It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:58 PM
I have to agree that the nukes that were used back in the 40's against Japan could definitely be classified as terrorism as they were civilian targets. Again that was about 60 years ago and I think just about everyone involved in that war was bombing civilian targets. Not that it makes it right or wrong it was just the rules of war during that period of time. Do we want to go back to the ways of the past? We may indeed be headed that way if the wrong folks get ahold of a nuke. I suppose if you can't have your ball you might as well blow up the whole stadiium eh?

War sucks it always has, but I think the difference today is we actually try to avoid civilian casualties. I suppose in a barbaric all out war we would kill everyone & destroy everything that we didn't want to plunder so they couldn't support their troops with food, supplies & future replacement troops. That is how wars were fought in the past.

I think most here who are arguing that there’s no difference between terrorist & freedom fighters are just against the war or at least against the United States & it's allies for making war in IRAQ & the ongoing conflict between Israel & the Palestinians.

They don’t like the term terrorist, because it is the tactics employed by those they support or at least have greater empathy for. Turn the tables & switch the power base or change the names the term terrorist has no change in meaning for me.

Yes, I agree with your glass house analogy phoenix, but for me it doesn't change the meaning of a term. Even if the side I reside on is guiltier of more atrocities than the other - the meaning of the term is still the same. Another words you can argue that we are more wrong them in the overall scheme of things and you might even be correct, but it still doesn’t change the meaning of terrorist and they still have performed terrorist acts.

Phoenix - When you say brother when referring to Jeff Leurs I assume you mean brother in a non-biological sense such as brother in arms. While I have not spent more than a quick glance at his case. The fact is he was convicted of multiple counts of arson which has always been considered one of the top crimes in our nation. Had he just taken a sledgehammer to the vehicles he would have probably been sentenced to a much shorter period of time. Arson is the the little mans Weapon of Mass Destruction & thus is treated as such.

Though I agree there’s no doubt there is some political motivation in his sentence otherwise they probably would have run his sentences concurrently or would have consolidated his arson as one act instead of multiple acts for the purpose of increasing his punishment.

Clearly our judicial system is a bit bent if not downright corrupt, I mean we have guys doing 10 years for getting caught with drugs, but we regularly hear about women killing their children & getting off with just a few years. Men go away almost indefinitely for having sex with an underage student, but women are often given probation for the same crime. Not to mention we all know if you have enough money you can often beat the system & if you are poor you often get screwed to the wall. Your best bet is don’t break the law & you can avoid getting caught in the corrupt system.

While I don’t think Jeff deserves the time he got, he does deserve some of it and we cannot allow people to behave as he did. He committed arson & destroyed people’s property – the reasons behind what he did, doesn’t make his actions correct. Clearly Jeff was made an example of 1) too stem the recent actions being taken by the types groups Jeff belonged to – another words to let those know who are involved that if they get caught they will give up a significant portion of their lives. 2) Because many have got away with such crimes & he is a scapegoat. Sort of like the buttheads who always dent your car in the parking lots & when you finally catch one you pretty much unload all the built up anger created by those who got away with it in the past. Jeff is the butthead who got caught.

It's political because their intent is not so much as to punish Jeff severely, but the intent is more to punish the movement to keep them from employing such tactics and I think it has probably worked. Jeff has been sacrificed by our system to support the system as our system does not care much for individuals it only protects itself.

From your point of view I'm sure it's burn our symbols & pay with your life. From the majority of folk’s point of view he committed arson & a 90-month sentence is probably appropriate. It's up to his supporters and those who helped him get in this mess to find an empathetic attorney to help get his sentence reduced to a more appropriate level.

No, Jeff is not a terrorist - he just stumbled over his own stupidity into the spiders web.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by outsider]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:53 AM
here's a pretty good explanation....

The voice says in Arabic: "The shedding of Muslim blood ... is allowed in order to avoid the greater evil of disrupting jihad."

The voice says the protection of religion "is more important than protecting lives, honor or wealth."

"God knows that we were careful not to kill Muslims, and we have called off many operations in the past to avoid losses ... but we cannot kill infidels without killing some Muslims. It is unavoidable," he adds.
The speaker defends suicide attacks, saying, "killing of infidels by any method including martyrdom operations has been sanctified by many scholars even if it meant killing innocent Muslims."

"This legality has been agreed upon ... so as not to disrupt jihad," or "holy war," the recording says.

In Washington, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, didn't seem to doubt the voice was that of al-Zarqawi, who has a $25 million bounty on his head.

"Talk about a guy who has no moral foundation. It's an absolute outrage," Myers said.

hey souljah, if you read this, wouldn't you agree its an outrage ?

[edit on 19-5-2005 by syrinx high priest]

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 01:35 PM
While the nuclear bombing of WW2 targeted civilians, it ended up saving more lives than it took, if we would have gone into land combat in japan, it's would have cost hundreds of thousands lives it could have topped a million just to take the island, not to mention occupation it under those circumstances would have foster and insurgency unlike anything seen up to that point with the dedication of the japanese people of that time and their code and willingness to kill and die for their living god (emperor).

We should have clear and un-changeable (to one’s advantage) definitions on things, but very few things if anything are ever set in stone in life (specially war) 300,000 lives or so brought an end to a conflict that could have gone for a lot longer had the US tried to take japan by force on the ground. The Japanese dedication and fortitude of that time is something that could not have been under-estimated and even inch of land would have been gain through countless death and destruction.

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in