Who is really the terrorist?

reply to post by lbndhr
as a 5th gen then you should know , the minute men where terrorist to the Brits and the Brits where terrorist to the minute men. tit for tat so who is who and what is what, it is not black and white now is it?

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by lbndhr

 

as a 5th gen then you should know , the minute men where terrorist to the Brits and the Brits where terrorist to the minute men. tit for tat so who is who and what is what, it is not black and white now is it?

I will ad minute men to my list if i could find a reason to list them that said. I see the minute men as ridding the british from their rule of selfish tax and power rule. Hey resembles amrica right know am I right?

Is it a terrorist act to, loan money to bad ideas? knowing it will fail before the loan has even left the bank? is it terrorist act to loan money to people who never intend to pay them back all the while continue taking from everyone they can knowing the people are doing this before the loan leaves the bank? is it terrorist act to realize a leadership is purposing sabatozing a country? IS it terrorist act to knowing put chemicals known toharm people in theri food and drugs?

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


If I really wanted to I could go and create an account with Wiki and change that the page that the op has used to put in whatever rubbish I want. Wki should never ever be used as a source at best it is good for getting some background information but it is the worst possible source anyone can present to back up a argument.

The only thing worse than trying to use Wikipedia to define terrorism is a online dictionary, I honestly can’t take anyone seriously who is so naive as to use one of those to define something as complex as terrorism.

Furthermore if you had bothered to read my thread you might have noticed that the main theme is discussing the difficulties in pinning down a true definition of terrorism and not actually providing a definitive definition. It is not my opinion it is just a statement of fact, terrorism cannot be defined and one should be careful when using the word. I apologise that the language used in my thread was not simple enough to convey that message to you, I will lower the reading age for my future threads.

For the record for myself I hold the definition of terrorism to be that as set out under the Terrorism Act 2000, however due to the subjective nature of the word you may hold true a different definition depending on your state.

and yes I took the countries names out of the definitions... No need for that...

Considering that it is the state that defines terrorism there is every need for that, in fact it is the only thing you really need, not the dictionary.

reply to post by lbndhr

Terrorism is simply a tool of the State
whether the state perpetrates it on it's own subjects,
[ex. Sodom, aye and Gomorrah, had roving bands of gang rapists: the children of Belial, refereed to as sodomites; in present times the State and it's "intelligence" apparatus, will use dupes, often mentally ill persons to perpetrate attacks on civilians, for the express purpose of generating outrage which will be skillfully directed towards tightening the States grasp. Another method is to infiltrate the opposition, and subvert it so as to use it in the same manner. ]

or conveniently uses it to label it's opponents, in order to justify getting rid of them by any means possible, often these means are not considered justifiable in a regular war.
[ex. when the Iraqis or Afghans, attacked invading coalition forces, this was falsely labeled as terrorism, so as to ignore/violate the Geneva convention. the use of dupes,controlled opposition, and taking advantage of the enmity between sunnis and shiites to attack civilians, greatly assisted coalition forces in labeling legitimate opposition/freedom fighters as terrorists. ]

i see people posting that "they should wear uniforms...", how pathetic... did these people ever leave grade school?
[ex. a bully who only knows how to "Box" is confronted by his victim who retaliates using fists, feet, elbows, knee's and other martial arts moves, soundly bloodying bully's nose, bully then screams "fight fair, Mother***** and then attacks with his entire gang of 20, having as an excuse that his would be victim is a "Cheater""]

don't pick fights and make up BS, when your violence returns to you, in order to justify
bringing a machine-gun to a fistfight, because your opponent won't follow your arbitrary rules [designed to benefit you and only you]

Focus on the critical sentence: "Yet, when a victim explodes or acts out in unacceptable ways, these same officials are shocked and indignant."

