NationStates Jolt Archive

If the Iraqi government became anti-American after we leave and screwed with our oil prices, they'd be called "terrorists."

We went after Hussein for having WMDs, harboring terrorists, and being oppressive. That made him a "terrorist." But he had no WMDs, harbored little or no terrorists, and Iraqis had universal healthcare and public education. Meanwhile, Pakistan has nukes, has harbored more terrorists than Iraq, has generated many terrorists with their radical Islamic schools, and Bin-Ladin is probably there now. What do we do? Sell Pakistan more weapons.

Pro-American Shah of Iran = Not a terrorist.
Pro-American Saddam Hussein = Not a terrorist.

Oppressive Cuba = Terrorist.
Oppressive China = Not a terrorist.

Oppressive Iraq = Terrorist.
Oppressive Saudi Arabia = Not a terrorist.

The Peruvian hero, Hugo Chavez, is a terrorist for opposing free trade. While any other brutal, Peruvian military dictators who support free trade are not.

Castro tortures people in Cuba, it's terrorism. We torture people in Cuba, it's "media hype."

One definition of terrorism is that it is the spread of fear and deliberately targeting civilians.
Boston Tea Party = Not terrorism.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki = Life-saver.

So, now let's clarify this. Aside from spreading fear, oppressing people, trying to get WMDs, and deliberately harming civilians, to be a terrorist, the two main components are:
Anti-Americanism
Opposing free trade
You know, in China, they call anti-Communist political dissidents "terrorists."

If the Iraqi government became anti-American after we leave and screwed with our oil prices, they'd be called "terrorists."

We went after Hussein for having WMDs, harboring terrorists, and being oppressive. That made him a "terrorist." But he had no WMDs, harbored little or no terrorists, and Iraqis had universal healthcare and public education. Meanwhile, Pakistan has nukes, has harbored more terrorists than Iraq, has generated many terrorists with their radical Islamic schools, and Bin-Ladin is probably there now. What do we do? Sell Pakistan more weapons.

Pro-American Shah of Iran = Not a terrorist.
Pro-American Saddam Hussein = Not a terrorist.

Oppressive Cuba = Terrorist.
Oppressive China = Not a terrorist.

Oppressive Iraq = Terrorist.
Oppressive Saudi Arabia = Not a terrorist.

The Peruvian hero, Hugo Chavez, is a terrorist for opposing free trade. While any other brutal, Peruvian military dictators who support free trade are not.

Castro tortures people in Cuba, it's terrorism. We torture people in Cuba, it's "media hype."

One definition of terrorism is that it is the spread of fear and deliberately targeting civilians.
Boston Tea Party = Not terrorism.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki = Life-saver.

So, now let's clarify this. Aside from spreading fear, oppressing people, trying to get WMDs, and deliberately harming civilians, to be a terrorist, the two main components are:
Anti-Americanism
Opposing free trade
You know, in China, they call anti-Communist political dissidents "terrorists."




I wish I could make up facts and distort reality on the spot, how convenient it must be for you!

I wish I could make up facts and distort reality on the spot, how convenient it must be for you!
Just quote the Bible.

Chomskyrion, as far as I know there is no universal definition of terrorism. Each government, organization, group, or specialist define terrorism any way they like.

Out of that list, the IRA and the Iraqi insurgents.

That's wrong. Let's go to the Encyclopaedia.

Terrorism: Way to run the things, killing people and spreading fear in the name of something: whatever is a religion, a territory, money, or a political idea.

Terrorist: The one who committes terrorism.


Now, the questionary:

1.- Is Castro a terrorist?
2.- Is the Saudi King a terrorist?
3.- Is Bush a terrorist?
4.- And the citizens of their countries?

The ones who aswer rightfully the questions will win an emoticon. Good luck!

Chomskyrion, as far as I know there is no universal definition of terrorism. Each government, organization, group, or specialist define terrorism any way they like.
OK. By the way, Olantia: KGB. Terrorist or no?

