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.

 

America - Terrorist by definition

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 05:19 AM
link   
@Q
Well true I don't remember any American committing such acts of terrorism either. But Americans don't have to do this because they live in a country where they don't suffer daily. They can get nearly everything they want, and certainly much more than they need.

Notice that terrorism only occured in history when there was an imbalance of power? If there was no superpower in the world, there wouldn't be any terrorism. That's because terrorism doesn't make any sense if everyone is equally equipped and developed.

You can't handle power sensibly. History has shown this. Human beings are not capable of doing any good with power. When someone happens to gain power, he doesn't want to lose it, and he wants more and more of it. Every means is ok if it serves the purpose of keeping the power to himself. Humans will never learn how to share and live in peace and the whole humanity will die because of that stupidity.




posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 05:42 AM
link   
@SocialistOrder

There are so many irrational statements, I must respond.

"But Americans don't have to do this because they live in a country where they don't suffer daily. They can get nearly everything they want, and certainly much more than they need."

Nobody is forced to commit terrorism. Neither Americans nor Palestinians "have" to commit terrorism. "Suffering daily" is no justification for terrorism. As for getting "much more than they need", by whose standards? Whoever the person is who determines that one has "more" than they need is the person that has too much power .

"Notice that terrorism only occured in history when there was an imbalance of power?" Wrong, wrong. There are many instances where terrorism (as defined here) was used despite an apparent balance of power.

"If there was no superpower in the world, there wouldn't be any terrorism." Why? The statement lacks reason. If there was only one superpower consisting of all nations, who would be conducting the terrorism using your rationale?

"That's because terrorism doesn't make any sense if everyone is equally equipped and developed." Terrorism does not ever make sense and, as it is being used in the world today, is self defeating because it alienates possible allies and kills the terrorist in the process. Japanese Kamikaze fighters simply died in WWII -- for nothing.

"You can't handle power sensibly. History has shown this. Human beings are not capable of doing any good with power. When someone happens to gain power, he doesn't want to lose it, and he wants more and more of it. Every means is ok if it serves the purpose of keeping the power to himself. Humans will never learn how to share and live in peace and the whole humanity will die because of that stupidity."

Wrong. Power has been used sensibly. History has examples of good and bad uses of power. Some people who gain power want more; there are others who gain power and use it wisely. Many, including myself, do not believe that every means (like blowing oneself up?) is ok if it serves the purpose of keeping power. Hopefully, humans can live in peace, regardless of whether they share (peace is not contingent on sharing). Humanity will not die unless a terrorist straps on a doomsday device one day and presumes to know best and blows the world up.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Blarney, please give an example of two powers equally balanced that have used terrorist tactics.

How would you fight a war against a foe that has unpresidented resources and funds, when you are under manned, under funded, undermined, misunderstood, misrepresented and under attack?

I guess you have never had the misfortune of being the underdog, maybe your country has never been invaded\occupied by a hostile force, or maybe your blinkers are too tight.

How do you suggest the Palestinians fight there cause, or do you believe they don't have rights to their own land or maybe the global police can go in and liberate the oppressed Palestinians, from the illegally occupying force. Suppose they would have to stop funding that force first though, that or risk being called hypocrits.

I look forward to the day a true democratic representation of all cultures/countries and creeds governs this planet, one that does not manipulate the circumstances for their own economic and power hungry benefit.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Koka]


E_T

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
"All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field."
-Albert Einstein

"In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."
-Edward L. Bernays


Just same in Russian, independent medias have been closed so that they don't tell things that are troublesome for government.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   
America was founded on terrorist acts, or guerilla warfare, or whatever term you choose to use. One group wants to scare another group into change. Please read this little tidbit....

On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor.As the electrifying news of the Boston "tea party" spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own.'

Fast Forward to 9/11 20 some men disguised as business men board planes and take 4000 lives.....

These are 2 instances, however, they can both be percieved as acts of terrorism....both led to war....



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
How would you fight a war against a foe that has unpresidented resources and funds, when you are under manned, under funded, undermined, misunderstood, misrepresented and under attack?

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Koka]


Certainly not by attacking inncocent civilains. There is no justification in that, no matter who you are, what they have done, or how you live.WTC was unjustified and took us by suprise killing thousands of inoccent human beings. Now compare that to gurrila war tatics or the rebuilding of Iraq.



