Terrorism. - Political Fever

xjoe3x · #1 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosco

Why not
They support the embargo of Cuba. They were the main driving force behind the illegal war in Iraq and they support the extension of Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Supporting an embargo of Cuba does not make one a terrorist.
I do not think the Iraq war could be considered terroristic in nature either.
Remember terrorist has to do with fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosco

Okay the daily fear that the civilians of Iraq live in because of the war, the terror the citizens f Iran now feel when they seem to be threathened with a war, what about the civilians of the West bank and the Gaza Strip, or what about those in Venezuala who belive that an invasion might just be around the corner, what about the aid given to the Turkish and Columbian governments to suppress people such as the peasents in columbia the Kurds in turkey?

Is that enough terror for neo-cons tyo be classed for what they are???

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

That would make any invasion of any country for any reason terrorist. It is a stretch to say the least. I am not a fan of the current administrations views, but terrorist does not fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Joe

It entirtely does fit. I was tryiong to stay away from that in this thread as it is off topic, but they are bigger terrorists than even Bin Laden. Don't you think that the Iraqi people live in fear ? Even with hat said, fear is not a neccesary component of terrorism.

Are you seriously trying to say this definition does not fit ?

terrorist

• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

AskOxford: terrorist

There was no intention to cause fear. They were not trying to terrorize. There was no "intimidation". Again if it were as simple as saying the Iraqi people live in fear so it is terrorism ALL wars/invasions would be terrorist.

Also there are many different definitions of what terrorism is. There is a lack of consistency among definitions.

Here are a few of them:

Quote:

Definitions of terrorism on the Web:

* The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to ... FM 100-20 Glossary

* The systematic use of violence to achieve political ends is not new – for instance, it was employed by pro- and anti-slavery fanatics in Kansas before the American Civil War, by anarchists in tsarist Russia and by the Black Hand organisation in the Balkans before World War I. ...
Channel 4 - History - Glossary

* Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
http://www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm

* Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations.
Hasbara - Glossary

* a psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian popuation. Such a strategy may be used by an occupying army on the occupied population. ...
naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm

* The DPRK is not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since 1987, when KAL 858[?] was bombed in flight. The DPRK has made several statements condemning terrorism. ...
encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/fo/Foreign_relations_of_North_Korea

* The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change wps.prenhall.com/chet_langan_preparing_1/0,9681,1613226-content,00.html

* describes any terrorist organizations that are active in the nation in question, and police efforts to combat terrorism.
http://www.routledge-ny.com/ref/worl...roduction.html

* The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation. ...
Glossary

* the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals (fear in latin). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

mlurp · #2 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 03:24 PM

Thank you xjoe3x, lots to read but right on point. But possible a waste for those that see terror as a right or way to achive the goals they believe in.

My answe to that is in my siggy the quote.

Comrade Joe · #3 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

There was no intention to cause fear. They were not trying to terrorize.

Neither statement can be even remotely proved. Motive and intent are qualities that cannot be effectively evaluated by anyone other than those from whom the motive or intent springs. It is a logical inconsistency to state otherwise.

In other words the only person who can know the motive or intent is the person behind each act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

There was no "intimidation".

Does dropping bombs not count as intimidation ? does forcing a state into surrender by the use of force not equate intimidation ? It does in my book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Again if it were as simple as saying the Iraqi people live in fear so it is terrorism ALL wars/invasions would be terrorist.

Well that is not what i said. I said that terrorism does not necessitate fear. One can be terrorised and not be in fear. Neither does the existence of fear require terrorism. Someone can be afraid of spiders, but they are not victims of terrorism.

What i will say is all wars are an example of terrorism. What i would add to that is that not all terrorism is inherently wrong. If you are a victim of an aggressive war or terrorism, with all things being relative, to wipe away that suffering is the morally acceptable thing to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Also there are many different definitions of what terrorism is. There is a lack of consistency among definitions.

Of course there are. There will never be a word for word accepted definition, and that goes for most words. However, what practically all definitions have in common is the fundamental premise of the use of violence to achieve political means. There may be other words added to this from source to source, but this most basic premise is the bedrock of the definition.

xjoe3x · #4 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Joe

Neither statement can be even remotely proved. Motive and intent are qualities that cannot be effectively evaluated by anyone other than those from whom the motive or intent springs. It is a logical inconsistency to state otherwise.

In other words the only person who can know the motive or intent is the person behind each act.

Does dropping bombs not count as intimidation ? does forcing a state into surrender by the use of force not equate intimidation ? It does in my book.

