|
massive anti-war rallies across the world... (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JudgeJulez
A terrorist is defined as one who uses the systematic use of terror (state of intense fear) as a means of coercion.
Given the state of omnipresent fear in the US right now (ex. the Chicago nightclub), largely incited by our government's "warnings," (not to mention the bullying does in international circles, and I'm not simply referring to the present circumstances) one can easily equate the Bush Administration, and the US over its history, as possessing terrorist qualities, albeit while operating on a different level than al-Qaeda, Hamas, et al.
So the protesters are correct, due to technicality.:) |
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by JudgeJulez
A terrorist is defined as one who uses the systematic use of terror (state of intense fear) as a means of coercion.
Given the state of omnipresent fear in the US right now (ex. the Chicago nightclub), largely incited by our government's "warnings," (not to mention the bullying does in international circles, and I'm not simply referring to the present circumstances) one can easily equate the Bush Administration, and the US over its history, as possessing terrorist qualities, albeit while operating on a different level than al-Qaeda, Hamas, et al.
So the protesters are correct, due to technicality.:) |
i dont buy that definition at all... using that we can deduce basicly every country that has ever been in war as a terroist state. which country has not used a state of intense fear as a means of coercion when going to war? north korea is instilling in me intense fear with their propoganda, are they terrorists? england used threating attacks during the falkland wars, are they terrorists? how about russia when it invaded afghanistan, i would have been under intense fear if i had lived there at the time.
to me a terrorist is one who intentionally targets the lives of innocent civilians for ideological or political reasons. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
to me a terrorist is one who intentionally targets the lives of innocent civilians for ideological or political reasons. |
agreed |
|
|
| Yoepus |
:eek: *snif*, *snif*, I... I never thought I would see this day.
John Smith posting a link to foxnews!!! :eyespop:
You make me so proud you can't imagine!! :gsmile: :tongue3 |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
thanks yoepus. but i hope you realize why i did that. first off, i haven't seen any other site carry the story(then again, i haven't looked either, other than scanning front page headlines). Second i was humouring tiesto14, and posting something he'd recognize.
I have not seen this story anywhere else, and i certainly don't believe anything at face value that comes from foxnews or cnn. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
i dont buy that definition at all... using that we can deduce basicly every country that has ever been in war as a terroist state. which country has not used a state of intense fear as a means of coercion when going to war? north korea is instilling in me intense fear with their propoganda, are they terrorists? england used threating attacks during the falkland wars, are they terrorists? how about russia when it invaded afghanistan, i would have been under intense fear if i had lived there at the time.
to me a terrorist is one who intentionally targets the lives of innocent civilians for ideological or political reasons. |
Izzy, ive had this argument with you before... do you not remember that the US is the only nation to be chraged with terrorist crimes against civilians by the International court of Justice?
Doesnt that say enough to you?
And also, we must understandthat there is a distinction between terrorism, and state terrorism. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
Second i was humouring tiesto14, and posting something he'd recognize.
|
+
i was just about to PM you and say i am glad we can discuss now without attacking each other...then i read this....unbeleivable.:( |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
The actions of the US and the actions of the Al Quaeda can in no way be considered the same. Al Quaeda is intentionally killing civilians because they are not sharing their religion and because they don't like the government of the country they attacked. The US is attacking military compounds of other countries in order to dominate that part of the world, and with occasional but mainly unintentional civilian deaths. Although neither is a very noble goal, the terrorists are attacking civilians and americans are attacking military personell.
Now, about the human shields. Nobody is forcing those people to guard Iraqi compounds of vital interest, they are doing it because of their patriotism or because their opposition to the war. They are aware of the risk and while Saddams government is definitely supporting them in their actions, which is of course what's to be expected, Saddam is not in any way making them to do it. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Izzy, ive had this argument with you before... do you not remember that the US is the only nation to be chraged with terrorist crimes against civilians by the International court of Justice?
Doesnt that say enough to you?
|
i dont know what you're getting at, probably trying to prove the US is a terrorist state, however just like time in our discussin you failed to show me where this charge actually is, i've searched agian now through the the ICJ site (http://www.icj-cij.org/) and a few other sites and i have still not found and shred of evidence that the US was charged by the ICJ for terrorist crimes agianst civilians.
| quote: |
And also, we must understandthat there is a distinction between terrorism, and state terrorism. |
not really, it still an intentional act of targeting civilians for a ideological or political reason, its the same if its the state (iraq), an orginization (hamas), or a single person (Timothy McViegh) |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
i dont buy that definition at all... using that we can deduce basicly every country that has ever been in war as a terroist state. which country has not used a state of intense fear as a means of coercion when going to war? north korea is instilling in me intense fear with their propoganda, are they terrorists? england used threating attacks during the falkland wars, are they terrorists? how about russia when it invaded afghanistan, i would have been under intense fear if i had lived there at the time.
to me a terrorist is one who intentionally targets the lives of innocent civilians for ideological or political reasons. |
Izzy, I'd like to point out something at you, in which Id like to correct you, and you seemed to lack to know. I dont know about the other countries situation as much for me to discuss, but the Falkland island situation, is a subject that has nothing to do with the rest of the problems you mentioned. To begin with, Falkland island was always BRITISH, and the argentinians decided to fight for it, since it supposedly was in Argentinian territory. So all the British did was fight for it. So thats a whole different story in means of scaring someone. It had nothing to do with getting the whole world involved. The British were just defending what they had colonized looooooong time ago. but then the Argentinians saw that it was a nice chunk if land to fight for in terms of been in their territory. Just wanted to point that out.:D |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Izzy, I'd like to point out something at you, in which Id like to correct you, and you seemed to lack to know. I dont know about the other countries situation as much for me to discuss, but the Falkland island situation, is a subject that has nothing to do with the rest of the problems you mentioned. To begin with, Falkland island was always BRITISH, and the argentinians decided to fight for it, since it supposedly was in Argentinian territory. So all the British did was fight for it. So thats a whole different story in means of scaring someone. It had nothing to do with getting the whole world involved. The British were just defending what they had colonized looooooong time ago. but then the Argentinians saw that it was a nice chunk if land to fight for in terms of been in their territory. Just wanted to point that out.:D |
cool, i probably dont know enought about the falkland wars as i should know, thanks.
the point i was trying to make is that most of all the contries during each war use or produce a state of intense fear as a means of coercion (def or coercion: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel). which was JudgeJulez definition of terrorism, one i disagreed with. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Izzy, ive had this argument with you before... do you not remember that the US is the only nation to be chraged with terrorist crimes against civilians by the International court of Justice?
Doesnt that say enough to you?
And also, we must understandthat there is a distinction between terrorism, and state terrorism. |
I too would like to see some proof on this. If this is indeed true though, does anybody else find this to be just a little bit ridiculous to the point of unbelievable? Ok maybe if the US was one of a hundred nations charged ... maybe. But the US is the ONLY nation? I can just picture the ICJ prosecutors on this one.
Prosecutor 1: So what do we have on the list?
Prosecutor 2: Well ... let's see, we have genocide in Rwanda ... starvation in Somalia ... atrocities and civil rights violations in Iraq, N. Korea, China ... genocide in Bosnia ... annnndddd the US for trying to be the world's policeman.
Prosecutor 1: That's HORRIFFIC! Forget about everything else! I want ALL of our assets concentrated on the US. If we have only one conviction over the course of our entire existence, I wanna nail those barbarians. |
|
|
|
|