Originally posted by Koka
How do you suggest the Palestinians fight there cause, or do you believe they don't have rights to their own land or maybe the global police can go in and liberate the oppressed Palestinians, from the illegally occupying force. Suppose they would have to stop funding that force first though, that or risk being called hypocrits.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Koka]


Palestinians can fight for there cause any way they can except for the weekly bus bomb or suicide mission, both attempting to kill innocent civilians. If they have to use terrorist's tactics then they should at least put effort into bombing a militarycompound which I'm sure they do occasionally. People don't get pissed when you hurt someone threating you because that is just evolution in action but when you purposely hurt the innocent thats when people get pissed. Same goes for us in the states we thought Iraq was a threat but they weren't and now we are fixing the mess we made. See we have done bad things too but we know when we are wrong and punish ourselves. Thats why everyone hates Bush because he screwed up big and now he probably won't make into office next year.

HADERA, Israel (CNN) -- "A car bomb exploded alongside a bus on a busy street in the northern Israeli town of Hadera during Wednesday's evening rush hour, killing at least two people and wounding at least 55."

There is another interesting thing about the death tollover there www.cnn.com...

Now compare that to Iraq where at least we don't target civilians directly and we are rebuilding Iraq, did you see any Al-Queda members help clean up the mess they made, do you see them designing the buliding in honor of the Trade Center, do you see any Palestinian "militant groups" or Israely "militant groups" paying for what they are doing. Like I said earlier the U.S.A paying for what they have done to Iraq, yes and we are making stronger and better than ever.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I didn't want to say the terrorists' acts are ok, but the reasons are understandble.

Let me do an example. I will take children for this because they often act more humanly than adults do. This probably sounds very simple, maybe slightly too simple, but I think it is adequate to clarify what I was trying to say.

Let's say two boys are living in the same street, the only difference being one boy has received a bicycle for his birthday. The other boy is very jealous because he doesn't understand why he can't have a bicycle and his neighbor can. What does he do? He goes and pierces the tires. Of course doing so is wrong and will not get him a bicycle. The situation will more likely get worse, because the boy who owns the bicycle will get really angry and baste his neighbor, then the parents will get involved and so on...The boy didn't achieve his goal by committing an "act of terror". But he will do exactly the same thing the next time he faces a similar situation unless he's taught a better way.

Isn't that the same with the people called terrorists? I mean they are jealous because they have less money than others while they are even being exploited. They don't understand why. They do some desperate action like killing thousands of innocents, even if this doesn't help them in the long term. They probably don't realize what they do is wrong, simply because they don't know a better solution. They are never shown a way which will solve THEIR problems and fulfill THEIR needs. Instead they are said that they will be wiped out and given no chance. They are not even listened to.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
America was founded on terrorist acts, or guerilla warfare, or whatever term you choose to use. One group wants to scare another group into change. Please read this little tidbit....

On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor.As the electrifying news of the Boston "tea party" spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own.'

Fast Forward to 9/11 20 some men disguised as business men board planes and take 4000 lives.....

These are 2 instances, however, they can both be percieved as acts of terrorism....both led to war....


How can you even compare the Boston tea party to 9/11?? It was a rebellion on taxes that didnt involve mass murder such as 9/11 did. I fail to see even a slight comparison.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
All of you socialist America bashers are a difficult bunch to reason with.
Arguing with a socialist is like trying to teach a pig to sing, it is a waste of time and annoys the pig.

Were it in my power, I would push a button and all the advances the rest of the world use on a daily basis, which were discovered/invented in America, would be withdrawn. That would be most of them by the way. The food and medical recourses we send worldwide would be withdrawn, as would our evil military, which has protected you from places like Russia. (I still to this day think we were on the wrong side in WWII, we should have been on the Russians side instead of the silly Europeans).

The only nations, which we should assist, would be the ones who stand tall by us.

America has done more for the rest of the world than all nations combined as far as disaster help, sending food to starving nations, medical help and care to the helpless, and protection to name a few of our humanitarian ventures. We rebuilt Europe after WWII and what thanks do we get, the Socialist there trashes us constantly.

America is by no means perfect. We keep electing republicans and democrats who by their history have shown a total disregard of our laws and even our country. By our laws, it is illegal for us to even have any troops anywhere outside the USA, much less be in Iraq. It is not our problem.

If you want to talk about body counts, America is not even in the contest with such nations as Russia, Germany, China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, the Middle Eastern Nations, many nations in South and Central America, and most in Africa. These countries have murdered literally millions upon millions of their own citizens either by direct killing or neglect. Yet with all the factual information available on who has murdered who, you socialist overlook the murders of others and cast blame all on Americans though by comparison we have killed very few.

