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.

 

Who's an Activist and Who's a Terrorist?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Anyone who uses fear and intimidation, along with clandestine criminality to influence politics and voters is a terrorist.

Which means 90% of political and religious leaders are terrorists.



Uh huh.

So where do we go from here?




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I haven't seen any evidence of a cohesive 'We' in America.

If there were such a thing, working for the good of society, it would still be reliant on the decisions of hundreds, or thousands, or millions of individuals. In that sense there is no 'We.'

People don't lack the ability to change the world, they've always had that. They lack knowledge, and the will to act.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

That would depend on their motive, their targets, and their tactics.

NATIONALIST motivations with targets that are foreign occupiers would represent partisans, not terrorist.

In other words if they attack Coalition soldiers with the intent of expelling the occupiers it is not terrorism.

Those people are Partisans.


and all those innocents are pretty much legitamate targets right? would dat be partisans or terrorists? after all if provoking a civil war amongst each other would help drive the Americans away from a hopeless rebuilding dat would be legitamate strategy to target civilians intentionally to provoke a reaction.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Wel according to "the selfproclaimedleader of the Free world " terrorists are are those poeple who are not with america in the War on Terror, a war which has done nothing but creating more terrorism since it started.

With saying that you president immeadiatly condemned millions of people who want to remain neutral . so basicaly beeing neutral is not an option accoring to him, so basicaly predisent bush choose for me to be a terrrorist, as i am not against and not with America in the "war on terror"

Smart move ...



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I couldn't agree with you more XyZer. Bush's agenda can only lead to more terrorism and eventually all out war. According to his criteria the majority of Americans are also terrorists, because we are certainly against the war and his foreign policy. You are in good company.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I think it's sad that, many of you here think that people will be swayed by one word. Surely people over there ( the US ) would read the article and draw their own conclusions, not based on one word. Come on how stupid are people in the US ? Is it really that big a deal



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   


I think it's sad that, many of you here think that people will be swayed by one word. Surely people over there ( the US ) would read the article and draw their own conclusions, not based on one word. Come on how stupid are people in the US ? Is it really that big a deal


Yeah, it is a big deal. The way we use the language effects what we say.

It's not that people will be swayed by one word, it's that people will be swayed by generations of media nonsense, twisting reality into an inedible pretzel. If we're seeing the beginning of that, so be it, just thought I'd mention it.

I AM drawing a conclusion off that one word. The author thinks blowing up mosques and killing congressmen is a form of activism. I disagree with the author of the article, and the editor who approved it.

How stupid are people in the US? Pretty stupid, compared to the rest of the world, we've got an average IQ of 98. That's not so bad though, no excuse at all for the way we're behaving as a culture. 98 is a perfectly functional level of intelligence, so that's not the problem.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Yeah, it is a big deal. The way we use the language effects what we say.




And how we think, and what we DO.

Manipulating language, and re-defining words, is the first line of offense in any population control strategy.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
And how we think, and what we DO.

Manipulating language, and re-defining words, is the first line of offense in any population control strategy.


Well it may work if your average intelligence over there is 98. How you think ..... ? I wasn't aware that the vast majority of americans did much thinking unless it's trying to work out if you can fit Jerry Springer and the Simple Life on the same tape


Maybe it's just me, I'm having trouble lowering myself into your shoes over there.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I'd consider the distinction between "terrorists" and "partisans" a matter of choice of targets. Those attacking (mainly Shiite) civilians I'd consider "terrorists" (as they are attempting to terrorize a civilian population), those attacking the occupying forces are "partisans" (whether we like it or not).

As for the JDL guy, he is clearly a terrorist.
And we should deal with him exactly as we would a Jihadist terrorist.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
IMHO, there is a fine line between terrorists and activists. I believe that a terrorist is someone who uses intimidation, violence or the threat of violence to help achieve a gain. An activist is someone who persues a gain without the use of such measures, but may use physical means. This may include protests or rallies.

The difficulty comes when dealing with known supporters of terrorists. By definition, unless they provide direct support in a physical way, they are activists. Physical means may include fund-raising or supplying or harbouring of weapons, equipment or known terrorists.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

by rouge1:
Well it may work if your average intelligence over there is 98. How you think ..... ?


As for your response to Soficrow's post:
Just to clarify...Soficrow is of, I believe, US descent but currently resides in Canada.


by rouge1:
I wasn't aware that the vast majority of americans did much thinking unless it's trying to work out if you can fit Jerry Springer and the Simple Life on the same tape.


If that is your perception of the US populace as a whole I feel for you son.

Yes, I mean son/daughter/child/what-have-you!

Though I do admit to an element within our society whom thrive upon what you ASSume
(bear in mind...by doing so you become the first three letters)
* for that matter you might want to check the # of viewers in your own country.?!


I am also cognizant of a greater majority who feel and think differently. FYI, we "over here" consist of the most representative [race,color,creed,etc.] population on the planet.

IMO...your "viewpoint(s)" are evident of your youth and immaturity. No offense intended, however, a better understanding of your "target" would be of great value in the future.

Peace2All



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by soficrow
And how we think, and what we DO.

Manipulating language, and re-defining words, is the first line of offense in any population control strategy.


...How you think ..... ? I wasn't aware that the vast majority of americans did much thinking unless it's trying to work out if you can fit Jerry Springer and the Simple Life on the same tape


...I'm having trouble lowering myself into your shoes over there.


If you try really hard, you will get the point.


Also, besides population control through the manipulation of language/thinking, you might want to look into more direct methods like neuromarketing. Here's a start:

Neuro-Marketing: Straight to the Brain


.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join