NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking that with these new camps they found out in Eastern Europe, with the recent upsurge in violence in Israel and Palestine again...maybe it would be good if we talked about something I think is a pretty important difference.

What makes a person a terrorist?

Have you seen the various snippets of "terror training" in Afghanistan et al - they teach them sharp shooting, obstacle courses and that kind of thing.
Osama Bin Laden build a private army there, not necessarily a terror base. I'm sure that some (maybe most?) learned bomb making and the like there, but a good many seemed to be fairly professional soldiers, if we can believe the various documentaries about the Afghanistan Invasion.

The same goes for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs...obviously some go and become terrorists - but most don't. Most run around with rifles in demonstrations and waste their bullets by firing into the sky - and when the Israelis march into their towns, they shoot at them.
Surely that's not "Terrorism".

To use a controversial example, part of the various Jewish militia groups before Israel did blow up people. They were terrorists. Other parts merely served as militias when the Arabs came around (and sometimes they visited the Arabs themselves).
And if there had been a colonial group in Washington's movement that killed civilians (I don't know whether there was), would that make every member a terrorist?

It seems like the vast majority of the people detained all over the world, or targeted with air strikes or whatever, are statistically likely to be such militia members rather than actual terrorists. Should that mean we treat them differently?
And where do you make the difference?
Surely "being part of a group classified as a terrorist organisation" is not part of the definition of terrorism, nor is it all-inclusive, if you consider for example that a good number of nations think that only the military-arm of Hezbollah is a terror-organisation, while the political and social engagement factions aren't.

Have you seen the various snippets of "terror training" in Afghanistan et al - they teach them sharp shooting, obstacle courses and that kind of thing.
Osama Bin Laden build a private army there, not necessarily a terror base. I'm sure that some (maybe most?) learned bomb making and the like there, but a good many seemed to be fairly professional soldiers, if we can believe the various documentaries about the Afghanistan Invasion.



Well they were well trained and funded by the US to beat back the commies.

Anyway generally if you beleive what someone is doing and the way they are doing is right then they are freedom fighters, if you beleive what they are doing and how they are doing it is wrong they're terrorists. Thats generally how it works.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Thats generally how it works.
But in this particular case I hope to sidestep most of the politics, and concentrate on one thing:
What is the difference between a guy who straps a bomb to himself and blows himself up along with many others, and a guy who gets out his rifle when the enemy military comes into his town and shoots at him?
Is that difference properly acknowledged by our policymakers?

terrorists go after civilians. freedom fighters attack military or government targets.

terrorists go after civilians. freedom fighters attack military or government targets.
Then why are so many "freedom fighters" sitting in the various camps, when all they did was attack US Forces as they marched into Afghanistan etc?

And what about the Tamil Tigers? They blow up people all the time...but usually in front of government buildings - does that make them freedom fighters or terrorists?

Terrorist or militiaman?

If you don't mind, I'd like to apply the question to the actions of hostiles in Iraq.

A terrorist, in Iraq, would be someone who blows up a car bomb in the middle of a group of children. Yes, it happens. A groups of children follow Stryker and Humvee patrols and a people blow up car bombs in the middle of these children instead of waiting a few blocks when the children have dispersed.

A militiaman would have been prominent around invasion time, when we stormed cities. Fighting against an invading force isn't a bad thing. At least in my opinion it isn't. They would have openly engaged American forces and been concerned about civilian deaths. That whole killing your own countrymen thing doesn't go over well when you're supposed to be the good guy.

An example: Does "Juba" deserve to go to Camp X-Ray?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html

What about David Hicks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

A terrorist, in Iraq, would be someone who blows up a car bomb in the middle of a group of children. Yes, it happens. A groups of children follow Stryker and Humvee patrols and a people blow up car bombs in the middle of these children instead of waiting a few blocks when the children have dispersed.

I disagree. Its all about oppertunity. If these men were attacking the convoys/etc, with the wish, or the choice(As in waiting until children came), to kill the children as well, then its terrorism. But if you are trying to attack the enemy, you hit them when you have the best chance of killing them. The nation is a warzone, children shouldn't be gathering around military targets. If they do so, they are distracting the US military, giving the terrorists the best oppertunity to attack(not that they usually have the ability to wait for them to come or go, as its more "find and hit" than planned with suicide bombers).