What exactly are these "unacceptable ways" of exploding or acting out? Who decided they were "unacceptable"? Why is it that "reluctant school officials" will not "take definitive action" against the bullies -- thus tacitly conceding that the bullying itself is not all that "unacceptable" -- while the same officials are "shocked and indignant" when the victim protests too strongly?
This pattern, and certain of its origins, will be found throughout history, in every culture around the world. The pattern is a simple and deadly one: the oppressor -- that is, those who are in the superior position, whether they are parents, school officials, or the government, or in a superior position merely by virtue of physical strength -- may inflict bodily harm and/or grievous, lifelong emotional and psychological injury, but the victim may only protest within the limits set by the oppressor himself. The oppressor will determine those forms of protest by the victim that are "acceptable."
You see this pattern with regard to many helpless, lonely children in addition to Billy Wolfe...
The oppressor may inflict unimaginable cruelties on innocent victims -- but the victims may only protest in ways which the oppressor deems "acceptable." The profound injustice is obvious, but not in itself remarkable or unexpected: this is how oppression operates. But ask yourself about the deeper reason for the prohibition. This is of the greatest importance: the victims may only protest within a constricted range of "permissible" behavior because, when they exceed the prescribed limits, they make the oppressors too uncomfortable. They force the oppressors to confront the nature of what they, the oppressors, have done in ways that the oppressors do not choose to face.
Take some time to appreciate the unfathomable cruelty of this pattern. You may be grievously harmed and even permanently damaged by the actions of those who hold unanswerable power -- but you may only speak about this evil and its effects within the very narrow limits set by those who would destroy you. If you are killed, the identical prohibitions apply to those who still manage to survive and who would protest the unforgivable crime committed against you. In this manner, the complacency and comfort of those who possess immense power and wealth are underwritten by the silence forced upon their victims. The victims may speak and even protest, but only within severely circumscribed limits, and only so long as their rulers are not made to feel too uncomfortable, or too guilty. Anything which approaches too close to the truth is strictly forbidden.

SOURCE:Memo to the Victims: You Yourselves Will Pay for the Crimes of the Ruling Class powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...

if a victim of the US's imperialist policies or an american citizen were to blow up congress or the white house with all it's occupants, that would Not be an act of terrorism, but a mislabeled act of war

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz

 

If I really wanted to I could go and create an account with Wiki and change that the page that the op has used to put in whatever rubbish I want. Wki should never ever be used as a source at best it is good for getting some background information but it is the worst possible source anyone can present to back up a argument.

The only thing worse than trying to use Wikipedia to define terrorism is a online dictionary, I honestly can’t take anyone seriously who is so naive as to use one of those to define something as complex as terrorism.

Furthermore if you had bothered to read my thread you might have noticed that the main theme is discussing the difficulties in pinning down a true definition of terrorism and not actually providing a definitive definition. It is not my opinion it is just a statement of fact, terrorism cannot be defined and one should be careful when using the word. I apologise that the language used in my thread was not simple enough to convey that message to you, I will lower the reading age for my future threads.

For the record for myself I hold the definition of terrorism to be that as set out under the Terrorism Act 2000, however due to the subjective nature of the word you may hold true a different definition depending on your state.

and yes I took the countries names out of the definitions... No need for that...

Considering that it is the state that defines terrorism there is every need for that, in fact it is the only thing you really need, not the dictionary.

edit on 23-12-2011 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

This should shut your debate down trying to deface this topic.


Definition of Terrorism under U.S. Law.


United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

PreviousNext1

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz

 

If I really wanted to I could go and create an account with Wiki and change that the page that the op has used to put in whatever rubbish I want. Wki should never ever be used as a source at best it is good for getting some background information but it is the worst possible source anyone can present to back up a argument.

The only thing worse than trying to use Wikipedia to define terrorism is a online dictionary, I honestly can’t take anyone seriously who is so naive as to use one of those to define something as complex as terrorism.

Furthermore if you had bothered to read my thread you might have noticed that the main theme is discussing the difficulties in pinning down a true definition of terrorism and not actually providing a definitive definition. It is not my opinion it is just a statement of fact, terrorism cannot be defined and one should be careful when using the word. I apologise that the language used in my thread was not simple enough to convey that message to you, I will lower the reading age for my future threads.

For the record for myself I hold the definition of terrorism to be that as set out under the Terrorism Act 2000, however due to the subjective nature of the word you may hold true a different definition depending on your state.

and yes I took the countries names out of the definitions... No need for that...

Considering that it is the state that defines terrorism there is every need for that, in fact it is the only thing you really need, not the dictionary.

edit on 23-12-2011 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Okay now you are just trying to be insulting... Like I said who are you to say your definition is correct? IMO NOBODY that matters... so take your reading down to a lower grade if you must but you might want to read over your poor grammar before you do (see bold). Besides, I don't want to spend several paragraphs reading about what your opinion of terrorism is. Could explain why you only have 2 flags...

and FYI I took the countries out because it says former... so try reading that next time as well... Why put Russian and France in there when they are referring to past definitions? Like I said NO NEED FOR THAT. So it's your OPINION that dictionaries are not good to find meanings of words... Like I said your not too creditable...

BUT like I said... what do I know...

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by lbndhr

 

I'm sure you know that "terrorist" is an emotionally loaded word and it's definition can be the source of angry debate. Before we get to that situation, could you explain what your definition of a terrorist is?

It's certainly not a group of people who use violence to attain a goal. Nor is it a group of people who have an idea they want accepted.

A solid definition of "terrorist" might help this thread go more smoothly.

