|
what's a terrorist? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
My definition of terrorism...
Any act of aggressive unprovoked sabotage or violence which disregards differences between non-combatants and combatants in the advancement of a certain ideology or to pressure the political system.
So in my opinion, Hezbollah and the US are no different in their terrorist status for example. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
My definition of terrorism...
Any act of aggressive unprovoked sabotage or violence which disregards differences between non-combatants and combatants in the advancement of a certain ideology or to pressure the political system.
So in my opinion, Hezbollah and the US are no different in their terrorist status for example. |
You see, that, imo, would be a fair assessment for some of either groups activities, however, a hell of a lot of people will want to bend that definition as to exclude the US and include Hizballah... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You see, that, imo, would be a fair assessment for some of either groups activities, however, a hell of a lot of people will want to bend that definition as to exclude the US and include Hizballah... |
Nationalism often clouds objective interpretation of policy, because the nationalist ideology takes all precedence over human rights and international law. |
|
|
| shapes |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
The one thing I know is that if the US government sponsors it then it clearly is NOT terrorism. |
That WAS the definition of terrorism back in the day. Look it up in a 80's history textbook. The new definition simply states: Democratic Party.
| quote: | | Al Queerda (moar like Lol Qaeda, amirite?) (Arabic روث الكلب, lit. "the Foundation") is an extremist Muslim organization created by the CIA in order to facilitate the murder of people who like the United States, Israel, and kittens. It is widely feared and reviled because of its hatred for the fundamental freedoms which we cherish in the West. Created by Osama bin Laden, it operates out of Slough, a small town south of London UK (unless you're W, according to whom they operate out of Iraq, or pirat ponton, according to whom they simply don't exist). Also known as the United States Democratic Party, Al Qaeda is one of the proudest fabrications of the Bush 2 (return of the Bush) administration. Halliburton are working around the clock perfecting the art of cloning Arab males with towels on their heads who are naturally stuffed with unstable explosives which go off every time they eat a date. |
Taken from Encyclopedia Dramatica :wtf: |
|
|
| celestial thug |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
A terrorist is a person or a group fighing for a cause you do not agree with |
amen |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Collateral damage inflicts far more terror and suffering than a maniac strapped with a bomb could ever hope to accomplish. The Kind David Hotel bombing is one example of Zionist terrorism against gentiles who're not Arab, it was also a false flag operation meant to frame Arabs. Intersingly enough, Hamas is a mossad creation, much like "Al-Quaeda" is a CIA creation. Interesting how that works isn't it? Except mossads aims were to undermine the non militant PLO and nonviolent Palsetinian resistance to justify it's attrocities and collective punishment of the Palestinians as part of a mechanism to encourage migration and engage in land grabbing, illegaly expand it's boundries and building settlements under the pretence of defence. The US of course, is a leading terroist state with it's long history of state sponsored terrorism, but as Arbiter said, let's not go down that road. We're all well to familiar with that by now anyways. Terrorism is a weapon of the strong and it serves it purposes, but is a liability for the weak and doesn't serve their cause. Intersting how that works isn't it? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Collateral damage inflicts far more terror and suffering than a maniac strapped with a bomb could ever hope to accomplish. The Kind David Hotel bombing is one example of Zionist terrorism against gentiles who're not Arab, it was also a false flag operation meant to frame Arabs. |
Ah but then people will say that as they attacked a military target then it was not "terrorism" but a "guerilla" attack!
| quote: | | Intersingly enough, Hamas is a mossad creation, much like "Al-Quaeda" is a CIA creation. |
Hamas was originally allowed to operate and flourish by Israel in the hope that they would provide a counter to the PLO. Indeed, they thought that as fellow religionists they would be a group Israel would find easy to work with. However, they weren't "created" by Israel in that a few senior Mossad officers were sat round a table, drawing up plans to create an Islamist organisation to oppose the PLO. Hamas' history and foundations in the Muslim Brotherhood prove that.
as for the CIA and al-Qaida, well, unless you're referring only to the name "al-Qaida" then no, they were not a "CIA creation". The CIA never had any contact with what we call today al-Qaida. The CIA channelled funds/equipment through Pakistan's ISI and then in turn the ISI delivered them to the Afghan Mujahadeen. Al-Qaida were never part of the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen were Afghans, al-Qaida were part of what was known as the "Afghan Arabs" - foreign fighters drawn to Afghanistan to fight Communism. They were a seperate entity to those funded by the CIA, even tho they were fighting on the same side (as they did in Bosnia I might add) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Ah but then people will say that as they attacked a military target then it was not "terrorism" but a "guerilla" attack!
Hamas was originally allowed to operate and flourish by Israel in the hope that they would provide a counter to the PLO. Indeed, they thought that as fellow religionists they would be a group Israel would find easy to work with. However, they weren't "created" by Israel in that a few senior Mossad officers were sat round a table, drawing up plans to create an Islamist organisation to oppose the PLO. Hamas' history and foundations in the Muslim Brotherhood prove that.
as for the CIA and al-Qaida, well, unless you're referring only to the name "al-Qaida" then no, they were not a "CIA creation". The CIA never had any contact with what we call today al-Qaida. The CIA channelled funds/equipment through Pakistan's ISI and then in turn the ISI delivered them to the Afghan Mujahadeen. Al-Qaida were never part of the Mujahadeen. The Mujahadeen were Afghans, al-Qaida were part of what was known as the "Afghan Arabs" - foreign fighters drawn to Afghanistan to fight Communism. They were a seperate entity to those funded by the CIA, even tho they were fighting on the same side (as they did in Bosnia I might add) |
Yes, I know. That's the mainstream spin on the issue or presentation of it, which translates to the obvious inference from it. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Yes, I know. That's the mainstream spin on the issue or presentation of it, which translates to the obvious inference from it. |
That's not "spin", that's simply how it is. Just because you think you've unearthed some majorly damaging conspiracy doesn't mean your version of events are to be believed more than trusted historians/political academics... |
|
|
| Zild |
| I think I said this already but if the violence is sponsored by a modern Western 'democratic' nation then it is definitely NOT terrorism. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
That's not "spin", that's simply how it is. Just because you think you've unearthed some majorly damaging conspiracy doesn't mean your version of events are to be believed more than trusted historians/political academics... |
And who decides them or their framework is to be trusted? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And who decides them or their framework is to be trusted? |
Basically, when the academic community put forward a version of events that is relatively uncontested by fellow academics, that version of events gains acceptance and credibility.
When the only dissenting versions of events come from conspiraloons and bloggers, that version of events is considered somewhat lacking in credibility.
Please note, the above does not refer to "official version of events" as put forward by governments... |
|
|
|
|