I think the difference between terrorist and militia/freedom fighter/etc is intent. If you are trying to defeat the enemy's forces, you are not a terrorist. If you are trying either to attack the nations civilian populace, or trying to use fear in your own nation to gain power/etc, you are a terrorist. Those who promise to shoot people who want to vote, are terrorists. Those who try to car-bomb us forces, shoot at them, etc(also for Iraqi police/army/collaberators), are not terrorists(except in as broad of a term as can encapture most people on the earth).

What makes a person a terrorist?

Terrorism

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.

Thankyou and goodnight.

Thankyou and goodnight.

Stop being so obsequious.

Thankyou and goodnight.
Sleep well.

Is the Israeli Government lying then when it air strikes at people who are most likely militia commanders?
Or is Bush lying when he calls people like David Hicks, who was captured a fighter for the Taliban "these are bad people, these are terrorists!"?

If you walk into a shopping mall and set off a bomb there that is terrorism.

If you walk into a shopping mall and set off a bomb there that is terrorism.
No doubt about it.
But it is pretty obvious that not everyone targeted or described as a terrorist ever did that, or even planned to do that.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Stop romanticizing them.

We should treat the Israelis and Palestinians like little children. Grab Sharon and Abbas by the back of the neck and anyone else deemed important enough, lock them in a room together and not let them out until they come up with a peace settlement. The US as the power supposively trying to end the violence should have done an equivelant of this a long time ago. Israel may pitch a hissy fit but they would thank us later when bombs stopped exploding in Tel Aviv and elsewhere in Israel.

And what about the Tamil Tigers? They blow up people all the time...but usually in front of government buildings - does that make them freedom fighters or terrorists?

As a tamil who sympathises with the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils, I have absolutely no hesitation is denouncing the LTTE as terrorists. In fact it is the LTTE which is being obstructive to a final peaceful solution to the strife along with certain hardline factions in SriLankan political bodies.

After the Jaffna riots, many militia orgs were formed to protect tamil interests. LTTE was one such org. They began in a very idealistic way. There was a huge sympathy to the LTTE in my areas. In my extended family, there were even conduits for LTTE, smuggling stuff for them. But later Prabhakaran (the LTTE supremo) got power hungry (what a surprise:rolleyes: ) and he systematically and ruthlessly eliminated all other representatives and militia orgs including tamil political leaders. And not to mention the targetting of Sinhalese civilians and civil infrastructure and political figures.

They ceased to be a legitimate militia at that point. Following their targetting of the Indian peace keeping forces in Sri Lanka, sympathy to them plummetted. Their assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was the last straw.

They ARE terrorists.

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Stop romanticizing them.

Then stop demonizing them.

Then stop demonizing them.

How can anybody demonize demons?

How can anybody demonize demons?
I'm pretty sure if you do a few blood tests, you'll find an astonishing amount of human DNA in there...

But we're hijacking.
The question is whether we're too quick to throw them all into the same pot, no matter whether they believe (example!) Israelis need to be bombed or only that Israelis shouldn't drive their tanks into Gaza.

I think we are not being quick enough.:)

We are certainly discriminating and hypocritical even in calling a terrorist a terrorist. A Pakistani arrested and handed over to US by Musharraf becomes a terrorist but one who blows up civilians in India is called a "militant" (with quotes too..sickeningly enough).

Then why are so many "freedom fighters" sitting in the various camps, when all they did was attack US Forces as they marched into Afghanistan etc?
because they attacked use forces as they marched into afghanistan etc. not because they are terrorists. the vast majority of those people who we are holding in guantanamo bay are not terrorists. (well we may have given back most of the obviously harmless by now, theres no way to know for sure eh?)


And what about the Tamil Tigers? They blow up people all the time...but usually in front of government buildings - does that make them freedom fighters or terrorists?
i dont know enough about the tamil tigers to say one way or the other

we toss the name terrorist around rather liberally. when US soldiers in iraq are killed by roadside bombs they are not victims of a terrorist attack. when a mosque is blown up with worshipers inside, that IS a terrorist attack. some "freedom fighters" dont mind also using the tactics of terror, that makes them terrorists as well as freedom fighters.

terrorism is violence with the aim of terrorizing people into acquiescing to the terrorists demands. they are mostly unable to mount a real war so they opt for trying to scare civilians into forcing their government into giving in.

We should treat the Israelis and Palestinians like little children. Grab Sharon and Abbas by the back of the neck and anyone else deemed important enough, lock them in a room together and not let them out until they come up with a peace settlement. The US as the power supposively trying to end the violence should have done an equivelant of this a long time ago. Israel may pitch a hissy fit but they would thank us later when bombs stopped exploding in Tel Aviv and elsewhere in Israel.

