|
Bomb Blast in NYC (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jackson
Huh? |
Well what do you think al-Qaida are? |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
What???? You are trying to tell me you could not hear the devestating sound of a flower pot blown to bits from a block away! What are you deaf man! Deaf?!:eek:
Such a tradegy, as a fellow gardener, my condolenses go out to all the flower members.:(
:p |
it happened at 4 AM. I was still home asleep :toothless |
|
|
| donegalredneck |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jackson
What would you call them then? |
Guerrillas |
|
|
| donegalredneck |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well what do you think al-Qaida are? |
A fabrication by some western administrations, particularly the US administration, aimed at instilling fear of attack in the population (particularly of the US and Britain) whereby attacking states allegedly 'harbouring' members can be justified? |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
What???? You are trying to tell me you could not hear the devestating sound of a flower pot blown to bits from a block away! What are you deaf man! Deaf?!:eek:
Such a tradegy, as a fellow gardener, my condolenses go out to all the flower members.:(
:p |
the big flower pots are still in good shape as are all the flowers :)
it's just one glass pane that got shattered |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
A fabrication by some western administrations, particularly the US administration, aimed at instilling fear of attack in the population (particularly of the US and Britain) whereby attacking states allegedly 'harbouring' members can be justified? |
Right, why didn't I think of that? And Bin Laden is actually one of Bush's most loyal agents, right? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
Guerrillas |
I've decided that it might be more useful to use the term "Guerilla/commando groups who have engaged in terrorist tactics" and I think the same could be said for most terrorist/freedom-fighter groups (esp ones of national independence). I think that phrase should satisfy both sides of the argument and probably something neither side can deny |
|
|
| donegalredneck |
Drug Tito,
Do you really think there's a single cohesive group consisting of thousands of members, organised in scores of countries, taking instructions from a single leadership who are currently hiding out in Pakistan?
The "global terror network" that is Al-Queda didn't exist prior to September 2001. Similarly today, there exists, like there always has done, individuals and small groups with anti-US sentiments who operate independently of each other. if there's any connection my guess is there's a very loose alliance between some of them - nothing more. |
|
|
| donegalredneck |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I've decided that it might be more useful to use the term "Guerilla/commando groups who have engaged in terrorist tactics" and I think the same could be said for most terrorist/freedom-fighter groups (esp ones of national independence). I think that phrase should satisfy both sides of the argument and probably something neither side can deny |
Similarly, if you're going to be that specific, you can't deny that every single armed group on the planet (including the armed forces of every state) are terrorists, as terrorism is generally defined as the use or violence - or the threat to use violence - to change or maintain a political situation.
*edit*
I should have included in that post that there doesn't exist a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism, hence it being applied to various groups. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
A fabrication by some western administrations, particularly the US administration, aimed at instilling fear of attack in the population (particularly of the US and Britain) whereby attacking states allegedly 'harbouring' members can be justified? |
Well they are certainly not a fabrication (ask people in New York!)
You have to distinguish between al-Qaida before the war in Afghanistan and al-Qaida after Afghanistan. Before, they were the traditional terrorist organisation, training terrorists and planning/carrying out attacks. Afterwards, their operation was dismantled and members killed, captured or dispursed.
I know what you are saying but where you use the word 'fabrication' I would use the word 'exageration'. Clearly there is a group called al-Qaida (this is the hardcore - those closest to bin Laden - not an international web) but after Afghanistan you got a load of attacks by people claiming to be al-Qaida - or more specifically - you got a load of groups carrying out attacks in the name of al-Qaida, and that is what al-Qaida is today - an ideology (Islamist and anti-Western).
What our governments do is play up the belief that all attacks are carried out by the same organisation that did New York and the Pentagon. Notice how many times you hear in the news "linked to al-Qaida". Basically, it creates the impression that everything is al-Qaida, which is bending the truth. It has created a fear and that fear has been used by the governments to acheive a variety of policy objectives which they would have had trouble achieving otherwise. For a great example, the the Project for an American Century (containing many members of the current Bush administration) saying in 2000, that transforming America into "tomorrow's dominant force" would be a long one, unless of "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbour, and one year later they got their "new Pearl Harbour". So this allowed the US (and UK plus every other country in the world) to introduce new legislation curtailing civil liberties, invading Iraq (also an objective set out in Project for a New American Century!) and spending stupid amounts of money on an even more stupid missile defence system which doesn't and probably will never work! (Oh yea, missile defence? New American Century too!) |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
Drug Tito,
Do you really think there's a single cohesive group consisting of thousands of members, organised in scores of countries, taking instructions from a single leadership who are currently hiding out in Pakistan?
The "global terror network" that is Al-Queda didn't exist prior to September 2001. Similarly today, there exists, like there always has done, individuals and small groups with anti-US sentiments who operate independently of each other. if there's any connection my guess is there's a very loose alliance between some of them - nothing more. |
Well, yeah, it's not like they're some organized army, but they're not really a bunch of independant wackos either. Besides, they had a few years to consolidate during the islamic regime in Afghanistan. Small groups kinda have a hard time hijacking 4 airplanes at once. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
Similarly, if you're going to be that specific, you can't deny that every single armed group on the planet (including the armed forces of every state) are terrorists, as terrorism is defined as the use or violence - or the threat to use violence - to change or maintain a political situation. |
The reason for the phrase is so you can avoid labelling a group terrorist (which is becoming a stupid meaningless term). So while I refrained from calling the IRA terrorists, I can say they have engaged in terrorist activities (ie killing civilians) and I dont think you can deny that. At the same time, and to address the point you are trying to make, yes, you can accuse every armed force/state of engaing in terrorist activites without labelling them as terrorist |
|
|
|
|
