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.

 

Lets get the definiton of terrorism right...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   
OK terrorism is a act of violence committed by a group without an accepted mandate with the intent of instilling terror in those targeted.

This makes it really east to lable anyone a terrorist, you just remove the acceptance of the mandate.

The irish republicen ARMY.. are not terrorists in their own eyes, hence the term ARMY in their name, but the rest of the world doesn't accept their mandate so they are deemed "terrorists"


The US Army is not a terror organization beacuse of their "accepted" mandate, well i sure as @#$ don't accept it and therfore label them terrorists.

That leaves the other point the actual act of violence inducing the terror, well there are enough examples of the US attacking peasant population for exaclty that reason TO INDUCE TERROR!


So what kind of difference are we left with when comparing an Army to a paramilitary goup?
I can't see a difference


Edit: Spelling

[edit on 5/10/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Modern terrorism is usually directed at the citizens of a larger more powerful nation, not the military complex. In my opinion there’s a big difference between killing soldiers on the battlefield by an apposing army and blowing up a school bus.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Corinthas you used to anger me, but the more of your opinions I read the more I pity you.
I hope one day you can allow the hate to leave you for your own sake. I still pray for you to be healed.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Modern terrorism is usually directed at the citizens of a larger more powerful nation, not the military complex. In my opinion there’s a big difference between killing soldiers on the battlefield by an apposing army and blowing up a school bus.


The problem is, CIVILIANS in Iraq are now fighting back the tyrranical US oppression, with literally everything they can get their hands on. They are labeled terrorists and "insurgents" by the propaganda machine back home, to justify blowing them up. The Iraqi army was exhausted a very very long time ago, all you hear about now is "insurgents" and "enemy combatants". What happened to SOLDIERS? And why is it that the "terrorists" in Iraq blow up their own Iraqi people, the same people they represent and are supposed to be fighting for? What logic is in THAT?

And who do these terrorist acts BENEFIT? Each time it happens, it justifies the US to do even MORE damage and take over and blow up even MORE things! You can argue the terrorists are just idiots, and they don't realise that they are shooting themselves in the foot here. But what kind of "idiots" can organize an extremely difficult stunt like 9-11 and other "stunts" since then? If they are capable of such intelligent, organizational, and powerful tactics, that take months to plan and execute, they are most likely not idiots. And if they are not, then why does everything they do BACKFIRE on them, and allows US to just blow up more Arabs? Who benefits?

Every day you see news coming out of Israelis killing kids in Palestine. Not terrorists? How many civilians have the US slaughtered in Iraq? Let's measure that against how many people died in 911. But then again, there is absolutely NO evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 911, so what the hell IS going on here? Oh I remember, forget WMD's... Saddam was just BAD! And here in US, when someone is BAD, we blow them up. End of story. Bad people gotta go. Unless they are in US government, then they are not bad, they just have bad intelligence.

Oh and remember, big brother is watching you. Any dissent will NOT be tolerated - only terrorists dissent against such a righteous government and its policies and claims. Stop thought crime where it starts, in your head!

-Mike



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Corinthas you used to anger me, but the more of your opinions I read the more I pity you.
I hope one day you can allow the hate to leave you for your own sake. I still pray for you to be healed.


Where was the hate in that post?

Can you either adress my definition of terrorism : "OK terrorism is a act of violence committed by a group without an accepted mandate with the intent of instilling terror in those targeted. " or get yourself to a nunnery.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   


ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Now there is a direct quote minus some nasty audio link from dictionary.com I hope sincerely that the government uses a much more specific definition of terrorism than that, otherwise we are all screwed. I may be reading this wrong since I'm not an english major, but doesnt that definition make it so that any threat of force equates to terroism, regadless of the threat being carried out or not?



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Very one sided that definition there alternateheaven as it makes it impossible for a govt. to commit terror. adn we all know they do it too..



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven

Now there is a direct quote minus some nasty audio link from dictionary.com I hope sincerely that the government uses a much more specific definition of terrorism than that, otherwise we are all screwed. I may be reading this wrong since I'm not an english major, but doesnt that definition make it so that any threat of force equates to terroism, regadless of the threat being carried out or not?


This is what makes this fake "enemy" so useful. They can be anyone at any time, and therefore, we can keep the people in fear indefinitely, and wage CONSTANT warfare. As Bush already said (before he changed his mind again), we cannot win this war. And we're not supposed to. It's supposed to keep going, with constant "threats" popping up all over the place, just to keep the fear going.

One of my favorite quotes is by Hitler:

"Nothing drives the people harder than the fear of sudden death!".

The next step is probably the draft, to get people used to involuntarily performing duties for the government. Police State comes later... and then...



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
While not the “dictionary” definition,

Terrorism (to me) is when one deliberately targets innocent civilians, in order to achieve a political goal, in lieu of diplomatic channels, or open combat (soldier to soldier).

As to why those fighting in Iraq are labeled as “insurgents” or “terrorists”, it is because the majority are not true Iraqi military, but ex Saddam goon squads, etc., whereas there are also many foreign combatants (terrorists) who came into Iraq from elsewhere, just to “fight the infidels”. Because favored tactics of these foreign mercs have included deliberate targeting of civilians, they are correctly labeled as terrorists.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
While not the “dictionary” definition,

Terrorism (to me) is when one deliberately targets innocent civilians, in order to achieve a political goal, in lieu of diplomatic channels, or open combat (soldier to soldier).

As to why those fighting in Iraq are labeled as “insurgents” or “terrorists”, it is because the majority are not true Iraqi military, but ex Saddam goon squads, etc., whereas there are also many foreign combatants (terrorists) who came into Iraq from elsewhere, just to “fight the infidels”. Because favored tactics of these foreign mercs have included deliberate targeting of civilians, they are correctly labeled as terrorists.


The irony, is they often target Iraqi civilians. The same people they are supposedly "defending"?!? Logical?



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Corinthas >> Blame that the people who chose to put it in the Amercian Heritage Dictionary. I fail however to see how its one sided. "a person or an organized group" sounds pretty open to interpretation to me. Technically speaking a goverment or a branch of the military is an organized group. Seems to be a nice catchall phrase, as you can dump any group of people into the form, shake a bit, and out pops some media-ready 'terrorists'.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Isn't this thread the same as What is a 'terrorist'? Can anyone be one?, which was started just 2 days ago. Please use the previous thread to continue this conversation.

Thanks


Simon Gray - All about repeat topics and what to do about them.
If you create a new thread on existing topics, especially current events, it may get moved to the "trash bin", or locked by a moderator indicating there is an existing discussion. If this happens, please don't take it personal... it is difficult to keep up with the pace of discussion on ATS at times, and this action by no means reflects on our opinion of you as a member of ATS.



[edit on 5-10-2004 by dbates]




top topics



 
0

log in

join