Oslo and Camp David Accords anyone? The problem is, after negotiating peace, they continue to attack. So what's the point in answering their demands when they don't fulfill ours? That's like giving a bully your lunch money for him not to beat you up. The he turns around and gives you a black eye anyway.

Then stop demonizing them.

Why not demonize them? Anybody who will not demonize someone who murders a pregnant woman because she is a Jew is a worthless human being.


But that's just my opinion.

I'm pretty sure if you do a few blood tests, you'll find an astonishing amount of human DNA in there...

But we're hijacking.
The question is whether we're too quick to throw them all into the same pot, no matter whether they believe (example!) Israelis need to be bombed or only that Israelis shouldn't drive their tanks into Gaza.

Serial killers are humans. Serial Killers have points of veiw. Child Rapists also have their own points of veiw. Just because they are human beings with an outlook on things does not make said outlook worthy of consideration.

Serial killers are humans. Serial Killers have points of veiw. Child Rapists also have their own points of veiw. Just because they are human beings with an outlook on things does not make said outlook worthy of consideration.
Please don't get all emotional about it. He called them "demons", and I made a comment about how demons are fictional, and people are real. People need people-solutions, not demon-fighting.

And do you, or do you not think that a Palestinian Hamas Member has a point of view worthy of consideration when he gets his rifle and shoots at Israeli soldiers invading his town?
What if it was Canadian troops invading an American town?

Please don't get all emotional about it. He called them "demons", and I made a comment about how demons are fictional, and people are real. People need people-solutions, not demon-fighting.

No, that was quite an apt description. A demon is "a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin", and terrorists are quite apt at causing all of those, even for the people they "represent".

And do you, or do you not think that a Palestinian Hamas Member has a point of view worthy of consideration when he gets his rifle and shoots at Israeli soldiers invading his town?
What if it was Canadian troops invading an American town?

Shooting at soliders actively involved in a military campaign is a lot different than blowing up a bus full of civilians or a nightclub full of young adults.

People need people-solutions, not demon-fighting.

Yes. Terrorists must be terrorized.

They want their 72 and we should hasten the process.


And do you, or do you not think that a Palestinian Hamas Member has a point of view worthy of consideration when he gets his rifle and shoots at Israeli soldiers invading his town?
What if it was Canadian troops invading an American town?

Hamas does not limit to targetting Israeli soldiers. Soldiers are fair game.

Please don't get all emotional about it. He called them "demons", and I made a comment about how demons are fictional, and people are real. People need people-solutions, not demon-fighting.

And do you, or do you not think that a Palestinian Hamas Member has a point of view worthy of consideration when he gets his rifle and shoots at Israeli soldiers invading his town?
What if it was Canadian troops invading an American town?

The problem is, Hamas specifically targets civilians in their campaign of terror. Copied straight from wikipedia:

"It [Hamas] is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel, and its attacks targeting Israeli civilians and other human rights abuses have been condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and by Human Rights Watch.

Hamas is notorious for its suicide bombings against civilians in busy urban areas in Israel, and is known for its generous payments to the families of suicide bombers."

His point of view is unworthy, because it is very likely the Israeli soldiers are coming to get him because he just carried out an attack on civilians. That and the whole destroy Israel and all of its people thing he's a part of.

Do you think murderers who shoot cops that are coming to get them have a "worthy point of view?"

For instance, take a look at this latest car bomb in Kashmir.

This was done on the day that Ghulam Nabi Azad was sworn in as Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/051026/43/60r5r.html
Car bomb kills Kashmir trooper, injures 21

By Indo Asian News Service

Srinagar, Oct 26 (IANS) A paramilitary trooper was killed and 21 people, including six civilians, were injured in this Jammu and Kashmir summer capital Wednesday when separatist guerrillas exploded a massive car bomb.

The incident occurred in the afternoon at Lawaipora, 12 km from the city centre Lal Chowk.

A car parked on the side of the Srinagar-Uri national highway was blown up with a remote controlled device when a convoy of the Border Security Force (BSF) reached there, police said.

One BSF trooper was killed. Six civilians and 15 BSF troopers were injured in the attack.

This is a terrorist attack because the Hizbul knew that civilians will get injured but they never cared about that as long as they got the odd soldier killed.

Hizbul chief Syed Salahudeen is a Paki lackey sitting in Muzaffarabad in Pakistani occupied Kashmir and he directs these attacks from there.