I wanted to include that in the list, but no room.

I think the Irish republican army are terrorists (who you American's like to fund)

but the insurgents are also terrorists as are some governments around the world

the patriot’s weren’t terrorists they were idiots who fought the tax on tea (to pay for the colony's defence) and were led by propagandists

That's wrong. Let's go to the Encyclopaedia.

Terrorism: Way to run the things, killing people and spreading fear in the name of something: whatever is a religion, a territory, money, or a political idea.

Terrorist: The one who committes terrorism.


Now, the questionary:

1.- Is Castro a terrorist?
2.- Is the Saudi King a terrorist?
3.- Is Bush a terrorist?
4.- And the citizens of their countries?

The ones who aswer rightfully the questions will win an emoticon. Good luck!
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No.

That's wrong. Let's go to the Encyclopaedia.

Terrorism: Way to run the things, killing people and spreading fear in the name of something: whatever is a religion, a territory, money, or a political idea.
...
I can provide a dozen of another definitions... :) How about the academic consensus definition?

'Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.'

1.- Is Castro a terrorist?
2.- Is the Saudi King a terrorist?
3.- Is Bush a terrorist?
4.- And the citizens of their countries?


yes
yes
no
no

I think the Irish republican army are terrorists (who you American's like to fund)

but the insurgents are also terrorists as are some governments around the world

the patriot’s weren’t terrorists they were idiots who fought the tax on tea (to pay for the colony's defence) and were led by propagandists
The Boston Tea Party targeted a civilian ship. Furthermore, they didn't have bombs or shoot people, but they did start several riots in which innocent people were killed.

Just quote the Bible.



The Bible is historically accurate over a course of several thousand years, what you said is inaccurate and covers only 60-ish years.

OK. By the way, Olantia: KGB. Terrorist or no?

I wanted to include that in the list, but no room.
The KGB? If we do accept that the state can commit a terrorist act, then yes. If we don't--then no.

I would class Bush as a semi-terrorist, in the sense that he uses fear to get his way..."we have to do this or the terrorists will get us" type thing. It's the same for many, many politicians.

"Terrorist" is a meaningless term. Ostensibly it implies non-government combatants, similar to mercenaries or freedom fighters. But then, Saddam Hussein can't very well be "supporting terrorism" since then they would be government-supported, therefore not terrorists. So, the meaning also implies "using terror and coercion to achieve a political end." In other words, advertising and credit card companies are terrorists! And yet, can you really not say that WAR is the use of terror to achieve a political end? Maybe some people don't think war is terror, but then I'd guess those some people have never lived through being on the shit side of a bombing campaign.

In today's newspeak, "terrorism" means "Islamic suicide bombers." Period. Some people broaden the definition to include "Islamic people." Or even "Pacifists and protestors." Very open-minded, I guess.

I would class Bush as a semi-terrorist, in the sense that he uses fear to get his way..."we have to do this or the terrorists will get us" type thing. It's the same for many, many politicians.



As opposed to inaction and then getting obliterated by the crazed militants who want us dead? I'd take "fear" above death any day.

If the Iraqi government became anti-American after we leave and screwed with our oil prices, they'd be called "terrorists."

We went after Hussein for having WMDs, harboring terrorists, and being oppressive. That made him a "terrorist." But he had no WMDs, harbored little or no terrorists, and Iraqis had universal healthcare and public education. Meanwhile, Pakistan has nukes, has harbored more terrorists than Iraq, has generated many terrorists with their radical Islamic schools, and Bin-Ladin is probably there now. What do we do? Sell Pakistan more weapons.

Pro-American Shah of Iran = Not a terrorist.
Pro-American Saddam Hussein = Not a terrorist.

Oppressive Cuba = Terrorist.
Oppressive China = Not a terrorist.

Oppressive Iraq = Terrorist.
Oppressive Saudi Arabia = Not a terrorist.

