when did the real terrorism begin ?

reply to post by phatpackage


ok you had your shot it is my turn. I thank every on who gave me useful information. when I say terrorism I am talking about a group of people that have some theories to terror other people and they are not legal . I don't know any legal country such as Israel. there was no country such as Israel in 1948. they just forced English out and took over Palestine.


plz calm down. we talk here and we reason and we have proof. it is not a war . we try to inform , reason and we try to get a conclusion. so please if you have any proof of what your saying show that and don't come by sentences like ' I don't know . may be he's terrorist or some thing '. are you even educated ?

reply to post by phatpackage


ok you had your shot it is my turn. I thank every on who gave me useful information. when I say terrorism I am talking about a group of people that have some theories to terror other people and they are not legal . I don't know any legal country such as Israel. there was no country such as Israel in 1948. they just forced English out and took over Palestine.


plz calm down. we talk here and we reason and we have proof. it is not a war . we try to inform , reason and we try to get a conclusion. so please if you have any proof of what your saying show that and don't come by sentences like ' I don't know . may be he's terrorist or some thing '. are you even educated ?

reply to post by Wolfcub


I am not talking about jews I talking of this new zionists taking over Palestine using Masonic symbols in every corner of their country. I respect Jews because They are followers Of Isa ( one of the greatest prophets who brought humanity a holy book ) . If you claim they are jews in Israel then why there are jews all around the world who don't support or even condemn Israel?

so please try not to mix these two matters to get wrong conclusions. I am talking about these rebels in this modern world ( where people are informed and educated ). there was no country such as Israel before 1948.

Are you with the truth or you try to take side of winner ?

reply to post by Wolfcub


as you are saying these we can conclude this the same way. (and e don't have to proof any thing because every body know).

very long Ago there were just two superpowers in the world : 1.Iran 2.Greece.

at some step of time Iran took over Egypt at one other Iran took over India . then we should claim that we should take over Egypt to India.

may be this was right 200 years ago but the rules has changed. people live in this era don't believe such things.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


your right but we discuss about modern age terrorism . when it is not accepted to invade other countries and take over it by force.

reply to post by hmdphantom


Terrorism does not have a universal definition!!!!!

Terrorism is only defined by states, there are differences between what would make a terrorist a terrorist in America and Russia for example. Therefore your question about “where terrorism began” can’t really be answered, the definitions change to say the first terrorists were the Israeli’s based on your own definition of terrorism does not work. Even by your definition it does not work, I could go back to the massacres of Glencoe in Scotland 1662, the crusades or anytime one state has forcibly conquered another and it would fit in with your definition of terrorism. We could probably go even further back and talk about most of the wars in the world and they would fit your definition, and it’s a pretty week definition

By manipulating the definition of terrorism like this to suggest that Israel were the first terrorists, when this is wrong even by your own warped definition shows that this thread is not about terrorism but your hate of Israel.

You’re from Iran, and you’re living up to the stereotype.

reply to post by kevinunknown


thank you for reply my friend

may be I deserve that label. but I have proof . I think I should have narrowed the defintion .

but I narrowed in my recent replies if you bother to read them. I believe we live in a modern era when the verry big advances had been made and meny of a man's dreams had came true. we had made very promotions in human understanding and in civilization . human rights have been discussed in many countries. and most of the time there are improvements of this right.there has been very improvements that we can not disscus here. we don't live in Alexander era any more.there has been very improvements in general understandings. and if some one is trying to ake over one country and kill innocent people it is condemned by common sense.

then there should be a definition for terrorism in this new age.

Israel started those terrors I mentioned in 1948 before 1962. pay attention.
how would you define that your self.

reply to post by hmdphantom


First of all the Glencoe massacre was 1692, it was a typo I have made the correction.

By your own definition, Israel could not be the first “terrorist” because other states have used force to gain control of land. Rightly or wrongly this does not make Israel the first terrorist.

