It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terror Organizations: When will they be a legitimized group for world change?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Here at ATS we have always argued the following questions

- What is a Terrorist?

- What should we do to a Terrorist?

- Which Countries supports Terrorists?

- What should we do to countries that support Terrorists?

Here we now have a new question

When will Terrorist Organizations be legitimized as groups for world change?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco Industires target civilians with Chemicals that kill them over
time yet they are a legitimate organization. This is just one example.
Why cannot Terrorists have bank accounts, pay taxes to host countries'
governments and execute their missions according to their organizations
documentation?

Without this, even American militias will be classified as terrorists one day.




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Whenever people and their governments embrace the targeting for murder of innocent civilians as a legitimate tactic.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
You mean they don't already?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well certainly several countries do or have done so in the past such as Saddam's Iraq, Libya and Iran. I was referring to western nations such as the U.S. and Europe.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
But don't listen to Djohnsto because he won't believe the US or European countries do or have done. He belives that they are morally mature.

In the 1950s the United Kingdom dropped mustard gas on the Iraqi population for not paying taxes to the queen. This is one of the earliest forms of state sponsored terror in the new era of nation states post WWII.

And if Djohnsto says anything without refuting this truth then take his words with caution and without a grain of truth.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Maybe When they stop specifically targeting Civilians, And realize that they wont ever get what they want 100%, but seeing as most of these groups are like children they arent capable of understanding they will have to give and take to get anything accomplished, But its all or nothing for these children, which is why they can never win, and will never be recognized as a group which can be negotiated with.


cjf

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   


In the 1950s the United Kingdom dropped mustard gas on the Iraqi population for not paying taxes to the queen. This is one of the earliest forms of state sponsored terror in the new era of nation states post WWII


What is the source of this information?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf


In the 1950s the United Kingdom dropped mustard gas on the Iraqi population for not paying taxes to the queen. This is one of the earliest forms of state sponsored terror in the new era of nation states post WWII


What is the source of this information?



Its fairly well known this happened... Of course back then it wasnt as frowned down upon as it is these days... Most countries have been guilty of sponsoring terrorists... hell the USA sponsored most of the terrorists in the 80's (muhajadeen, IRA, the Contras etc)... they werent called terrorists then coz they were terrorising the Soviets... they're only terrorists when its the US or its interests that are threatened



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
yeah, I would suggest if you don't know what the Brits did in Iraq ever before USA even went in there you should research this.

In fact, it was Iraq that was the testing ground for the advancements of the RAF right there in Iraq. The mustard gas incidents weren't merely incidents but trials on controlling populaces through advanced weaponry, vehicles and warfare.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Well gosh OOPS, seems that they are becoming legitimized, per se'.
Seems that France and the EU consider Hezbollah as a non-terrorist organization.

Let the parties begin, huh?





seekerof



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Well I'm not intimidated by your comments or your status here on this board. So no let's not let the parties begin. American Militias may well be called terrorists some day and when you scream and shout everyone is blind and how did this happen, just ask yourself. Do you understand the truth of everything or are you also suffering from half-truths, quarter-truths, pure falsehoods and many other mechanisms of the propaganda machine? Answer is yes, if not you would be our next Jesus telling the truth to the world.

I never have said I know all the answers and I just bring a new question for ATS. When will Terror Organizations become legitimate legal entities. Who have fund raising and pay taxes just like tabacco corporations that target civilians and kill them more than terrorists do every year?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Don't make me laugh at your simplistic rhetoric, OOPS, k?

You play the front as well as anyone on this board.
You asked when will terrorist organizations be legitimized and answered it.
Wasn't to your liking, sorry.
BTW, the internet is a wonderful tool in that it gives nearly 2.3 million hits for list of internationally recognized terrorist organizations.

Indulge yourself. Perhaps just ONE of those hits will answer the question that you are asking.





seekerof


cjf

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   


yeah, I would suggest if you don't know what the Brits did in Iraq ever before USA even went in there you should research this.


Thanks for the reply, I will. However I am a somewhat familiar with the history of Iraq, (no expert), that is why I asked. Are you sure your not speaking of an earlier era? I could understand this happening prior/during to the British Indian Expeditionary Force invastion c1941 or 'generally' during a period prior to the end of WWII. There are many instances where civilians were intentionally bombed during this period when the UK was nation building in this region (rather installing monarchal puppets) out of the Ottoman declination. Of course, this kind of activity had been going on-and-off in Europe since the onset of WWI by this time. I will revisit some literature.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
OOPS, I am not quite sure what you want to say.

Are you asking why are some terrorists called terrorists and others who also kill innocents are not?

Simple answer, they either have a lot of money or they have nukes.

Nobody with nukes will ever be clasified as terrorist.
You might fall under "rogue" nation, but terrorist? No.
There are many deffinitions and forms of terror, depending on who you ask.
Generaly, terrorists are groups or nations who kill innocent people to further their agenda, but do not have money/nukes to buy up their status.