The Peruvian hero, Hugo Chavez, is a terrorist for opposing free trade. While any other brutal, Peruvian military dictators who support free trade are not.

Castro tortures people in Cuba, it's terrorism. We torture people in Cuba, it's "media hype."

One definition of terrorism is that it is the spread of fear and deliberately targeting civilians.
Boston Tea Party = Not terrorism.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki = Life-saver.

So, now let's clarify this. Aside from spreading fear, oppressing people, trying to get WMDs, and deliberately harming civilians, to be a terrorist, the two main components are:
Anti-Americanism
Opposing free trade
You know, in China, they call anti-Communist political dissidents "terrorists."

I personally think you're right on the money, but a lot of people have trouble understanding that this IS the way it works. It's a way to make people afraid and they use it for all it's worth. Good for you for seeing through the BS. :)

As opposed to inaction and then getting obliterated by the crazed militants who want us dead? I'd take "fear" above death any day.
Iraq.

That's wrong. Let's go to the Encyclopaedia.

Terrorism: Way to run the things, killing people and spreading fear in the name of something: whatever is a religion, a territory, money, or a political idea.

Terrorist: The one who committes terrorism.


Now, the questionary:

1.- Is Castro a terrorist? Yes. He supported violent revolutions in latin America
2.- Is the Saudi King a terrorist? No. He may indirectly support it, but he sure is helping the US by capturing alqaeda in SA and turning them over to us for interrogation
3.- Is Bush a terrorist? Certainly not.
4.- And the citizens of their countries? ALL of the above countries have terrorists in them. Saudi arabia has it's alqaeda, America has it's Democrat and republican terrorist apologists, Fred Phelps, and Cuba has it's army contingent, which trains terrorists.
The ones who aswer rightfully the questions will win an emoticon. Good luck!

read above

And the winner of the questionary is...

¡CHOMSKYRION!

Congrats, you won a whole set of emoticons which will be sent to your e-mail previous paying a fee of 15.95€ because of the sending costs. :p :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

This is an example of how George W. Bush is going to be remembered in history (if civilization still remains in the future that is) for being a welfare recepient who pioneered the two worst political copouts in the world. The first is the Pre-Emptive Strike. Now almost any invasion or offense can be blanketed with a Pre-Emptive Strike excuse and the self-defense it implies.

The other, is the use of "Terrorist" as a catchphrase. Now any government can arrest, detain, torture and murder anyone it feels like and not have to worry about important political repercussions by labelling them "terrorists."

The Bible is historically accurate over a course of several thousand years

hahahaha, very funny NR :D

As opposed to inaction and then getting obliterated by the crazed militants who want us dead? I'd take "fear" above death any day.
Fear over death--So, you're a coward?

"Though I walk through the valley in the shadow of prosperity, I'm scared shitless. Our bombs and guns, they comfort me."

Chomskyrion, as far as I know there is no universal definition of terrorism. Each government, organization, group, or specialist define terrorism any way they like.


It seems that to be a terrorist you must deliver explosives to the area
you wish to target in person (suicide bomber or someone who plants
a bomb and then leaves)
Or if you have rockets etc you use them only from equipment that
can be carried.
Sometimes particularly advanced terrorists will attempt to trick you
by launching mortars from the back of a truck, this does not
make them legitimate, especially if the truck is not specifically
designed for the launching of mortars (please do not be fooled
)
Civilian deaths are always deliberate even if not intentional.

Non terrorists are people who have planes they can drop them from,
ships they can fire them from, submarines they can launch them from.
Non terrorists normally have vastly more weaponry at their disposal
and civilian deaths are always collateral damage even if you did intend them.

Probably the best way to identify a terrorist is to find out if they spend
more than 1 billion per year or less than 1 million per year on their organisation.

Over one billion is legitimate
Under one billion but over one million is dodgy territory
at that point it depends on who you are buying the equipment from.
Less than one million , definitely evil terrorist