I would remind you terrorism does not have a universal definition, terrorism is defined by individual states or groups of states not from any universal document. Your definition is meaningless, it does not represent any definition of terrorism that I am familiar with and I doubt that any modern state would define terrorism as you have.

Your views are not formed by your understanding of terrorism, but by your hatred of Israel and I suspect the Jewish population.

What do you want me to define?

reply to post by kevinunknown


I want you to define terrorism as you think or as you are familiar with.
are you afraid of defining some thing . if you are not please define that.

every body tries to reason and get a conclusion . I am here to convince or to be convinced. ok ?
and do not try to label me it doesn't work. we are all human beings and we have analysis power.

with respect.

I am talking about this new era about ( 100 years ago ) when nations came together and stablished international agencies and organizations. I am not talking about Alexander who took over iran or something . focus on 50-100 years ago when nations decided to come together and form international community. do you even read these lines?

and here is one definition of terrorism on wikipedia.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies

as far as I know zionists were not agency members.

and I repeat ' those in Israel are not jews' they are zionists'

if you don't understan ' those in Israel are not jews' they are zionists' tell me to explain more. i am done with you.
you made me tired typing and repeating simple things that you don't understand.

reply to post by hmdphantom

are you even educated ?

Obviously a lot more than you will ever achieve in your lifetime! Well you started that sort of tone about education just responding in kind!

so please if you have any proof of what your saying show

I don't need proof!. It's all there in what you have written. Do you have a problem with English comprehension? It sure seems that way! My argument was that you have clearly made an attempt to defame the Jewish people by giving a sensationalist title and listing several incidents involving Jews and then somehow claiming this is the "Origins" of terrorism.

There is nothing to prove! You have laid all the hate and info out for yourself. Proof????? Jeez you need to understand context!. How stupid do you think people are ATS not to see this?.

When it comes to terrorism Iran is close to being the "King Pins" at the moment. Lol lol lol you actually thought you could pull this off lol lol lol!

question What is terrorism.
answer Terrorism is playing by a set of rules that do not apply.

Medieval crusades.
Starving crusaders cook and eat babies.
The Islamic world recoils in shock, Jerusalem falls.

A generation later Saladin arrives.
He takes Jerusalem back, but takes a very long time doing it.
And in the process teaches chivalry to the west.




-scratch that-





Terrorism: what Islam taught the west

During the crusades the Franks learned something. Something that informed, and helped shape the course of Europe for hundreds of years. It is now so deeply a part of western culture that it has been romanticized into some of our highest ideas. That is the idea of chivalry.

It was Islam, during the crusades that taught the west that a captured Knight is worth more ransomed than dead.

It's simple really. Chivalry, Honor, The Warriors' Code, what ever you want to call it is [color=gold]offering someone the chance to surrender instead of being killed.

It's not popular to remember it now, but a few religions really did civilize warfare in profound ways.

No, but, um, yeah, so
where does that leave terrorism.


During the Crusades the east learned something profound about the west.

It can't handle thinking about suicide troops.


Well, that and westerners are very easy to spy on as they have such an open and naive society. In the court of King Guy the Frankish king who actually ruled Jerusalem, any one could walk in and listen in on the proceedings and plans. But that's another story, only similar to this one in how the western dream of enlightened rulership is viewed as childishly naive by the east.



So suicide troops, yeah.

The Japanese Kamikaze's really blew peoples minds in WWII.

This serves to show how long since the crusades, the fact that western minds have difficulty dealing with suicide troops, continues to be true.



So the first recorded incident of this is when a relative of, King Richard, I think, goes to speak with a Sultan who refuses to open the doors of his castle and then proceeds to have men leap from the walls to their own death repeatedly, until the western noble begs him to stop.

This is terrorism.




It's the same thing as a bank robber who holds a gun to a tellers' head and tells a cop to back off. The teller, at no point, has been given the option of cooperation instead of being killed. The cop is, but not the teller. To ignore, run over, trample someone's chance to comply with the demands of force is to remove all opportunity for mercy. And to somehow have mentally removed someone's own mechanisms of self preservation and literally create a suicide-oriented target-seeking weaponized-human leaves any official with -2 opportunities to offer quarter. The modern suicide bomber has had their body hijacked by their mind, their mind hijacked by their ideology, and as a consequence their actions become non negotiable. All while leaving zero clues, or any hint of a trail back to the sick community that creates such monsters.

