballah targets instead of the civilian population of Lebanon...........With their sophisticated weaponry provided by us I find it hard to believe that they miss so many times by mistake.  Either they completely suck at using laser guided missiles.......or there true target is not to attack Hezballah..........but to pull the same tactics that they claim Hezballah does.  I believe Israel thought by killing the Lebanese citizens, that be people of Lebanon would blame Hezballah and turn on them.  Well,  simply put.......that didn't happen and now they have the entire region against them,  while before they had support.

And if my beliefs are true...........then Israel is a Terrorist state itself


Jusster

Last edited by Jusster (2006-08-10 10:34:53)

TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6911|Colorado
Great post, that how I feel exactly, you managed to see both sides of it while staying outside of it.
The question is how do we teach everyone to do that ?
The break down in communication is the true failure of man, if we can talk there is no reason for war.
Many things are preventing this, one of which I see no hope in ever reconciling, Religion.
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6737|Texas
I think a key distinction that you're missing is that the people who are universally labeled as "terrorists" intentionally target civilians, even including women and children.

Is Country A, which flies over a military target and drops 2 ton bombs on military targets in the right? Maybe, maybe not. Are they "terrorists"? Not by my definition.

Is Group/Country B, which sends women into shopping malls with bombs strapped to their waists to kill civilians who are shopping "terrorist"? Yes.

Last edited by Dersmikner (2006-08-10 13:31:24)

cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6934|NJ
Hmmm but the two ton bomb will obviously kill more civilians then the suicide bomber? So I'd call them both terrorist and whose to say the bombs not being droped on the mall.
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6737|Texas
If the bombs are dropped on a mall, yeah, they're just really well equipped terrorists. If the bombs are dropped on a military target, then no, they aren't terrorists, they're an army.
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6934|NJ
well they did hit a UN outpost?
d3v1ldr1v3r13
Satan's disciple on Earth.
+160|6924|Hell's prison
So we are all terrorists?  There is no Army, just terrorists?
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6934|NJ
Yes an army is just a tool for terror so you are correct
PRiMACORD
Member
+190|6863|Home of the Escalade Herds

cpt.fass1 wrote:

one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqft
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6737|Texas
You are wrong. An army is not a tool for terror, an army is a tool for combatant eradication. There is a difference.

The goal of the US military has never been to frighten or terrorize opposition citizenry. It has never been the goal of our allies' militaries to terrorize a nation or its citizens. It has never been our intention to target civilians.

The purpose of our fighting force has been, is, and will remain, the defense of our territory and the elimination of any hostile force which is acting with aggression towards The United States and/or her allies.

Last edited by Dersmikner (2006-08-10 14:17:12)

Jusster
Pimpin aint Easy
+11|6716|H-Town
Well I think the poor civilian who that bomb falls on or around might disagree on whether or not an army can terrorize a population, but thats neither here nor there.

I believe is all about how you use your military that dictates whether or not it is considered terroristic. 



Jusster
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|6708|Little Rock, AR

cpt.fass1 wrote:

in the end my heart does bleed for those in isreal and in lebanon who are caught in the middle of this. but in the end this its spin. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
I think you're exactly right, and it's why I think arguing is pointless.  I respect you for just putting your views out there without being pushy about it.  Lots of people want to make the issue extremely black and white, and I think it's really grey.  They want to either say "death to Isreal" or "anyone who says anything Isreal does is even remotely wrong is an anti-Semite."  The truth is in the middle somewhere, and I don't know if there will ever be any real way to sustain peace in the region.  Anyone think it's possible?
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|6708|Little Rock, AR

Dersmikner wrote:

You are wrong. An army is not a tool for terror, an army is a tool for combatant eradication. There is a difference.

The goal of the US military has never been to frighten or terrorize opposition citizenry. It has never been the goal of our allies' militaries to terrorize a nation or its citizens. It has never been our intention to target civilians.

The purpose of our fighting force has been, is, and will remain, the defense of our territory and the elimination of any hostile force which is acting with aggression towards The United States and/or her allies.
Our army is extremely good at psychological warfare, stuff like dropping leaflets one day saying "don't be here tomorrow, we're going to blow it up," and then blowing it up the next day.  On the one hand, that's a warning for civilians, but on the other, it's meant to scare the enemy by showing how bad ass we are.  It's like, "we can let you know what we're blowing up.  You can't stop us."  North Korea is trying to use its missile program to scare the US into sitting at the bargaining table.  That's an example of an army using terror tactics, is it not?
ncc6206
=BIG= BAD AND UGLY
+36|6718
Okay my two cents....
1. Israel is "defending" itself. No one told Hezbollah to go in and capture those soldiers.  They were the aggressors. Even the Saudis stated they had overstepped their bounds. 
2. You can bash the US for being an sponsor for terrorist but then again you say this from the freedoms given to its citizens.  Try that in Lebanon I dare you.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard