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.

 

What is terrorism

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin



Cant find something relevent to today so ya go back 60 years eh? In ww2 there werent realy any civilians, in the main fighting countries, as most of them were working to build things for there respected militaries which was designed to kill and defeat the enemy, i would imagine the japs to an extent were doing the same, there for they would be a military target, it was different times pal, ontop of that it stoped the war.




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le


Cant find something relevent to today so ya go back 60 years eh? In ww2 there werent realy any civilians, in the main fighting countries, as most of them were working to build things for there respected militaries which was designed to kill and defeat the enemy, i would imagine the japs to an extent were doing the same, there for they would be a military target, it was different times pal, ontop of that it stoped the war.


Need something a bit more recent...sure


The use of asphyxiating gases is prohibited. The U.S. violated this by its use of fuel-air explosive bombs on Iraqi frontline troops; these bombs are terror bombs which can burn the oxygen over a surface of one or two square kilometers, destroying human life by asphyxiation.
These fuel-air bombs and the U.S. use of napalm are also outlawed by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the use of weapons causing unnecessary harm to combatants. The level of U.S. evil is demonstrated by the sending to the Gulf of a stingray blinding laser system which is supposed to knock out optics on enemy weapons, but has the side effect of blinding soldiers as well who operate the weapons.
The bombing of peaceful nuclear power facilities is forbidden and particularly so because of the dangers of the spread of radioactivity. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency classified the reactors as peaceful, yet the U.S. bombed them, not caring about the spread of radioactivity. The bombing was intentional and planned in advance, clearly in violation of international law.
Both the Hague Convention of 1954 and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks against historic monuments, works of art, places of worship and sites which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of a people. Catholic churches, a 4th century monastery and a Sunni Moslem mosque represent just some of the massive violations that occurred. [See Fadwa El Guindi's essay on archaeological destruction, Waging War on Civilization.]
Protocol I of the Geneva Convention also requires protection of the natural environment against widespread and severe damage - the U.S. massive bombing, the blowing up of reactors, the hitting of oil storage facilities all violate this prohibition.

deoxy.org...

Hows that? For starters


[edit on 17-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I dont have time tonight to read all of that, im not confirimng or denying anything as i dont know the facts, But as far all the illegal things that are done in war, Why are you and people like you always jumping onto the US i never see you guys attacking other countries which do far worse as far as chem&bio ala saddam, Its always US this US that, and you people wonder why we got the We are better then you attitude Hell you always talk about us, be it good or bad, kinda gives an illusion that we truely are the only people on the planet.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
I dont have time tonight to read all of that, im not confirimng or denying anything as i dont know the facts, But as far all the illegal things that are done in war, Why are you and people like you always jumping onto the US i never see you guys attacking other countries which do far worse as far as chem&bio ala saddam, Its always US this US that, and you people wonder why we got the We are better then you attitude Hell you always talk about us, be it good or bad, kinda gives an illusion that we truely are the only people on the planet.


Not trying to be rude but perhaps you should read that. You might find out some interesting things as to what we are doing there.

As for belittling the USA, I am an American, and as an American, it is my God given right, and DUTY to question my government, especially when in flagrant violation of not only international law, but the very constitution itself. Lest we forget America was founded on dissent, and if it is ever to be saved.....it will be the dissenters that will be responsible for saving it.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I have to say i agree with phoenixhasrisin, the nuclear bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Allied firebombing on cities like Dresden during the Second World War can be viewed as terrorist acts. They were against civilian targets and they were for political gain (they wanted the enemy to surrender). That's not to say that the Allies were the only ones, as Hitler did strike civilians in Britain with his bombings and Vengeance Weapons.

Although they were at war, it does not mean that the acts were not terrorism, the person who made the first post was accurate in a sense because he did not specifically point to who commits terrorism, as it can be committed by an individual, an organization, or a country itself.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Ponderosa]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The application of terror as a means of driving a policial agenda is used more widely than your definition gives scope to, Judah.


This is exactly the problem with that definition. That definition makes law enforcement becomes terrorism, as it does the educational system and parenting. If everybody is guilty of it then it becomes LEGITIMATE

We need to fine tune the definition so that the it becomes clear enough to turn into international law.

Most mportantly it is standardizing the term so that my definition will not be different from your and so that we can debate the issue without each of us understanding or meaning something different.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Didn’t really go over every thing here, but one rock solid definition that I've found which is hard to switch around for your personal/political benefits, I mean America has used state sponsored terrorism as much as the best of them. A lot of what we had done during the cold war get a country bombed into the stone age but of course we dressed up what we had done and now change the definition of terrorism. Here’s my shot at it:

Deliverate and callous targeting of non-combative (engaged) individuals/civilians over that of military/police or government/bureaucratic or public officials or any person aligned with the running or maintenance of such institutions other than collateral damage of targeting one of the above mention military/government/Public official or agent said institution(s) or infrastructure to achieve some kind of public reaction.

This is the way I usually judge what I consider to be a terrorist. I mean it’s is virtually impossible to take any decisive action be it militarily or revolutionary with out incurring death of innocents. And that’s in the best of cases, now a days we have forced and sometimes voluntarily human shields used by the likes of saddam and others. And look at places like Somalia where you have you have forces engaging you while mixed in with woman and children (hell sometimes the women and children are actively engaged), I might consider it in bad taste (tactic) to shoot into such a crowd but I would on a witch hunt after somebody who did. I consider 9/11 to be 2 different events in one day, the pentagon was an act of war and the WTC an act of terrorism. I mean people like to bring up Israel into the whole mix because of all the lives lost on both sides, a lot of the “innocent” deaths incurred by the IDF is a direct result (collateral) of terrorist/militant targets, can the Palestinians say the same? If they brew themselves up in a nightclub or pizzeria or even in a school going after even one soldier or government official and killed 30 others I wouldn’t consider it to be outright terrorism. And that is the fundamental difference between the US and Israelis and most other western nations and terrorist organizations like those in the middle east, we can at least say with a straight face that we were after a legitimate target 90% of the time while these organization almost seem to go out of their way NOT to target supposed enemies and who they are fighting it’s almost like they kill their supposed oppressor as an accident. I mean there are plenty of legitimate targets in Israel and yet the militants choose to engage every day civilians just like in Iraq. I mean the only actions I really consider to be terrorism in Iraq have been the market bombings and Mosque bombings that have taken place. But none of the attacks on the US/coalition and Iraqi police/military and government official particularly strike me as terrorism, those are legitimate targets of a guerilla/insurgency warfare.

I think we are seriously over reaching with a lot of the military conventions and rules that we’ve set up, it’s like moving a object without physically touching it in any way, sure there ways of manipulate the situation so that you way some how move it with out touching it but it would be asinine to make it rule rather than the exception/ideal. And that’s what we’ve tried to do with war and everyone knows once the lead starts flying rules and regulations don’t always stay forefront in your mind. And besides in specific situations or when faced with such superior odds there is very little outside of down and dirty terrorist tactics you could use, just don’t get or high and mighty or hypocritical and selective name calling and it wont come back and bite you in the end. I mean look at it now anybody who has really researched the lengths we went to during the cold war can’t help but get a slight smirk when you hear any US official get all high and mighty about state sponsor terrorism. I mean I know what the US did, my parents come from a country where the US sponsor plenty of mayhem and I still support the war on terror ( well against the real targets) even though some of the rhetoric coming out of Washington makes my blood boil sometimes. I mean look at the whole Cuban exile thing going on now, I think that was one of the first ever terrorist incident with a civilian airliner and who was it done for? This hypocrisy only strengthens our enemies who would have little to no real argument to stand on if it weren’t for such hypocrisy and selective memory on our part.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Both the Hague Convention of 1954 and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks against historic monuments, works of art, places of worship and sites which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of a people. Catholic churches, a 4th century monastery and a Sunni Moslem mosque represent just some of the massive violations that occurred. [See Fadwa El Guindi's essay on archaeological destruction, Waging War on Civilization.]
Protocol I of the Geneva Convention also requires protection of the natural environment against widespread and severe damage - the U.S. massive bombing, the blowing up of reactors, the hitting of oil storage facilities all violate this prohibition.

deoxy.org...

Hows that? For starters


[edit on 17-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]


Rules of war are meant to make war less horrific (as if that is ever the case). Your 'academic' discussion of the rules of war are disconnected from reality for the following reason:
when two groups fight and follow the rules that is fine (although I doubt this will ever happen). But what happens when you prepare for a war and you have hard intelligence that the other side plans on violating international laws during a battle.
For example: Paristan (fake name) is at war with Afgania (Yeah you guessed it another fake name) the Afghanian militants fire rockets at residential areas from an ancient temple and the militants just hang out there and bomb the crap out of the Paristanian city. What do you as a Paristanian Prime Minister do? Do you call in an air stike and level out the temple with the aggressor? That is a breach of international law.
What if the Afghanians fire at residential areas from the center of an Afghanian village. If you attack that area of the village 'innocent' Afghanian civilians will be killed. If you do not Paristanian civilians will be killed. What would you do?
As I see it the Afghanians are engaging in terrorism and their country is doing nothing to curb it. The Afghanian militants should be targetted regardless of the collateral damage.

Now what if one side attacks oncoming soldiers of the other side from those shrines? That is also in violation of international law.
What if you can minimize the number of your soldiers killed if you can take the enemies power sources down in a way that will not cause widespread adverse effects. Do you do this to save your soldiers lives?

What I am trying to demonstrate is that you can pass jugement all you want but if you have to make the call and you have limited information and there is much confusion and pressure the situation changes. Even the most peaceful of people will need to break international law and save lives of your own people.

Remember Terrorists do not heed to international law at all. They are not a country, there is no accountability. They are a rag tag group of militants. In the case of the Islamic terrorist organizations the international laws of the infidels are of no importance. The laws these militants follow are those of politically motivated religious leaders who define the words of Mohammed and Allah as they see fit. How to you fight them?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
JudahMaccabbi

that's exactly my point, the rules of war aren't really doing what their are meant to. I mean it should be consider a "gentlemen's agreement" at best, if both sides are actively trying to abide and respect it, stick to it dogmatically and punish anybody who breaks it. But look at the situation now, with the US in Iraq and the IDF which are the victims of witch hunts for violating some of the more questionable rules of war while the other side doesn’t even follow the most agreed upon and unquestionable rules of wars.

I mean attack US soldiers for shooting at a mosque from where they are being fired upon while the other side is using it as places to regroup and hide their weapons knowing that the US would be unwilling to attack or search a mosque. I mean these rules and treaties are being used to penalized one side and to selectively if at all by the other side. I mean I think that if everyone could follow the rules of war as they are written (well there are some that HAVE to be change/modernized) things wouldn’t be so bad but both sides end up breaking such rules and the side that at least shows an effort to stick to the rules are usually the ones who are criticized and club over the head with them while the other side who show flagrant disregards for it are really held up to such standards.

I mean some of the things that should be change are like the type of ammunition which we use (FMJ) which are meant to be more human but they tend to make you bleed out and suffer more long term than some of the most modern ammunition which would either kill/incapacitate you immediately (blended metals, hollow points ect.) but are illegal due to the Geneva convention. But other than that it should be follow if the enemy is adhering to it, it they start to show flagrant disregard for it then your tactics and ROF should be adapted adequately to suit the situation. It’s like what we have going on with the insurgents rigging their dead and injured and US soldiers being criticized for taking increase measures (sometime harsh/deadly) when dealing with the injured when in doubt, never mind that I’ve yet to seen a case of insurgents showing any type of mercy on their prisoners be it military or civilians as we’ve all (beheadings…). Look at what the insurgents did to the helicopter pilot whom they had no reason to considered a threat, wasn’t armed, begging for mercy and no history of deception in similar situations unlike the insurgency which has rigged their fallen comrades for incoming troops. I mean people should expect at the VERY LEAST the exact same mercy they put forth.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
First off Judah, "my people" as you say, are the entire human race. I do not concern myself with nationality, race, or religion, or any other imaginary social construct. Perhaps you should try it sometime, you might not sound like a parrot.

Anyways, so let me get this straight. American/Israeli imperialist aggression, can break international law all they want, yet when a group outside of them do it , it is "terrorism". O.K got it


Once again thank you for proving , what the one value is that America truly holds above all else (including freedom):Hypocrisy.All I was trying to do, was point out the inconsistency of peoples definition of "terrorism", thank you for being such a shining example. Define it all you want, just quit thinking that your definition does not , and can not apply to you as well. To quote an old saying: "People in glass houses, shouldn't have sex on the carpet" ......or something along those lines

Before you are soo quick to label someone with some meaningless term, try looking in the mirror, and see what you can do to better yourself, before tearing down someone else.
(on a national level, as well as personal)



[edited twice for spelling and clarification]

[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
First off Judah, "my people" as you say, are the entire human race. I do not concern myself with nationality, race, or religion, or any other imaginary social construct. Perhaps you should try it sometime, you might not sound like a parrot.

Now that we are on a first name basis,
Phoe err... or is that phoen, oh maybe phoenixhas. F*ck it Pheo sound good.

Pheo, I never said my people. But if your point is to accept mankind (womenkind as well - OK humanity) as "my people" I will accept that - one problem though; there is this moustached, Kafia wearing Arab over there chanting "Itbach el Yehud". I need to defend myself. Again, I would like to think along those lines but reality has it a bit different. In my university days I met many Arabs and were friend with them - THose academic days are over and know I am in the real world. IN ALL SERIOUSNESS one of those Arab I had as a friend is now part of HAMAS.


Anyways, so let me get this straight. American/Israeli imperialist aggression, can break international law all they want, yet when a group outside of them do it , it is "terrorism". O.K got it


When exactly did I say this - This is the second time you put things in my mouth.


Once again thank you for proving once again, what the one value America truly holds above all else (including freedom):Hypocrisy.What I was trying to do was point out the inconsistency of peoples definition of "terrorism", thank you for being such a shining example. Define it all you want, just quit thinking that your definition doese not , and can not apply to you as well.

What POINT are you talking about???


To quote an old saying: "People in glass houses, shouldn't have sex on the carpet" ......or something along those lines

Yeah I understand you dont wanna get sticky stuff all over the window because when the Arab next door throws the rock they'll probably blame me through DNA testing. I think I understood.


Before you are soo quick to label someone with some meaningless term, try looking in the mirror, and see what you can do to better yourself, before tearing down someone else.

Thanks for the advise! May I ask for one thing though?
WHAT IN THE BLAZES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DID YOU JUST COME BACK FROM HAPPY HOUR!!!!!!!



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Now that we are on a first name basis,
Phoe err... or is that phoen, oh maybe phoenixhas. F*ck it Pheo sound good.

You can call me "Winter-Stumm"




Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Pheo, I never said my people.


Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Even the most peaceful of people will need to break international law and save lives of your own people.


Not yours per se, any nations people, is how I took it. All I was trying to do was illustrate my feelings that there is no such thing as "your own people". WE are human, plain and simple



When exactly did I say this - This is the second time you put things in my mouth.


You did not say that verbaetum, but you were trying to justify that certain illegal acts are alright, whilst at the same time, pointing your finger at terrorist for their failure to follow international law. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If terrorist need to follow international law, then the worlds superpowers sure as hölle do.



What POINT are you talking about???


My point all along has been pretty clear and concise. "Terrorism" is a useless, jingoist term, and is inherently hypocritical, as demonstrated by all those who label certain groups as terrorist, whilst not acnowleging the very same "terror"that ones own country is responsible for. As stated previously as well, if you want to use the term terrorist then fine lets do it, I can think of a couple of orginizations that have spread more terror than Hamas though.



Yeah I understand you dont wanna get sticky stuff all over the window because when the Arab next door throws the rock they'll probably blame me through DNA testing. I think I understood.


At least you got that.



Thanks for the advise! May I ask for one thing though?
WHAT IN THE BLAZES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DID YOU JUST COME BACK FROM HAPPY HOUR!!!!!!!


All I am saying is: Before any person, and or nation starts throwing around terms like terrorism, perhaps they should examine themselves, and their actions, and try to contemplate how they could be partly responsible for that which they are denigrating....

Hence the reference to ...People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]

[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
phoenixhasrisin,
I understood your points. Still I must say in my previous posts I wrote:


There where instances when all Jewish organizations where engaged in what can be considered terrorism by my definitions prior to the foundation of Israel and for a short while subsequent to its foundation. The reason they switched to terrorism was for retaliation to other terrorist attacks perptrated by the Arabs. Irgus switched from a policy of restraint (havlaga) to a policy retaliation. This is in no way a justification but as you can see - I am trying to DEFINE terrorism without bias.

As you can see, I showed where under my definition Jews engaged in terrorism. I am trying to make a definition where a clear one is seriously lacking.
I do not think terrorism is a jingoist term since if defined correctly and accepted internationally can be used to modify strategies by nations as well as organizations.
Jingoist, you seem to like that word - I think that you use it too often though. I think I once responded to you when I said that jingoist is one who is willing to die for his country or even more excessively one who is willing to sacrifice his children for his country (or religion).



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Jingoist, you seem to like that word - I think that you use it too often though. I think I once responded to you when I said that jingoist is one who is willing to die for his country or even more excessively one who is willing to sacrifice his children for his country (or religion).


When discussing terrorism, I do use the term quite frequently as I can not think of a better way to describe it.

Jingoism is defined as .-Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
dictionary.reference.com...

I am glad that you have your own special little meaning for the word, but that is part of this whole terrorist problem, no one wants to play by the same rules, as we have both mentioned.

"Winter-Stumm



[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
phoenixhasrisin

I agree with you whole heartedly in the hypocrisy and selective use and definition of the label terrorism. But like I said you are brow beating one side with it and letting another side off the hook basically, and look at just who you are being “perceived” of defending. I believe people should fight as hard as their Conscience permits them as long as they man up to it and reap what ever consequences good or bad that it they sow with such tactics. I mean the US has in certain times engaged in their own definition of state sponsored terrorism, but you are using this to justified and cleanse to a certain extent people who use such tactics as modus aperidi even give a second’s thought to who they target. I hope I’m wrong and your just pointing out the hypocrisy and nothing more but a lot of argument from people who share similar beliefs (I do to a certain extent) are bordering if not outright legitimizing groups who use some of the most un-defendable and barbaric tactics in human history.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oblivions void
phoenixhasrisin

But like I said you are brow beating one side with it and letting another side off the hook basically, and look at just who you are being “perceived” of defending.


No I am not letting the other side off the hook. I have repeatedly said if you (not personally) want to throw around the word terrorism, then you have to be equal about it's use, as people other than myself have also mentioned. I am not defending either side, as I am adamantly opposed to war.

All I did was give a dictionary definition of the term, and outlined how America fits Every singel criteria for being called a "terrorist" nation as well. Peoples patriotism, is what blinds them to this very fact

Basically if they are terrorist, then we are terrorist. Conversely, if we are not terrorist, then they are not terrorist. You can not have it both ways, as no ones hands are clean of blood in this. Yet most American people seem to think that you can have it both ways. All I am trying to do is point this out, and maybe make people think before they use the term. Perhaps people would not be soo quick to use it, if they knew what their own country(s) were responsible for.That's all

[edit for spelling, additional point]