Now these people are called "seperatist guerillas" whilst the same event if it had happened in Iraq, they would have been called terrorists.

Leaving that aside, tell me what possible POV that Syed Salahudeen has that is worthy of my consideration?

They want their 72 and we should hasten the process.

Thats quite stupid of you.

There are plenty of groups deemed 'terrorists' that are A: not Muslim and B: nave nothing to do with religion.

There are plenty of groups deemed 'terrorists' that are A: not Muslim and B: nave nothing to do with religion.

:confused:

It is not for you to decide who is a muslim or not. It is not even for another muslim to decide. Only Allah can decide that and since Allah ain't tellin me, what am I supposed to to when somebody says he is a muslim and he wants to blow me up?

The problem is, Hamas specifically targets civilians in their campaign of terror.
I know that, and I'm certainly not disputing it. The question is whether this gunman, or "militant" or whatever they call them actually is a terrorist.
And the same thing goes for Taliban or AQ Fighters captured in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Because, let's face it, the majority of people currently held as "unlawful combatants", or "terrorist suspects" or whatever are nothing more than footsoldiers who fought as irregulars in a war against invaders of some kind.

His point of view is unworthy, because it is very likely the Israeli soldiers are coming to get him because he just carried out an attack on civilians. That and the whole destroy Israel and all of its people thing he's a part of.
Hardly. I sincerely doubt that Israeli military has any idea at all about which particular guy did what - they know this guy is an IJ-Commander, so they knock him of as vengeance for a bombing, or shelling or whatever.
But that aside, it is pretty well known that when Israeli Security Forces enter a refugee camp, they usually get shot at and pelted with stones. Are those that shoot, or throw stones, Terrorists?
And is it not possible that there are people who join Hamas not because of political reasons, but because in parts of the Palestine this particular group has become a social institution, building schools and mosques and providing security and police services? (I really don't know, I'm asking.)

Leaving that aside, tell me what possible POV that Syed Salahudeen has that is worthy of my consideration?
Where did this point of view discussion come from? All I'm wondering is about our definition of a terrorist.
This guy obviously blows up people, he falls into the same category as the Tamil Tigers for example, whom you called terrorists.
But a militiaman who would shoot at Indian soldiers in case of an invasion would not be, since you called soldiers "fair game". Is that correct?

It is not for you to decide who is a muslim or not. It is not even for another muslim to decide. Only Allah can decide that and since Allah ain't tellin me, what am I supposed to to when somebody says he is a muslim and he wants to blow me up?
I think he just meant that we are talking about "terrorism" and you automatically made references to Islamism - while it is fairly obvious that there are many non-Islamist terror groups. The Tamil Tigers by the way have the most suicide bombings to their name, and they are AFAIK Marxists, which would make them fairly anti-religious.

:confused:

It is not for you to decide who is a muslim or not. It is not even for another muslim to decide. Only Allah can decide that and since Allah ain't tellin me, what am I supposed to to when somebody says he is a muslim and he wants to blow me up?

He is saying that there are plenty of terrorist organizations there that do not proclaim themselves to be muslim or even make any pretention to be muslim. Current media focus makes it seem like the case, but it isn't. For example, the Maoist groups in Nepal (was it there?) are hardly muslim, and they often engage in terror like actions.

The LTTE is most obviously Tamil in nature.

The Japanese Red Army during it's active days was communistic, but hardly of any religion worth talking about.

The KKK could most certainly be classified as a terror organization when it was formed and was more likely than not, Christian.

I don't really know what religion ALF members compose off, but I doubt it is muslim.

And so on.

Hardly. I sincerely doubt that Israeli military has any idea at all about which particular guy did what - they know this guy is an IJ-Commander, so they knock him of as vengeance for a bombing, or shelling or whatever.
But that aside, it is pretty well known that when Israeli Security Forces enter a refugee camp, they usually get shot at and pelted with stones. Are those that shoot, or throw stones, Terrorists?
And is it not possible that there are people who join Hamas not because of political reasons, but because in parts of the Palestine this particular group has become a social institution, building schools and mosques and providing security and police services? (I really don't know, I'm asking.)

If they are part of Hamas, then they are indeed terrorists. Being a member of a terrorist group makes you a terrorist, just like joining a club makes you a member of that club. If they are not part of a terrorist organization, they are simply criminals.

Yes, I know there are terrorists out there who don't belong to a group or organization. However, once that person shooting at soldiers or throwing stones starts or plans to exclusively attack civilians, he/she is a terrorist.

