Terrorists - the new name for any enemy who fights back?

*Disclaimer - in no way, shape, or form do I support the actions of these evil men.


When you think about it, why are terrorists really called terrorists? They are simply defending themselves in a war largely initiated by the US and allies.

The reason I think "terrorism" is so shocking is because America hasn't been fought back against since the Vietnam war. We've become so passive and felt so high and mighty that when someone fights back, they are labeled the aggressors.

Sadly, I feel Osama Bin Laden had a semi-valid point in his closing arguement of his speech

"As for those who lie to people and say that we hate freedom and kill for the sake of killing � reality proves that we are the speakers of truth and they lie, because the killing of the Russians took place only after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya; the killing of the Europeans took place only after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; the killing of the Americans in the Battle of New York took place only after their support for the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian Peninsula; their killing in Somalia happened only after Operation Restore Hope. We restored them without hope, by the grace of Allah."

They attack our homeland after we attack theirs or support their enemies; "The friends of our enemies are our enemies" type situation. The thing is, the US is not used to the fighting being brought to our own soil. Since the American Revolution, there have been only 2 acts of war on American soil (Pearl Harbor & 9/11). The fact of the matter is, however, it is an act of war.

I guess im curious as to why America calls anyone who attacks them "terrorists" when they have troops meddling in other countrys. No country likes occupation and many will fight to end it. How is the foreign policy of Al-Qaeda (violence to achieve a political goal) any different from the political policy of the USA (invasion/occupation to achieve a political goal)?

The war of the powerless is called 'terrorism', and the terrorism of the powerful is called 'war'.

That sums it up perfectly. Did you just make that up? I might have to profile that, lol.

Originally posted by masterp
The war of the powerless is called 'terrorism', and the terrorism of the powerful is called 'war'.

well said

Using Bin Laden and then bringing "occupation" forces are two different matters is it not? Al-Qaeda cannot have a "foreign policy". They are not representitive of a nation or state. Only these can have "foreign policies".

What is Bin Laden? Who is Bin Laden? Is Bin Laden representitive of a nation under occupation? Is he even a leader of a nation, for that matter? He is not even of the religious authority to even be able to decree a 'Jihad'. Under many defintions, by various world community nations, terrorism is what Bin Laden is committing and doing.

Troops in Iraq are labeled many things. Your choice of wording in describing them as "occupiers" is such a one.
In any account, what you are either knowing or unknowing 'playing' is the cliche': "one person�s terrorist is another person�s freedom fighter", correct.

So in such a case, are the acts of "freedom fighters" versus the acts of terrorism definably different or discernable? You have to realize that each culture, society, and nation has different interpretations of what terrorism is or is not. This includes Islam.

I would encourage that you, me, and others delve into your or this thesis a bit more and see if indeed there are differences....
Some good links to good sources in the links provided below, but researching the difference is achieved quite easily with any search engine and time:
Terrorism: Can You Decide?
Terrorism: Brief Historical Perspective.
Terrorism: Western Perspective
Terrorism: Islamic Perspective



seekerof

I totally agree. Vietnam was are last real offensive war. Afghanastan, Iraq, Haiti these wernt wars and they werent offensive. I mean sure we were the ones invading but it was more like moving into defensive positions. See when were attacking any casulaties are our fault but when were defending the attacker is a terrorist.

Terrorism is when someone kills innocent people to make a statement, blowing "civilians" up. Osama has said in the past that even when they were being helped by us (the US) they were thinking on stabbing us in the back. Of course he said this later on in an interview in 1995, after we had helped him and his group thinking they would be allies.

In war it is possible to hit some civilians by mistake when attacking military or terrorist groups. Also, before we attacked Iraq or any other place we told them we would do so. Many people left Baghdag, but others decided to stay. It was their choices to stay in Baghdag and other areas that put them in danger.

Terrorists do not say before hand where they are going to attack. They may give a warning that if their demands are not met they will bomb another place, but they do not give advanced warning to civilians which place they will bomb and do not really care for civilians as it was shown in the last attack in Madrid.

In war we try not to hit civilians, but if they stay in the areas where we attack and those places are hit it is not because of terrorism.

I really believe that there has to be definedly something wrong with whoever says that Bin Laden and Islamic extremists are not terrorists. The bombings in the US and Madrid showed us that they will target "civilians" even if there are no military present in the place where they attack

The US military is beyond Al-Qaeda's capablities so they resort to different war tactics.

AL-Qaeda has been performing such activities or resorting to different war tactics for how long Cutwolf.....this was long before they entertained, thought, and before actual confrontation with the US military, correct?



seekerof

OK, I'll change that a bit:
why doesn't terrorism not attack solely military targets, if indeed, terrorism is "violence to achieve a political goal"?
Maybe that will provide more of a response.


seekerof

That is the most meaningless garbage I've heard in a long while. At least since the last time I heard a Kerry clip.
There is no war in slamming planes filled with innocent people into buildings filled with innocent people. There is no excuse. Any idiot that makes an excuse for such actions is not only an idiot, but a potentially dangerous idiot. I say dangerous because there are other idiots out there; idiots whose minds are geared toward stupidity and dangerously weak and yearning for leadership.
This is evident by idiots who say stupid things such as "The war of the powerless is called 'terrorism', and the terrorism of the powerful is called 'war'." in defense of the intentional slaughter of civilians, and "The US military is beyond Al-Qaeda's capablities so they resort to different war tactics." while excusing their attacks against us because we support a fellow free state that is surrounded by nations who openly demand that tiny state die at their hands. What a load of total garbage.