I doubt any of you socialists have the ability to even comprehend what is going on worldwide, but if you ever do get there, try looking at the World Bank, the IMF, and WTC. There you will find the banksters and industrialist who really run the show. They lead American politicians by the nose to do their evil bidding.

Ghostwolfemoon



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
There is not a comparison to the act that occured, but the definition of what terrorism would be.

I am not so ignorant that I would compare the brutality oft he outcome, only the concept of what terrorism is. I thought that is what the thread was about?

Are we not supposed to stick to what the thread is speaking of?



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Blarney, please give an example of two powers equally balanced that have used terrorist tactics.

How would you fight a war against a foe that has unpresidented resources and funds, when you are under manned, under funded, undermined, misunderstood, misrepresented and under attack?

I guess you have never had the misfortune of being the underdog, maybe your country has never been invaded\occupied by a hostile force, or maybe your blinkers are too tight.

How do you suggest the Palestinians fight there cause, or do you believe they don't have rights to their own land or maybe the global police can go in and liberate the oppressed Palestinians, from the illegally occupying force. Suppose they would have to stop funding that force first though, that or risk being called hypocrits.

I look forward to the day a true democratic representation of all cultures/countries and creeds governs this planet, one that does not manipulate the circumstances for their own economic and power hungry benefit.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Koka]


This is exactly the point - you say "How would you fight a war against a foe that has unpresidented resources and funds, when you are under manned, under funded, undermined, misunderstood, misrepresented and under attack?".

Well, simply - WHY are they at war? Exactly what has America done that is so wrong? We gave the middle east money to build up thier oil industry (granted because we needed that oil) and that in turn created lots of jobs and wealth. They hate us and attack us because of that? Or how about because we are "infedels" - you know, because their imaginary friend is the real imaginary friend.


Maybe they wouldn't be under attack if they hadn't attacked the marine barracks (who were there to keep peace) or the USS Cole, or the WTC TWICE ect ect ect. Missunderstood? HARDLY! Everyone understands them! They want everyone to DIE if they do not convert to their beliefs.

Then you give this little tid bit "How do you suggest the Palestinians fight there cause, or do you believe they don't have rights to their own land or maybe the global police can go in and liberate the oppressed Palestinians, from the illegally occupying force. Suppose they would have to stop funding that force first though, that or risk being called hypocrits."

If I were them, I'd take a good look at the tactics of Ghandi and Martin Luther King. It would be a lot easier for America and European countries to force the Isrealis into playing fair if Isreal wasn't being attacked on a daily basis! And just so you realize, the Isrealis have just as much right to that land as the palisinians do.

Basically, the only reason that the US is even over there is because terrorists attacked our country, these terrorists are mostly of Arabic blood and operate and train out of middle eastern countries. If these people had not ATTACKED the US OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, then maybe we wouldn't have to go over there. Or maybe if these middle eastern countries actually took care of their own country then we wouldn't have to do it for them. World police? No, but we will police other nations if their outlaws pose a threat to our country.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Make no mistake about the fact the U.S. would behead someone on tape if it was the means to an end.

The acts the U.S have done for its own interest would make your toes curl. Heck the U.S. taught most of the tortures how to do their job better (School of the Americas?)

If China moved on Taiwan they would respond. Is That terrorism? I don't know.

But I have to state, a country doing an act you do not agree with is not terrorism. Jusy a handy catch phrase that makes you sound very uninformed.

Do not use the dictionary definition. Terrorism is using acts deemed worthy to scare a people into acting how you want. The victim is arbitrary.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
Make no mistake about the fact the U.S. would behead someone on tape if it was the means to an end.

Wow I very highly doubt that...


The acts the U.S have done for its own interest would make your toes curl. Heck the U.S. taught most of the tortures how to do their job better (School of the Americas?)

Want to give some examples? I'd be interested in hearing about things America has condoned (I'm not talking rogue soldiers here) that are worse than sawing someone's head off with a machette or murdering over 3,000 innocent civilians.


If China moved on Taiwan they would respond. Is That terrorism? I don't know.

No, it would be defending an ally.


But I have to state, a country doing an act you do not agree with is not terrorism. Jusy a handy catch phrase that makes you sound very uninformed.

Do not use the dictionary definition. Terrorism is using acts deemed worthy to scare a people into acting how you want. The victim is arbitrary.

I guess I have to agree with you on these last points... Doing something that people don't agree with (embarrassing prisoners of war ala Abu Ghraib) is one thing, commiting evil, barbaric acts (sawing an innocent civilian's head off) is entirely anotther.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Faisca]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
Make no mistake about the fact the U.S. would behead someone on tape if it was the means to an end.

lol, please tell me you're joking.


Well said Q and well said Ghost. But unfortunately your words will go unheeded, because according to the stuff I'm reading in this thread, when you're non-American that automatically means you know more about America and what it's like to be American and the American way life than real Americans.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Well said Q and well said Ghost. But unfortunately your words will go unheeded, because according to the stuff I'm reading in this thread, when you're non-American that automatically means you know more about America and what it's like to be American and the American way life than real Americans.

I always seem to get that impression. And wow, I never knew that people who have never lived in America, or atleast haven't grown up in and lived in America for a very long time, know more about our country than we do. It's an amazing phenomenon...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I see no reason why someone not American would not know more about America than some of the native Americans themselves. Especially regarding the topics we are discussing here.

Personally I think it's kind of amusing to mock Americans at times. Although many are such weenies, they tend to be so cocky and pretend to know how the world works without even having travelled nor experienced the world they are talking about.

Anyway, back to topic:



There is no justification in attacking innocent civilians, no matter who you are, what they have done, or how you live. WTC was unjustified and took us by suprise killing thousands of inoccent human beings.


Civilians represent their country. That's reason enough.

It's like saying: You have no reason to scratch my car, it's innocent!
Well, dear sweetie baby honey~~ Wake up. This is life. Sure they'd like to chop Bush's head of, but it's just more convenient to chop the head of someone stupid enough to walk around in front of their range.

Also, to say WTC was unjustified would be disregarding of a whole range of events that have made these guys mad during the past years. People don't commit suicide for nothing, neither did the Kamikaze back in WWII.



If they have to use terrorist's tactics then they should at least put effort into bombing a militarycompound which I'm sure they do occasionally.


Sure they've done, more than occasionally. Much more than beheadings. However, it get's to a point where even uneducated fighters realize that suicide like trying to attack the American military is less useful than other strategies.



we don't target civilians directly and we are rebuilding Iraq, did you see any Al-Queda members help clean up the mess they made, do you see them designing the buliding in honor of the Trade Center


Tell me, didn't the invasion of Iraq start with "Shock & Awe"? I'm sure you'd like them to get down on their knees with gratitude for being blown up by bombs for no reason. Moron.



All of you socialist America bashers are a difficult bunch to reason with. Arguing with a socialist is like trying to teach a pig to sing, it is a waste of time and annoys the pig.


No, actually the "pigs" are enjoying the show~ Why socialist btw..? Is that some prejudice of yours




Well, simply - WHY are they at war? Exactly what has America done that is so wrong?


Come on man... Are you living on another planet, how the heck did you end up in this conversation? USA invaded Iraq.



Basically, the only reason that the US is even over there is because terrorists attacked our country, these terrorists are mostly of Arabic blood and operate and train out of middle eastern countries.


Now that just justifies the whole damn thing, doesn't it. Bomb the Middle East, hallelujah~ There's plenty of "possible terrorists" out there I can assure you.



Terrorism is using acts deemed worthy to scare a people into acting how you want. The victim is arbitrary.


Yepp, exactly. And if America succeeds they'll have plenty of oil and a new strategic base in the Middle East.

I'm a pig ya know, so don't try to convince me that America is Not a terrorist, cause that would be like trying to teach a pig how to sing... Although unlike a pig, I actually enjoy it, and I'll drive you mad just for the fun of it.

Cheers



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   


Blarney, please give an example of two powers equally balanced that have used terrorist tactics.


Using the definition of terrorism previously supplied, terrorist tactics were used in almost every war (including WWII). Japan arguably was terroristic in attacking Pearl Harbor. England was terroristic (again, using the supplied definition) attacking French ships for fear they would ultimately be used by Germany. I could cite to many examples because the given definition of "terrorism" was so broad.



How would you fight a war against a foe that has unpresidented resources and funds, when you are under manned, under funded, undermined, misunderstood, misrepresented and under attack?


The question is so general that it is difficult to respond to. What war is being discussed? In many circumstances, one does not have to fight a war where one is "under manned, under funded, undermined, misunderstood, misrepresented and under attack". One option that has not been discussed is giving up. If giving up has not been considered yet the situation is hopeless, what is the dying for other than futile disregard of life? One thing is for sure, I would never fight a war by advocating that people strap bombs on their bodies and become suicide bombers. It is, on its face, obviously self defeating because the bomber naturally dies in the process.



I guess you have never had the misfortune of being the underdog, maybe your country has never been invaded\occupied by a hostile force, or maybe your blinkers are too tight.


I have been the underdog many times. I am always hopeful that, despite being the underdog, I can win or lose with grace and dignity. As for my country, it is the United States. We had a bloody civil war - brother against brother. Thousands of deaths occurred on both sides. In the end, the famous general, General Lee, was faced with the prospect of a guerilla type (some would call it terroristic) war from the hills and countryside or the prospect of giving up. General Lee, a very brave, intelligent and dignified man, gave up the fight. He was the underdog, attacked by a hostile force, his land (the south) occupied - if Lee continued the fight through guerilla or terrorist tactics, our country would have been torn apart. General Lee made the right and wise decision to give up with dignity.



How do you suggest the Palestinians fight there cause, or do you believe they don't have rights to their own land or maybe the global police can go in and liberate the oppressed Palestinians, from the illegally occupying force. Suppose they would have to stop funding that force first though, that or risk being called hypocrits.


I am suggesting that the Palestinians fights in peaceful ways. I am suggesting the Palestinians give up the idea that they "have" to "fight" a war. If the Palestinians have to resort to suicide bombers, they have already lost the war. It requires swallowing one's pride and giving up - Israel is not going anywhere regardless of the wrong and right of it, regardless of whether it is an "illegally occupying force" or not. The war is over, the suicide bombs needs to stop.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   


Let's say two boys are living in the same street, the only difference being one boy has received a bicycle for his birthday. The other boy is very jealous because he doesn't understand why he can't have a bicycle and his neighbor can. What does he do? He goes and pierces the tires. Of course doing so is wrong and will not get him a bicycle. The situation will more likely get worse, because the boy who owns the bicycle will get really angry and baste his neighbor, then the parents will get involved and so on...The boy didn't achieve his goal by committing an "act of terror". But he will do exactly the same thing the next time he faces a similar situation unless he's taught a better way.


I think I understand what you are saying and agree with much of your point. However while your analogy may hold true for some, it does not hold for others. Bin Laden is too sophisticated, intelligent and mature for your analogy to apply. He is not piercing his neighbor's bicycle tire out of envy nor is he jealous (being rich himself). Bin Laden, one that could with his charisma, intelligence and money, teach others "a better way" as you put it. Instead, he fails miserably and teaches violence and self defeating behavior. Bin Laden, and what he teaches, is part of the problem and not the solution.

Likewise, there are others (some leaders in Iraq and the PLO), to name a few, who are too intelligent and sophisticated for your analogy to apply. They are not ignorant of a better way and they are not children. They know better but they choose the worse. They are, again, not part of the solution but part of the problem.

With all that being said, I agree that your analogy can apply to some and it is helpful to have an understanding regarding those.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   


Civilians represent their country. That's reason enough.


No, that is not reason enough. Your rationale supports dropping bombs indiscriminately on civilians in Iraq because they represent their country. There is a distinction between government policy makers and the civilian populace.




Also, to say WTC was unjustified would be disregarding of a whole range of events that have made these guys mad during the past years. People don't commit suicide for nothing, neither did the Kamikaze back in WWII.


"Justification" for an act is not the same as "the reasons" somebody performs an act. There is a "whole range of events" that have made the "terrorists" mad before WTC - none of which constitutes justification for the WTC disaster. You're right, people don't usually commit suicide for nothing. Some are selfish and do it to get virgins in the afterlife. Some give up their lives for their brothers (like a soldier jumping on a grenade). Still others, do it out of futility despite knowing full well it will accomplish nothing. Many Kamikaze gave their lives foolishly out of an overzealous and misguided sense of duty to their emperor and family. Many good lives were lost because the Kamikaze pilots were sacrificed by military leaders who knew the war was already lost.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Since you started this debate, I am interested in knowing your thoughts. I cannot dispute the terrorism argument given the definition you supplied. You're challenge, "prove me wrong", is probably impossible to do.

However, the tone of your posts seems extremely anti-American. I asked this in a previous post and will ask it again. Assuming you are correct that America commits terrorist acts, why are America's acts worse than any other terrorist act?

I am biased for America because I am a U.S. Citizen, proud and consider myself a patriot. Why are you seemingly biased against America? Or am I wrong?

I believe America's so called "terrorist" acts are less immoral than other terrorist acts (like the WTC). You, as an unbiased person, should see America as, at least, morally equivalent to other countries and groups. Why the hostility seemingly directed in only one direction? Shouldn't the hostility be evenly distributed between all the so-called terrorists?

Another question, were the students in Tianeman Square in Beijing the terrorists or was the government committing terrorist acts in squelching the rebellion? Were both sides terroristic?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join