Do you really think Hamas builds schools/mosques/etc out of charity? Those are the breeding grounds for the propoganda they spread. It is from those Hamas-funded social places where children are taught to hate the infidels (Basically anyone Non-Muslim), and where worshippers are told that killing those infidels will get you 70 some-odd virgins in the after-life.

If people really wanted to join a group dedicated to helping out Palestinians, they would join the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East or UNRWA (I know, long name) or something similar to it.

And do you, or do you not think that a Palestinian Hamas Member has a point of view worthy of consideration when he gets his rifle and shoots at Israeli soldiers invading his town?
What if it was Canadian troops invading an American town?

No, his point of veiw is not worth consideration. And if Americans from Milwaukee made a habit of walking into a bunch of Canadians with 10 lbs of Cemtex strapped to their chests, I would not fault the Canadians for attempting to forcibly end it.

Militias are similar to military units. They are defensive and generally dont go on the offense unless attacked first. They don't attack civilians (civilians being someone who doesn't actively taking up arms against you). They are a line of defense for a entity like a country, state etc.

Terrorists generally don't have anything to do with defense. They are more the type of group that will attack military or civilians to get their ideals noticed.

So basically militias defend, and terrorists go on the offensive to force someone that would otherwise not have the same ideals to reconsider. Not all terrorists are bad though, I consider the Boston Tea Party to be commited by terrorists.

Maeel

Where did this point of view discussion come from? All I'm wondering is about our definition of a terrorist.
This guy obviously blows up people, he falls into the same category as the Tamil Tigers for example, whom you called terrorists.


Ok. So we agree that Syed Salaudeen is a terrorist (FYI, he is also the president/chief of united jihad council - an umbrella org of all Kashmiri terrorists orgs).

But he is not called for what he is. You saw in the article that it is "seperatist guerillas" - not terrorists.

And here you are worrying about if we are painting everyone as a terrorist with a broad brush. I do agree that happens and it should not.

What I am worried about is the obvious hypocrisy in the way US treats their perceived enemies while turning a blind eye to a sister democracy's enemy (indeed arming and aiding and even protecting the said enemy from retaliation). This also happens and should not be happening.

I have stressed this often enough. I will say this again. The war on terror is a sham. And just because the Bush administration has hijacked the issue, does not mean that there is no issue to begin with and that the issue needs serious attention and decisive response to counter it.

Just like how there is no "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"...there is no "your terrorist is not my terrorist and why should I bother". This is precisely what is happening.


But a militiaman who would shoot at Indian soldiers in case of an invasion would not be, since you called soldiers "fair game". Is that correct?


Everybody who thinks he has a cause, has the right to bear arms and duke it out with the state's armed forces.

Yes, I would not call it terrorism if tomorrow Syed Saludeen stops his boys from killing civilians. But he won't. He would rather take the Saudi money and send young boys to death. The Paki army is there to protect his ass. America is there to protect the Paki army's ass.

No, his point of veiw is not worth consideration. And if Americans from Milwaukee made a habit of walking into a bunch of Canadians with 10 lbs of Cemtex strapped to their chests, I would not fault the Canadians for attempting to forcibly end it.
But he's just defending his house (not politically, but very physically) from being searched and possible destroyed by foreign invaders.
That's a very human and understandable reaction, right?

Once however that person instead of defending his home starts going out and blowing up people to make a point, then he does become somewhat deranged, and I'm not sure what can be done for those types. Ideally you would somehow stop them from becoming that way in the first place.

But he is not called for what he is. You saw in the article that it is "seperatist guerillas" - not terrorists.
Hehe, see, now we agree on something. But just for fun, I'd add that I don't really care what they call them...the more interesting thing is whether there needs to be a difference in how you treat them, depending on who they attack.

If they are part of Hamas, then they are indeed terrorists. Being a member of a terrorist group makes you a terrorist, just like joining a club makes you a member of that club. If they are not part of a terrorist organization, they are simply criminals.
That's the question, because there may be organisations in which the militant arm engages in terrorism, while the non-militant arm has next to nothing to do with it.
I don't know how Hamas works in detail, but Hezbollah for example seems to have rather clearly defined boundaries between its military and civilian departments.
And I imagine there may also be differences in attack (ie terrorist) departments, and simple civil defence networks, like the one shooting at intruding Israeli (or Syrian, or whoever is the enemy today) soldiers.

Would you describe the builder who helps Hamas out building that school in his neighbourhood as a Terrorist?