In addition to this it pits the key strengths and weaknesses of east vs west directly against each other.

This is about open society vs closed.

The west is easily infiltrated almost welcoming,
this is being used against us to try and make us fear public places.
And no one can find these suicide nuts, let alone call their handlers and tell them to knock it off.

So terrorism is, by definition, using the west's openess against itself, and using the east's closedness to it's advantage.

So here is where logic breaks down.
If you have something that is incomprehensible
and has zero avenues of control
what do you do.

The response of the west is the same, borderline irrational, response (to this day) as it was almost a thousand years ago as those men leapt to their death one after another, up on that castle wall. And the western noble finally appealed to the king to stop. He made an outcry. He made an appeal. We appeal to peoples natures, or to those parts of them that we do want to interact with. Our only solution to this day, is to make appeals. Well, that and scanners.


So when was Terrorism born.
That day, and the morning after when the east realized that the west can't comprehend suicide troops.

So what solutions can I offer?

Well, I can view the east in this way.
The east,
from Japan to Jerusalem
is not a unified country like America is.
It is a sea of world views, any one of which could wind up
in charge of world governance but that they are buffeted about
by the sparks of suicide troops preventing any one of them from rising too far
above the others.

In other words Terrorism cannot be fostered where
an atmosphere of mutual distrust does not already previously exist.

I recommend we do the one thing terrorists can't comprehend.
The entire world start becoming more open.


David Grouchy



THE OMG I'M IN A HURRY GIVE ME THE SHORT VERSION

There is an idea that the west can't process well. It's like dividing by zero for western minds. It crashes existing plans. And what it can't handle is thinking about it, let alone find a way to solve it. That Idea is suicide troops.

I recommend we do the one thing terrorists can't comprehend.
The entire world start becoming more open.

reply to post by hmdphantom

if you don't understan ' those in Israel are not jews' they are zionists' tell me to explain more. i am done with you.

Now that is very close minded of you!. Religion is a freedom of choice and one can practice any flavor they like regardless of their bloodlines!. One can be Catholic but have bloodlines from Ireland, Croatia, Spain or Mexico etc etc. Just because some of them are Ashkenazi they are still Jews because they practice a religion. By your theory above you had better go and tell the Irish, Croatians, The Philippines, and Spanish etc that they are not really Christians because they do not have bloodlines from the "Roman Catholic" Empire days in them. You have extremely flawed logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by hmdphantom


You don’t get this, the problem is your inability to understand that there is no universal definition of terrorism. That is a simple fact, another simple fact is that Wikipedia is probably the least reliable source of “academic” information on the internet for example its definition states that terrorism is only applicable to civilian targets, however the attack on the USS Cole is regarded by the majority as being act of terrorism. Further to this the definition states that terrorist acts are “non-governmental agencies”, Israel is a sovereign state and not a “non governmental agency” and as such by this definition Israel cannot be a terrorist. If I had to give a definition i would quote the definition as set out be the government of the UK as that is the definition most applicable to myself.

Your definition, if your only wanting to talk about what you call the “modern era” of terrorism, could apply to the Nazi invasion of Poland in WWII and as such would still mean that Israel was not the first terrorist state. That point however is mute, because your “definition” of terrorism is not a definition it is your subjective views on what you think terrorism is, that view is not based on facts but your hatred of Israel. You keep moving the parameters of your views to justify you calling Israel the first terrorist state this shows a massive problem with your argument and exposes its ant-Semitic origins.

You clearly do not understand the nature of terrorism.

Terrorism has always existed in one form or another, western states who are fighting the 'war on terror' routinely use terrorist tactics themselves. The whole thing is just a sad, pathetic joke that many people have sadly bought in to.