You can't really compare terrorists with Tobacco companies.
Although cigarettes kill a LOT of people every year, the final choice whether to smoke or not is up to individual. You can still say no to cigarettes.
But when a bomb explodes near you, you have no choice there.

Various companies who dump toxic waste into river could be considered terrorist, in terms that they kill innocent people, that they KNOW the danger of toxins and knowingly dump them into the river, causing dozens of deaths. That is terror. But these companies have way too much money and political influence to be defined as such.

Then we have state sponsored terror. Thats when nukes come into play. If you got them, you can kill as much people as you want using any kind of excuse you want and you still won't be called a terrorist. You actions will be "frowned upon" by UN ( a resolution here and there might be in order), and "condemned" by some countries, but you won't be a terrorist. That's why everyone wants to have them.

Also, sanctions could fall under deffinition of terrorism.
Sanctions are imposed on the whole country, including civilian population, in order to force the goverment to comply with your political ideas. Often ignored in the process is the fact that the goverment in question already has enough money to not give a damn about sanctions, and it is only the civilian population who suffers both from the oppression of said goverment and the sanctions imposed by the rest of the world.
That IS terrorism. That is terrorising the civilian population to further your political goals. However, those who impose sanctions are too powerful to be labeled "terrorists". Somehow they sell millions of starving children as "good" move to bring "happiness" to the world. Go figure.

One more thing to consider: if terrorists achieve their goal and gain power, the history won't remember them as terrorists, they become "freedom fighters", great heroes, leaders, they inspire millions with stories about how they brought freedom and justice for all.

Anyways, in the end, there are terrorists who are recognised as such and there are terrorists who hide behind other labels, behind money, power, weapons. Such is the world we live in.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
If they're pro-US they're "freedom fighters", if they're anti-US they're "terrorists."

In the eyes of the Right, it's as simple as that.
These people are stuck in the stone age, evolutionary throwbacks for whom tribal loyalties (morphed into nationalism over the millenia) outweigh anything else.

They'll mourn the dead of 9-11 with crocodile tears and phony outrage, but if it had happened in Tehran or Shanghai or somewhere else people they don't like live, they'd be the first to celebrate.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
When will Terrorist Organizations be legitimized as groups for world change?


Where have you been OOPS? The terrorists are a legitmate group, a legitmate group to be eradicated from the face of the Earth that is.

I read the rest of your post and you seem to be either a terrorist yourself or a sympathiser for their cause.

BTW, the tobacco companies don't twist nobody's arm to use their product. If a person smokes and happen to die of a disease that the tobacco caused, it's the person's fault, not the tobacco's.

On the other hand, if a person dies at the hands of a terrorist, it's not their fault.

So, what I'm trying to say is, how can you condone the actions of terrorists a legitimate?

Terrorists on the other hand kill innocent people for their political gains (if there is any to gain).



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
What's the difference between killing innocent people for financial gain or for political gain.


I question and leave the door open for understanding and reconciliation. If you view that as supporting or condoning terrorism and I can see why. Enlarge you ability to reason my friend.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
Nobody with nukes will ever be clasified as terrorist.


If al Qaeda somehow builds its own nuclear weapon or obtains a stolen one from Russia or is given one by a rogue state, and detonates it in New York, London or Paris they'll still be terrorists.


cjf

posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
If terrorism may be defined as: Premeditated and politically motivated violent acts perpetrated specifically against noncombatant targets intended to influence an audience and the ensuing psychological impact of said violent act is used to effect political change within the audience.

What need is there to be legitimate in the first place?...Really…only if the acts committed do not effect the desired end result(s)? No, then the terrorists' actions are as futile as the question.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I think if an organization stuck to just government officials and workers, police and/or military targets and try to avoid collateral damage. like if you blow yourself up at a police/military checkpoint and not at an public bus stop with non-combatant/hostile civilian, not heavily patronized by military/govt workers pizzeria you could actually have a valid point that you would be fighting a govt or repression or whatever spin you want to put on ur particular movement. I didn’t' really read most of the above post just saw the title and added my 2 cents. I think if Palestinians would follow that there would have a more legitimate leg to stand on with a lot of people like myself who tend to dismiss them right off the bat. I mean, this isn't the right place for it but it seems like the Entifad (not sure of the spelling know I killed it) kills soldiers/govt officials as of bystander of them targeting civilians while Israeli collateral damage is almost universally a result of targeting terrorist. Throwing rocks at armor vehicle beyond idiotic is going to get a response regardless of your age or sex as the case may be. For example in Somalia us forces killed women and children, not many people disagree on this, but those people were all in the way attacking us forces hence the result they got.

At least to me, and I don’t expect many people to agree with me terrorism has more to do with who you target than some a lot of the tactics you use unless you bring in the whole WMD thing in. What most people call terrorism is usually the only effective way to fight a superior enemy. You’re not going to fight supersonic jets and helicopter gunship with guided missiles standing toe to toe with your little ak or whatever. You draw them in (occupation) and you go to work on them picking them off a few at a time




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join