Hey Charles!

This is a tactic called “accuse others of what you do” and was started by the left’s hero, Carl Marx. It’s not a surprise this tactic is employed more today than ever. A good percentage of American’s have been thoroughly indoctrinated over the past 3 - 4 generations. Hating on America, the country that has done more for freedom in the world than any country in history, has become commonplace.

Noble Americans, like innocent children, could then be perceived as the enemy and become objects of hate. Americans with common sense are presently called terrorists because they hold up a mirror to those with converted and treacherous hearts.

In anticipation of the next 9/11, many have begun transferring their sympathies to foreign terrorists. In this context, those already preconditioned through family life to respond to the strongest force, (a tyrant parent or sibling) shall turn on those who stand tall. Many, who oppose the war, have hearts already beating in sympathy with dictators like Saddam Hussein. A traumatic event of great magnitude will complete the transfer of loyalty from family bullies to America 's bullies, tipping the balance of the election to the terrorists’ advantage, as recently occurred in Spain.

link

reply to post by seabag


im thinking your talking about me hating America, I love America, my fellow neighbors east to west to north, Americans are caring sharing by nature, know the current leadership name some loving caring decisions they made in past 10 plus years that was brought with us normal citizens into the ideas before they were enacted?
And I appreciate the police at least for know because without them life would be true hell.

reply to post by lbndhr

im thinking your talking about me hating America, I love America, my fellow neighbors east to west to north, Americans are caring sharing by nature, know the current leadership name some loving caring decisions they made in past 10 plus years that was brought with us normal citizens into the ideas before they were enacted?

I was referring to everyone who considers America to be a terrorist nation. You claim to love America but everything you’re typing seems to contradict that statement. I don’t know what you’re looking for but I can share this:

From 1995 – 2005 the US provided @60% of the world’s food aide!



The US remains (by far) the largest provider of foreign aid in the world. We do it to help other countries who are less fortunate, not to buy support. In fact, the graph below shows that the countries we’ve helped most are no more likely to agree with us than anybody else.



When you do kind things for other human being without the expectation of something in return it’s called generosity! America is the most generous nation in the world…not a terrorist nation. If you want to base the terrorist assertion on the wars in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and completely overlook the past 230+ years of goodness, including two World Wars and other conflicts fighting fascism, communism and totalitarianism as well as countless peace keeping operations then you’re being disingenuous.

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


Yeah you’re not getting this, I am not trying to define terrorism I am trying to illustrate the complexities of the word. My aim is not to provide any definition of terrorism but to show the difficulties in finding a definition, this is not my opinion this is absolute fact, there does not exist a universal definition of terrorism by thread is only attempting to inform as to why this is the case and point out that we should be cautious when using the word. I cannot emphasise enough just how wrong you are to assume that I am trying to define terrorism.

I apologise if my tong in cheek response to your post has offended you that was not my attention and thank you for highlighting my grammatical errors. The fundamental point however does remain, you will not find a true definite of terrorism in a dictionary or on Wikipedia, the best definitions are found in legislation and in academia. However even these are fraught with problems and are not truly universal despite numerous attempts to arrive at international definition this has yet to be achieved.

I would also like to point out that your post did appear to suggest you were ignoring sate definitions of terrorism as they were not needed in your view rather than that you were avoiding using former definitions of terrorism by states. State definitions of terrorism are the most important for obvious reasons of jurisprudence. However I apologise again if I have perhaps jumped the gun on this point it may have been better to have asked you to have elaborated on this point before discussing it further. But with that said, from the line I have quoted you on it does appear to read that you have chosen to ignore state definitions of terrorism.

reply to post by lbndhr


Ahhh now,

You would think that would shut this debate down but it does not, nor am I trying to deface your thread. For you that is the definition that you may or should hold to be true as you are subject to American law, however I am subject to British law and therefore I hold true an alternative definition as set out under the Terrorism Act 2000.

One could argue that with ATS being predominantly American site we should use the American definition of Terrorism although in practicality this is not possible. ATS is a really an international website that discusses international topics what terrorism means to you is different to what it may mean to me. Also if we are discussing a terrorist atrocity in America then it is only proper that we discuss it in terms of the American legal definition of terrorism, however if we are discussing a terrorist event in say Norway then we must now alter the definition. Therefore it becomes impractical to start exclusively using one definition over another’s. The only solution for this is to state what definition is being used early on in the thread so we are all on the same page, or when discussing international terrorism or other types of terrorism we then must rely on caution when using the word.

reply to post by lbndhr


Q: Who are the terrorists?
A: LEO's Are Terrorists.
Senate Bill 1867: LEO's Are Terrorists. Will The Military Arrest Them?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A not very well received thread.

reply to post by lbndhr

Dear lbndhr,

You know, seabag may have a point. Whether it's confusion in language, or definitions, or thought, you do seem to be creating the impression that you think there are a lot of terrorist activity committed by Americans. Do you remember this post:

Is it a terrorist act to, loan money to bad ideas? knowing it will fail before the loan has even left the bank? is it terrorist act to loan money to people who never intend to pay them back all the while continue taking from everyone they can knowing the people are doing this before the loan leaves the bank? is it terrorist act to realize a leadership is purposing sabatozing a country? IS it terrorist act to knowing put chemicals known toharm people in theri food and drugs?