The only thing I can hope for is that such totally idiotic people who write such totally ignorant garbage do not live in the U.S. I can't think of anything that would be more offensive and hypocritical.

Al-Qaeda cannot militarily challenge our military. Obviously, they fight dirty. But what is that old saying? All is fair in love and war? Al-Qaeda cannot defeat the US, so its goal is to inflict as many casualties as it can so the US public wants the US gov. to change its policies.

War is war. Civilians die, civilians are targetted. It has not been until recently that countries refrained from deliberately targetting civilians. This is known as a "politically correct" war. Why didn't we (the US) attack military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We knew if we killed their civilians the government would surrender so that their innocents wouldn't die. Al-Qaeda is using the same tactics.


And just to let you know, I do not support them in any way, shape, or form. I hate them and hope they all die slow painful deaths (the terrorists). All I'm saying is we shouldn't look at these acts as "illegal, terroristic acts" simply because their war strategy is not something we like. The fact is, they have declared war on us and in times of war they don't have to declare where they're attacking (that would be stupid), how they're attacking (that would be stupid), or when they're attacking (that would be stupid.

Their war strategy is dirty and screwed up and evil, but these acts are not terrorism; they are strikes just as much as our precision bombs are strikes.

The OK city bombing was terrorism. These are offensives by a group we are at war with.

seeker, would you be able to set up a debate on this subject in the Debate forums tomorrow or something? I enjoy debating and would love to have a 1 on 1 to see how I stack up.

Well, i look at it this way.
If there were foreigh troops on my homeland, and they were trying to impose thier brand of 'freedom', your damn right i would be a 'terrorist'.
I would die defending this great country, and not think twice about it.
Would you not do the same?

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I guess im curious as to why America calls anyone who attacks them "terrorists" when they have troops meddling in other countrys. No country likes occupation and many will fight to end it. How is the foreign policy of Al-Qaeda (violence to achieve a political goal) any different from the political policy of the USA (invasion/occupation to achieve a political goal)?

Meddling? So first of all I'm going to believe you're talking about Iraq. Sadam killed 300,000 innocent men women and children. Where were you when that was going on? Did you come to their defense? When the US kills an innocent in war it is an accident, Saddam on the other hand killed those people in cold blood. Don't forget that the people we're fighting right now in Iraq are either foreign fighters who came to kill americans or they were living the good life under Sadams regime and are pissed we toppled their little kingdom. Al-Qaeda is headed by a multimillionaire, OBL was born with a freaken silver spoon in his mouth, he made his little network from his fathers hard earned money, I doubt the man knows the meaning of real work, just a spoiled rich kid who wanted to play war. I can't say I support the lies Bush told the world to go to war but I can say that it's one less jackass to watch. (it'll be 2 when Bush is out of office.) When was the last time your country used it's full force to take down someone who murdered 300,000 people? Do you even care that innocent people were dieing when sadam was in power or is it just because the US is there that you care now?

For your information son there is no "political policy of the USA (invasion/occupation to achieve a political goal)" so why not familiarize yourself with the actual existing policies of the US before you go spouting lies you made up.

Originally posted by aware
Well, i look at it this way.
If there were foreigh troops on my homeland, and they were trying to impose thier brand of 'freedom', your damn right i would be a 'terrorist'.
I would die defending this great country, and not think twice about it.
Would you not do the same?

Yeah what if your leader had murdered members of your family? What if one of your leaders sons (a serial rapist) had raped your sister. Would you feel the same way?

John, your arguement is based on how the Iraqis should feel. I agree, they should be happy that they've been liberated. However, as we have seen, they are not. They want us gone - now. You can't base an arguement on personal beliefs on how you would feel in a situation, but on what the people there really feel. They feel we're meddling and occupying.

Got any Iraqi poll numbers on that there Cutwolf?



seekerof

Really? I know the people who were living the good life with Sadam want the US gone, they are the Sunni triangle triangle area. As for a majority of the population they are glad Sadam is gone. Now comes the task of getting food water and jobs for everyone and it's not an easy task. As far as "They feel we're meddling and occupying." I think that's the view of the people who were part of Sadams little group. A majority of people there just want food, clothing, water, electricity, security, jobs and money. They don't care that the US is there as long as we can provide those things. They are still being terrorized by the people who were part of Sadams oppression, who want to make power grabs and have things the way they were.

Got any Iraqi poll numbers on that there Cutwolf?

Can you name one place in Iraq that is stable right now? Until Iraqi supporters of the US speak up and take action (protests, etc), it appears most do not want us there or do not care enough to do something about it. Actions speak louder than words, and the only people taking action right now are the people who don't want us there.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Got any Iraqi poll numbers on that there Cutwolf?

seekerof

Why would he need poll numbers? He's just making it up as he goes. Must be an Al Jazeera fan