Do you really think Hamas builds schools/mosques/etc out of charity? Those are the breeding grounds for the propoganda they spread. It is from those Hamas-funded social places where children are taught to hate the infidels (Basically anyone Non-Muslim), and where worshippers are told that killing those infidels will get you 70 some-odd virgins in the after-life.
Probably - I've never attended. At any rate, there they learn reading too, and probably other skills for their life. Some will be converted, but obviously a good many Palestinians aren't terrorists.

If people really wanted to join a group dedicated to helping out Palestinians, they would join the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East or UNRWA (I know, long name) or something similar to it.
Finally, I've waited a long time for someone with a Jewish background to say something nice about the UN (I'm assuming from your name...sorry if I'm wrong :) ).
The question is how much of that organisation, or others, is actually visible on the ground. Hamas is all around them (I think they've got a TV station...or was that Hezbollah too), UNRWA isn't.
They see that if they help Hamas out, there'll be tangible effects - many might be a good deal more cynical about other organisations.

Have you seen the various snippets of "terror training" in Afghanistan et al - they teach them sharp shooting, obstacle courses and that kind of thing.
Osama Bin Laden build a private army there, not necessarily a terror base. I'm sure that some (maybe most?) learned bomb making and the like there, but a good many seemed to be fairly professional soldiers, if we can believe the various documentaries about the Afghanistan Invasion.

The same goes for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs...obviously some go and become terrorists - but most don't. Most run around with rifles in demonstrations and waste their bullets by firing into the sky - and when the Israelis march into their towns, they shoot at them.
Surely that's not "Terrorism".
Surely you have outdone yourself this time. On the 1 to 10 scale of hypocritical terror apologist bullshit, this new thread of yours scores 25 and then some.

Membership in a terrorist organization makes the person a terrorist regardless of what he does for this organization. Even if he just distributes leaflets praising it. When a robbery goes on, the lookout is just as much a thief as the guys who break into the safe. In a terrorist organization, the ones training to defend the group from retaliation of their targets are just as much terrorists as the suicide bombers.


To use a controversial example, part of the various Jewish militia groups before Israel did blow up people. They were terrorists. Other parts merely served as militias when the Arabs came around (and sometimes they visited the Arabs themselves).
*Sigh*

Idiotic example.

1)Jewish militias in Palestine were only organized after bloody Arab pogroms of 1929, so it is their actions that were defensive/retaliatory.
2)You're talking about different organizations, not different wings of the same group. The Irgun and LEHI were not connected to each other and definitely not to Hagana. (Does Altalena ring a bell? Or Operation Hunting Season?) Even if one was to assume your fundamentally dishonest stance that organizations like Hamas and Irgun were somehow morally equivalent, it would still didn't follow that if Irgun was "terrorist" but the Hagana wasn't, the suicide bombers of Hamas should be viewed as somehow distinct in status from other foot soldiers of the same fucking Hamas.


And if there had been a colonial group in Washington's movement that killed civilians (I don't know whether there was), would that make every member a terrorist?
No it wouldn't, unless targeting civilians was a routine and the primary strategy of the group. Which is the case with Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the rest of those you're trying to whitewash.


I don't have patience for this shit today.

How can anybody demonize demons?
Very nicely put.

But just for fun, I'd add that I don't really care what they call them...the more interesting thing is whether there needs to be a difference in how you treat them, depending on who they attack.

How you call somebody is usually a very good indicator of how you treat them.

And it is not fun.

I am still not out of mourning for the 61 people dead. So excuse me if I don't see the humor in this.

Surely you have outdone yourself this time. On the 1 to 10 scale of hypocritical terror apologist bullshit, this new thread of yours scores 25 and then some.
Anything to make you happy. :rolleyes:

Membership in a terrorist organization makes the person a terrorist regardless of what he does for this organization. Even if he just distributes leaflets praising it. When a robbery goes on, the lookout is just as much a thief as the guys who break into the safe.
This is a valid argument...but even if you were to use the same name for the lot of them, would you be obliged to treat them differently?

In a terrorist organization, the ones training to defend the group from retaliation of their targets are just as much terrorists as the suicide bombers.
It's obvious that most Hamas members would not go and blow themselves and a lot of civilians up - do you think that that makes a difference?

Idiotic example.
Not idiotic, but controversial. And did you not prove me right?

1)Jewish militias in Palestine were only organized after bloody Arab pogroms of 1929, so it is their actions that were defensive/retaliatory.
Obviously, one side good, other side evil. I get it (and no, you don't need to reply, because we'll just be hijacking the thread).