It certainly seems like you're calling bankers, goverment, and industry, terrorists. You shouldn't be surprised when people say to you "Wait a minute, hold on there."

With respect,
Charles1952

Hi,
you guys remember rambo 3....at the end....it was dedicated to the "galant" afghan people and their "struggle"for freedom or something....soo,,,,,if rambo kills a bunch of russians who never actually atacked us directly....its ok..and the "poor terrorists" are out numbered in their killing of the evil russians...so we need to help them (1988)

and now (2011) those same "terrorists" that try and kill us might have the same support from the russians since after all they arent killing them anymore....they are killing US...

Just to note...even if they kill us or russians for example....they are killing the invading force in that region....soooo
maybe the crazy liberals or the hard ass republicans are both wrong......

but either way....if we LEAVE they will have a harder time killing us......might just go back to killing eachother untill one group wins or all agree to end the madness......its not up to us....thats the real issue....who the hell are we to tell them to make up and play nice....

reply to post by lbndhr


the real terrorists are the us and the uk governments , the so called iraq terrorists are freedom fighters .
if the freedom fighters take their fight to another country and attack civilians then they become terrorists

reply to post by newyorkee


yes and do you remember what rambo,s comanding officer said ( THE AFGHANS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING OFF INVADERS FOR OVER 500 YEARS AND HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL ) this is their home land and they have every right to defend themselves .

Originally posted by newyorkee
Hi,
you guys remember rambo 3....at the end....it was dedicated to the "galant" afghan people and their "struggle"for freedom or something....soo,,,,,if rambo kills a bunch of russians who never actually atacked us directly....its ok..and the "poor terrorists" are out numbered in their killing of the evil russians...so we need to help them (1988)

and now (2011) those same "terrorists" that try and kill us might have the same support from the russians since after all they arent killing them anymore....they are killing US...

Just to note...even if they kill us or russians for example....they are killing the invading force in that region....soooo
maybe the crazy liberals or the hard ass republicans are both wrong......

but either way....if we LEAVE they will have a harder time killing us......might just go back to killing eachother untill one group wins or all agree to end the madness......its not up to us....thats the real issue....who the hell are we to tell them to make up and play nice....

edit on 24-12-2011 by newyorkee because: (no reason given)

Thank you fir your reply, I opened this thread realizing its severe topic, im not a writter-journalist I am not gifted with that talent, bringing a shirt topic to a first thread was risky but I knew I would get reply with well crafted sense , this reply is deffinately true in my opinion.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by lbndhr

 

Dear lbndhr,

You know, seabag may have a point. Whether it's confusion in language, or definitions, or thought, you do seem to be creating the impression that you think there are a lot of terrorist activity committed by Americans. Do you remember this post:

Is it a terrorist act to, loan money to bad ideas? knowing it will fail before the loan has even left the bank? is it terrorist act to loan money to people who never intend to pay them back all the while continue taking from everyone they can knowing the people are doing this before the loan leaves the bank? is it terrorist act to realize a leadership is purposing sabatozing a country? IS it terrorist act to knowing put chemicals known toharm people in theri food and drugs?

It certainly seems like you're calling bankers, goverment, and industry, terrorists. You shouldn't be surprised when people say to you "Wait a minute, hold on there."

With respect,
Charles1952

See I know about the 20003-2006 mortgage scandal. I earned my Cali realators license in 2003,after receiving it and finding a realtor broker to work under, the way it worker was get people to buy the most expensive home you could convince them to take, no down payment,fees people were falling for it left and right, I could not be part of this because I understood the 5 year affect of this being I understood arm loans add to my understanding the years of worldly research I realized it was bank loans from middle east loans, I knew sadam had declared economic warefare on America, I quit without one sale, a few years later American banks started buying bundle loans from these foreign investors, not first researching if these real estate loans were sustainable, the list goes on. I add people can research what I claim. Peace

Terrorism is perfectly obvious when it happens - you don't need any fancy definitions for it.

There are of course large no's of twats who would like to cloud and obscure the motives and definition of terrorism.