Well that is not what i said. I said that terrorism does not necessitate fear. One can be terrorised and not be in fear. Neither does the existence of fear require terrorism. Someone can be afraid of spiders, but they are not victims of terrorism.

What i will say is all wars are an example of terrorism. What i would add to that is that not all terrorism is inherently wrong. If you are a victim of an aggressive war or terrorism, with all things being relative, to wipe away that suffering is the morally acceptable thing to do.

Of course there are. There will never be a word for word accepted definition, and that goes for most words. However, what practically all definitions have in common is the fundamental premise of the use of violence to achieve political means. There may be other words added to this from source to source, but this most basic premise is the bedrock of the definition.

Was the war about instilling fear or terror? No it was not. I see terrorism more specific than just war.

While I will agree that not all terrorism is wrong, I do not agree that all wars are terroristic.

The definitions differ, but I think the base goes to the base of the word "fear". The intention to cause fear is what I think is a key factor.

Bosco · #5 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Was the war about instilling fear or terror? No it was not. I see terrorism more specific than just war..

I just cannot believe that an intelligant guy like you could make such an unintegillable comment such as that. War is an attack to terrroris the enemy into surrender so that your interests what ever they may be are seen through. War is about instilling fear it is its very nature. And the ar on terror is a War OF terror. 100,00 people at least have lost their lives that uis terroristic and more despisable than a single terrorist attack.

However calling it war does not do enough to mask it for what it is. It is not a battle for national liberation or indeed protection it is an attack to demonstrate power and nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

While I will agree that not all terrorism is wrong, I do not agree that all wars are terroristic..

I agree but the current war is nothing more than blatent state terrorism. Just as is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

The definitions differ, but I think the base goes to the base of the word "fear". The intention to cause fear is what I think is a key factor.

The War of Terror was to strike fear into the terrorists by attacking a non involved country and now massacring thousands of innocents.

xjoe3x · #6 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosco

I just cannot believe that an intelligant guy like you could make such an unintegillable comment such as that. War is an attack to terrroris the enemy into surrender so that your interests what ever they may be are seen through. War is about instilling fear it is its very nature. And the ar on terror is a War OF terror. 100,00 people at least have lost their lives that uis terroristic and more despisable than a single terrorist attack.

However calling it war does not do enough to mask it for what it is. It is not a battle for national liberation or indeed protection it is an attack to demonstrate power and nothing more.

I agree but the current war is nothing more than blatent state terrorism. Just as is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas.

The War of Terror was to strike fear into the terrorists by attacking a non involved country and now massacring thousands of innocents.

If you are willing to call every war terrorism in the history of time then that is fine. This war is not different, whether it is justified or not does not matter.
The war on terror was not about fear, it was about annihilation.

Comrade Joe · #7 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Was the war about instilling fear or terror? No it was not. I see terrorism more specific than just war.

While I will agree that not all terrorism is wrong, I do not agree that all wars are terroristic.

The definitions differ, but I think the base goes to the base of the word "fear". The intention to cause fear is what I think is a key factor.

I can only assume you did not read anything i wrote, or else you would know that the motive of an act can only be determined by the actor, and unless you were behind the Iraq war you cannot determine the motive of the war.

Unless you want to provide a philosophical argument that makes the case for the determination of motives by an external force ? Though i would be amazed if that were the case.

xjoe3x · #8 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Joe

I can only assume you did not read anything i wrote, or else you would know that the motive of an act can only be determined by the actor, and unless you were behind the Iraq war you cannot determine the motive of the war.

Unless you want to provide a philosophical argument that makes the case for the determination of motives by an external force ? Though i would be amazed if that were the case.

I read it.

I do not know I have a good idea of the motive though. There are a few different possibilities, but terror is not in there.
A few of the definitions include the work "intent".

Comrade Joe · #9 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

I read it.

I do not know I have a good idea of the motive though. There are a few different possibilities, but terror is not in there.
A few of the definitions include the work "intent".

But you nor any external force can determine can determine motive. Motive can only be internally evaluated. Before this debate can go any further this point must either be accepted or refuted. We cannot simply go on with you claiming to know that terror or fear or any possible motive were not present when it is impossible for any external force to attain such knowledge.

xjoe3x · #10 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Joe

But you nor any external force can determine can determine motive. Motive can only be internally evaluated. Before this debate can go any further this point must either be accepted or refuted. We cannot simply go on with you claiming to know that terror or fear or any possible motive were not present when it is impossible for any external force to attain such knowledge.

I do not know it. What do you think that was there motive?

There are a few possibilities in my mind.

The honest belief that Iraq was a threat.
Oil and money, need I say more.
To take out Saddam.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password