2)You're talking about different organizations, not different wings of the same group. The Irgun and LEHI were not connected to each other and definitely not to Hagana.
Who started Irgun though? It was a splinter group of the Haganah, so some connection must've been there initially - and when Irgun split itself, many members went back to the Haganah.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/PEOPLE/Stern.html
Plus there is the issue of Haganah itself attacking British installations as part of the Jewish Resistance Movement in 1945 - in alliance with Lehi.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/act/41zion.html

(Does Altalena ring a bell? Or Operation Hunting Season?)
That was much later though.

Even if one was to assume your fundamentally dishonest stance that organizations like Hamas and Irgun were somehow morally equivalent, it would still didn't follow that if Irgun was "terrorist" but the Hagana wasn't, the suicide bombers of Hamas should be viewed as somehow distinct in status from other foot soldiers of the same fucking Hamas.
But fair enough, maybe I went overboard there - the real issue at hand though remains to be resolved.

No it wouldn't, unless targeting civilians was a routine and the primary strategy of the group. Which is the case with Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the rest of those you're trying to whitewash.
What gives?
All I'm saying is that the majority of people who get so horribly mistreated in camps all around the planet are not as bad as the people we're really after.
There obviously is a difference between offensive and defensive strategy, as you yourself pointed out.
We simply don't have any appropriate safeguards to make sure who actually is the enemy and who isn't. And that is very relevant in times when people are quite happy to disregard a few rights when it comes to punishing our enemies.

This is a valid argument...but even if you were to use the same name for the lot of them, would you be obliged to treat them differently?
The name is not accidental. It indicates their status under law, their degree of guilt- and the treatment they are to receive.


It's obvious that most Hamas members would not go and blow themselves and a lot of civilians up
Obvious, is it? You've studied Hamas in such depth?

- do you think that that makes a difference?
No. Targeting civilians is the primary strategy of Hamas. You subscribe to Hamas, you subscribe to their strategy.


Not idiotic, but controversial. And did you not prove me right?
In case of some people, "controversial" is the warning word that idiocy is about to follow.


Obviously, one side good, other side evil. I get it (and no, you don't need to reply, because we'll just be hijacking the thread).
One who doesn't expect replies doesn't leave snide remarks that do not adress the substance of what was said, but make for a catchy ad hominem.


Who started Irgun though? It was a splinter group of the Haganah, so some connection must've been there initially - and when Irgun split itself, many members went back to the Haganah.
A splinter group is a group that split, that left, that broke away, that disconnected itself completely from the original group. Grasping that? Now, is this the case with Hamas? Do their street fighters no longer consider themselves members of the same group as suicide bombers? Do they get funding from a different place? Do they rally behind different leaders?


Plus there is the issue of Haganah itself attacking British installations as part of the Jewish Resistance Movement in 1945 - in alliance with Lehi.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/act/41zion.html
Attacking British installations would qualify as guerilla action, not terrorism.


That was much later though.
Later than what? Hunting Season was 1944.


All I'm saying is that the majority of people who get so horribly mistreated in camps all around the planet are not as bad as the people we're really after.
There obviously is a difference between offensive and defensive strategy, as you yourself pointed out.
There is a difference between organizations that confine themselves to defense and those who blow up civilians to make political point. When a terrorist group is forced into a defensive on their own home grounds, why in the bloody hell should it change the way they're treated? They are still the same group, they just took a bigger beating.


We simply don't have any appropriate safeguards to make sure who actually is the enemy and who isn't. And that is very relevant in times when people are quite happy to disregard a few rights when it comes to punishing our enemies.
This is a question very different from the one you tried to raise in your original post. Determining whether or not the people imprisoned are indeed members of the unlawful gangs using mass murder of civilians as a way of intimidating societies and achieving political objectives is fine in my book. But an Al-Qaeda bastard blowing up people in New York and the Al-Qaeda bastard in Afghanistan who shoots at US marines who came for him because he is an Al-Qaeda bastard, is still the same Al-Qaeda bastard. There isn't a grain of difference.