[edit on 18-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I agree with what you are saying but most people who believe such as you don’t emphasize or even bother to point out the other side besides the transgressions OCCASIONALY taken by the US. I mean your dead on in the hypocrisy that the term terrorism brings and would probably always bring because I don’t see the definition ever being change because very few people can escape falling under it’s definition at one time or another. How over I for one make a point to emphasize the different between the US and groups like Hamas and Bin laden who don’t even give an honest effort if any to fight their battles by any other means. These groups and their supporters see your brow beating of America (though I take you at your word that you oppose both sides) and those of western and Americans or like minded opinion as a sort of pass tactics because all the rhetoric is %90 percent directed at the American or Israeli side in such arguments. Pacifism which you alluded to is another argument all together, but the realities of human existence entails conflict/war and in times of some conflict the deliverate and callous targeting of innocent is unavoidable, but I would emphasize the difference between one who takes great and back breaking pains to avoid such tactics and targeting and those who do so gleefully and with barbaric disregard as an Overall tactic.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I think the original idea of terrorism was political violence carried out by non-official military folks upon their own people to bring about regime change.

ie an iraqi bombs an Iraqi grocery store to get attention for al-queda



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oblivions void
Pacifism which you alluded to is another argument all together, but the realities of human existence entails conflict/war and in times of some conflict the deliverate and callous targeting of innocent is unavoidable, but I would emphasize the difference between one who takes great and back breaking pains to avoid such tactics and targeting and those who do so gleefully and with barbaric disregard as an Overall tactic.


O.K I can agree with you to an extent. Yes groups like Hamas, Al-Qada(if they do really exist), Islamic Jihad, etc. etc., do usually target civillians, whilst America does not (usually, think vietnam). The difference is, while America might not target civillians, we sure as hölle have no problem with killing anyone who happens to get "caught in the crossfire". Why else do you think that we will not provide even an official estimate of civillian casualties? Because we do not care how many we kill, plain and simple.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
while America might not target civillians, we sure as hölle have no problem with killing anyone who happens to get "caught in the crossfire". Why else do you think that we will not provide even an official estimate of civillian casualties? Because we do not care how many we kill, plain and simple.


Yes your right we don’t like to report on the civilian casualty to tailor the public’s perception of the wars which I don’t particularly find to be in good taste and is seriously back firing on us. I mean you have some seriously ridiculous numbers out there when it comes to this and it’s mostly due to our negligence in taking accurate stats. I mean if we took in the totals I would be increasing cleared that more people are dying due to the insurgency than died from direct actions of American military action past the initial weeks of the war. I mean we should also include Contractor deaths and injuries and the number of serious injured (amputation, severe trauma, no-longer fit for duty) injuries into the stats to give a full picture of just what is going on. As for the cross fire a lot of people LIKE to get mixed in with crowds to start shooting at our forces for added cover and deterrent to back fire. We are least when possible take steps to limit civilian casualties which can’t be said for the insurgency or most any other military force we have faced in recent memory. I mean your preaching to the choir here about the actions and motives we (US) have over seas but show me who we’ve faced that has shown the same if not greater effort to limit collateral damage and fight a cleaner war, I would seriously doubt it would be a long list if any are eligible at all.

“while America might not target civilians”

this is a fact that shouldn’t be lost or understated when the speaking on terrorism, just like our own use of state sponsored terrorism by our own definitions.


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I think the original idea of terrorism was political violence carried out by non-official military folks upon their own people to bring about regime change.

ie an iraqi bombs an Iraqi grocery store to get attention for al-queda


Yes that’s the status quo definition of terrorism but as has been discussed in this thread it tends to be a definition which is shown to selectively used incriminate due to one’s perception or bias more so than on intent and action.

Here try this from earlier in the thread


Originally posted by Oblivions void
Didn’t really go over every thing here, but one rock solid definition that I've found which is hard to switch around for your personal/political benefits, I mean America has used state sponsored terrorism as much as the best of them. A lot of what we had done during the cold war get a country bombed into the stone age but of course we dressed up what we had done and now change the definition of terrorism. Here’s my shot at it:

Deliverate and callous targeting of non-combative (engaged) individuals/civilians over that of military/police or government/bureaucratic or public officials or any person aligned with the running or maintenance of such institutions other than collateral damage of targeting one of the above mention military/government/Public official or agent said institution(s) or infrastructure to achieve some kind of public reaction.




[edit on 5/18/2005 by Oblivions void]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join