....There is a difference between organizations that confine themselves to defense and those who blow up civilians to make political point. When a terrorist group is forced into a defensive on their own home grounds, why in the bloody hell should it change the way they're treated? They are still the same group, they just took a bigger beating....
So let's take the case of the Australian Gitmo Bay detainee, David Hicks. He converted to Islam here, then went to Pakistan to learn more about it (a bad decision if you ask me...).
He enrolled in a Madrassa and was taught all the usual rhetoric about the evil West oppressing the religion and the like.
Then when 9/11 happened, and the UN invaded Afghanistan, he saw it as an attack on Muslims and their religion. All that is actually quite well documented, because his father has made the trip into Pakistan and found many personal documents which, along with the letters he sent, make for a good picture of the mind of a person like this (there was a documentary (http://www.filmstransit.com/hicks.html) made about the father's trip, if you can at all get your hands on it, do - it was a good watch).
He wasn't an AQ member at that time to my knowledge, although he did conscribe to the view that it was an organisation founded to protect Islam.
He then got military training (where I'm not certain), and went into battle against the Northern Alliance.
He was captured, and since then he's been held without charge, first in Afghanistan then in Cuba. He's accused his captors of torture as well.

The point of the matter is this: According to his personal papers, he doesn't seem to be a terrorist. He's not after killing civilians himself. Nonetheless, the charges that have now been put up against him include conspiracy to terrorist activity etc.

So is this man a terrorist, and is the treatment he received and still does receive, justified?

So let's take the case of the Australian Gitmo Bay detainee, David Hicks. He converted to Islam here, then went to Pakistan to learn more about it (a bad decision if you ask me...).
He enrolled in a Madrassa and was taught all the usual rhetoric about the evil West oppressing the religion and the like.
Then when 9/11 happened, and the UN invaded Afghanistan, he saw it as an attack on Muslims and their religion. All that is actually quite well documented, because his father has made the trip into Pakistan and found many personal documents which, along with the letters he sent, make for a good picture of the mind of a person like this (there was a documentary (http://www.filmstransit.com/hicks.html) made about the father's trip, if you can at all get your hands on it, do - it was a good watch).
He wasn't an AQ member at that time to my knowledge, although he did conscribe to the view that it was an organisation founded to protect Islam.
He then got military training (where I'm not certain), and went into battle against the Northern Alliance.
He was captured, and since then he's been held without charge, first in Afghanistan then in Cuba. He's accused his captors of torture as well.

The point of the matter is this: According to his personal papers, he doesn't seem to be a terrorist. He's not after killing civilians himself. Nonetheless, the charges that have now been put up against him include conspiracy to terrorist activity etc.

So is this man a terrorist, and is the treatment he received and still does receive, justified?
I am not familiar with the case, so I can't pass judgement. If he was involved with Al-Qaeda to any meaningful degree, the rest doesn't really matter. If he wasn't, the question arises whether the Taleban (of which I assume he is a member) are a terrorist organization. If they aren't, he should be held as a POW and according to any regulations that apply to the POWs.

I am not familiar with the case, so I can't pass judgement. If he was involved with Al-Qaeda to any meaningful degree, the rest doesn't really matter. If he wasn't, the question arises whether the Taleban (of which I assume he is a member) are a terrorist organization. If they aren't, he should be held as a POW and according to any regulations that apply to the POWs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
This site lists all the official allegations made by the US military. He rejected all of them, but I can't comment any further than that.
It may be useful for you to have a look into it though, because the movie "David Hicks vs the President" is pretty central in my understanding of the motivations for various terrorists. Maybe it'll help you understand what I'm trying to say sometimes.

He learned about Islam not here by the way, but with Albanian militias in the Kosovo. Don't ask me what he was doing there in the first place.

It is not for you to decide who is a muslim or not. It is not even for another muslim to decide. Only Allah can decide that and since Allah ain't tellin me, what am I supposed to to when somebody says he is a muslim and he wants to blow me up?

I love reading these threads.

TERRORISM!
*Blinkers on*
-Yak yak yak Israel, yak yak yak Hamas, yak yak yak Palestinian, yak yak yak Al Qaeda-

*Blinkers off*
-What..?-


There are groups out there deemed 'terrorist' that have NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION or being Muslim!
Off the top of my head- IRA, UVF, LVF, ETA, PKK, Grey Wolves, KLA, FARC, Free Aceh (which has now won), Tupac Amaru... shall I go on?

Take your blinkers off and stop thinking Muslim terrorist groups are the only ones around.:mad:

Oslo and Camp David Accords anyone? The problem is, after negotiating peace, they continue to attack. So what's the point in answering their demands when they don't fulfill ours? That's like giving a bully your lunch money for him not to beat you up. The he turns around and gives you a black eye anyway.

Oslo was a bullshit treaty that dealt with none of the real issues. Did Palestinians get a state of their own? No. Did Israel stop spreading its illegal settlements in the West Bank? No.