Terror in my country :(

I would like to inform you that there is a terror called PKK in my country, TURKIYE, at the east side of my country, there is a war, really war. i don't know how many of you are knowing this ? this Terrorists called them PKK and this is a Kurdish people based organization. They are killing people about 20 and more years. In turkey there is no difference about people who is TURKIYE citizen if Turkish, Kurdish or.... etc. who is Turkiye citizen, you have same rights with all people. Some Kurdish people who has benefits from this wants to divide our country and some powers which we don't know support this Terror organization.They are cheating young and innocent people and they train and send them to the mounts and let them live like an animal and let them kill people who are living there and war with Turkiye Forces. But every day people is killing. Kurdish and Turkish people is living together for a long years. In Iraq our army forces will have an operation in these days. i hope that will be the end of that terrorist organization and all of us will be happy and live a good life. But This is not the whole story about PKK Terrorism.i just wanted to inform , please support Turkiye and inform that there is a really people (women, men, girl, boy,baby) slaughtered although our army forces are there.



NOTE : And if you will read the History you will see the truths about which they called Armenian genocide, this is completely ridiculous. There is real genocides in history and they should talk about these real things.

[tux]

I do not adorse or like violence at all... Dont get me wrong on this. (please).

Anyway..
For me, pkk are not terrorists, they are fighting a fight, wich for them are a freedom-fight.. That is bad in it self, because people eventually die horribly..
For them it is fighting for the survival of their culture and so on... etc. etc..

For a normal turkish man, woman or child, they could easily be looked at, as a terror-organisation (christ it is a popular word these days..)..
Why?? Because people on the other side of the struggle, are likely to be considered terrorists..

I look at this on a different angle... My angle says that both sides of this loong conflict, are fighting for power.. Yes.. The core of this conflict, have allways been the question of who are the ones, that can or can not tell others to do or not to do...

Look at it this way... Will U consider braveheart to be a freedomfighter or a terrorist?? Well.. If it was today, that he lived, then he would for shure (pardon my bad english), be considered a terrorist..

All that said... PKK is only fighting on the same terms and wishes, that schotland and ireland were fighting years and years ago..
The only difference today, are the way that people are dying...

Please look for "Henry Rollins 'Ember of Rage' " on You tube...
He is sooooo right on war... The reason for war, are allways bad..

Keep in mind, that if U don't stop this war, then U will give the war to your children. And the only thing that U can say, when they ask U, are that u did not stop the war for them...


Now... Sorry if I offended U.. I just want people to stop fighting...

Yes my friend, People shouldn't be fight and war with eachother. But you say PKK is not a terrorist organization they want their freedom.
I want to ask you " how much do you know this organization ? aren't they free ? Is Turkey genocide Kurdish People ? "
NO!!

If you know Turkey, you will see. Kurdish people or Turkish People. if i have a rights for something. they have too. they have a paper which says you are a Turkish republic citizen, you can do everything you want as an economic or family way. I have Kurdish people in my family and they are very good and nice people.

But there is some secret powers that we don't know in this situation as an economic power and money.

Our Army can finish this problem easily,i think.We have a powerful army.But they don't or didn't want. Our Army take money from government for this problem, extra. When an Army officer goes to that area to fight they earn twice (x2 salary)so they didn't want to finish i think.

And there is a Petrol on that area but they don't let us.Some secret powers don't stop this. Some secret powers give support to them. some secret power train that people which you can see on their munitions and guns.

Innocent people are dying and cheating. PKK the Terrorist Organization is cheating young people and they let them to die on the mounts and let them live as an animal in the caves to fight and war. On the head of PKK, they live as a king and spend money. their stupid fighters are on the mounts and live like an animal. Thats foolish. I don't know why they don't see it.

If Turkey give that area to PKK the Terrorist Organization, that will be not good in the world arena as a power and honour.And that area is our we don't have to give. we have a good and ostentation history in the world as an Ottoman empire and Turkish Republic and every Turkish people is a patriot in themselves.

Why we war ? why people war ? why people don't live in peace ?

Make love !!! Don't WAR !!!

[tux]

I am quite well known in world history.
Though I am from scandinavia, my knowledge of history is quite broad.
I know stuff, like; If it wasn't for the arabian culture, then we in europe would still be happily unaware of greak history, and the idea of democracy.

I am not religeous, i hate all religeons, and i am so happy not to have any god or god's... That way, I can see stuff more clearly... But, it was not religion that i wanted to discuss...

Now..
The kurds.. What about them??
Now.. I know that PKK was a political party, that wanted to have a free kurdistan. Yeahh.. I know.. The kurds, wich are spread throughout 3 different countries, close to and over 3 boarders. Iraq, turkie, and Iran.
The kurds have their own culture, and are the largest group of humans, without any country.. If we look away from gypsie's worldswide.

The reason for this fight (freedomfighters seen from one side, and terrorists seen from the other side), are in it's purest form, the right for a country.
Nothing more nothing less.

Now...
There are allways two sides to one truth.. Right?..
Yes.. They kill.. So does the soldiers.

My point is..
Why not stop fighting.. Why not forgive??
Now we can't have that can we?? The human being are depended for hating in some more or less widespread idea or something..
It is true!! If we hate the others, then we have the right culture don't we??

Now...
I don't adorse PKK's use of violence, and i don't adorse the army's use of violence.. The only point that i wanted to make clear, is that someone is not allways terrorists, and if people would see the other side's views, then war would be a thing of history.

Still... We can't have that can we?? Humans want to kill and hate... Or will we??

[prague]

Oh, the paradoxical quesiton of "terrorist" and "terrorism". How does one define a terrorist? When should a act of violence be considered terrorism? Hmm, the question aren't easily answered; however, just remember: "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

[itbewayne]

Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.

Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

"There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless

[2WayStreet]

Make LOVE not WAR

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by 2WayStreet

Make LOVE not WAR

exactly...........

Originally Posted by itbewayne

There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless

True, true.
The Kurdistan Workers want a free Kurdistan...well, fuck them. If they keep causing trouble, Turkey might very well be provoked into a full invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. I'm talking massive regional destabilization. Iraqi Kurdistan is the most secure area of Iraq, and the last thing it needs is total war between the PKK and the Turkish Armed Forces.

What is Kurdistan ? What is that, my friend ? Is there a place called Kurdistan in the world ?

Someone's terrorist is someone's freedom fighter, it is true.
But if u want something that is not belong to u, the other side will prevent this. And if you don't understand that is not belong to u again, the other side have rights everything to protect its belongings.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Tux

For me, pkk are not terrorists, they are fighting a fight, wich for them are a freedom-fight.. That is bad in it self, because people eventually die horribly..
For them it is fighting for the survival of their culture and so on... etc. etc..

Terror is not a tool for sane people. Its a weapon cherished by bottom feeding shitheads and Cowards.

If a man of honour is annoyed by someone, he should strike that particular someone. But a coward who really sucks at fighting and actually shits his pants to face the enemy upfront, will kill any innocent unarmed child, totally unrelated to the target. And perhaps flaunt and prance around bragging about his sickening deed!

Terrorists are specks of mud on the face of the earth. They have no purpose, no honour, no heart. They are just greedy, thoughtless machines of destruction, toys in the hands of corrupted politicians.

May God rid the beautiful planet from them, for good. Amen.

[sesame]

I believe in the idea of forgiveness. Hatred breeds more Hatred! Its absolutely true. So Christ has said, "Love your enemy, forgive your tormentor." Buddha and Jaina Tirthankaras have preached Ahimsa.

But when you come to think of it, can you really forgive the heartless brutes? Love or compassion is the tendermost treasure of the heart. Why should I offer it to someone who has no heart at all, who have become a killing machine? "You gotta kill to live." What kind of a philosophy is that? Kill whom, kill anyone? They havent got the balls to lay a finger on the Govt., the ministers, the army... so they kill the poor, the helpless, the unarmed, the innocent and the unsuspecting civilians. The terrorists are becoming more cowardly by the hour! In the past, they used guns. Now they are using car-bombs and toy-bombs.

Tagore was perhaps thinking of these fiends, when he wrote:

Prashna (The question)

God, you have sent messengers life after life,
To this callous earth;
They have said 'Forgive all sins' they have told us 'Love-from your heart all malice remove'
They are venerable men, worthy of reverence, but we
In these dark days reject them with ritual futility.
I see secret violence under cover of darkness
Slaughtering the helpless,
I see the just weeping in solitary silence,
No power to protest, their only offence,
I see tender youths hitting out blindly
Cracking their heads against stones in their agony
Today my voice is choked, my flute is without note,
The prison of the no-moon night
Has extinguished my world, given me nightmares;
And this is why I ask, through my tears - Those who poison your air and blot out the sun;
Do you truly fogive them, do you truly love them?




Also, please dont compare Freedom-fighters, martyrs with lowly terrorists! Freedom fighters like Braveheart (Irish) faught with honour and valour against the English Govt., against the Army, against warlords who were raping Ireland. He never took the lives of innocent civilians. Those were Great men.

The terrorists only aim to strike terror in the heart of the Govt. by torturing unarmed, simpleton civilians. What is the honour in that? They are dishonourable cowards, who are like toys in the pockets of corrupted Politicians. The terrorists put up a mock pretence of enmity against the Politicians who patronize them. Hah! Valour, my foot!

[sesame]

Braveheart was declared the official Guardian of Scotland!
He was a true Hero.


AND


Below is a Blind, Pudding-head, peabrain generalisation:
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Its like saying, "Anything that has four legs is a cow!"

i don't know anything about the sittuation in turkey, this is simply my views on the word terorism.

The definition of the word terorism is a nebulous one, i'm not even going to try to put it on here because it is so long and confusing and is not agreed on internationaly, however the most basic definiton of the word is as follows:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
i think just about every country in the world is guilty of that at one time or another, but since the second world war, the united states of america have been the world leaders in this practice.
there seems to be an asumption that if a group is fighting a guerila campaign they are automaticaly terorists, or if they ever kill inocent people they are terorists.
sometimes gueriila tactics are the only option people have available to them, look to the examples of world war 2 resistance movments, they planted bombs, shot people and done whatever else they thought necesary and i'm sure they killed some inocent people along the way, such is the nature of war.
many groups over the years have been deemed to be terorists by the people they where fighting and or the (international comunity) another nebulous term, because they didn't have the means to fight a traditional war. which is why a fifteen year old palastinian suicide bomber, blowing up a bus load of people is concidered a terorist without question, but an israeli airforce pilot who takes out a city block because there may or may not be one or two enemy combatants somewhere within is concidered not to be. i'm not picking sides in that particular conflict i'm simply using it as an example of the double standard we see every day. i know which of the two i find more terifying.

everyone should ask themselves "what would i do in that situation" what would you do if your couintry was invaded and its army's desamated, or some right wing regime came to power in your country, or your family where wiped out in air strike that missed its target and landed on your house while you where at work, or whatever. you might laugh and say how unlikly those things are to happen for alot of the people in the world these things a daily reality.
as unlikly as it is to happen to me living as i do in the western world i find it reasuring knowing that if things ever get to fucked up, and we're invaded by religeous fundamentalist or nazzi type's or whatever else might happen that i will at the very least go down swinging.

TERORISIM
Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as "terrorism." A 1988 study by the US Army[1] counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers," "militants," etc.
In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries.
Among these definitions, not all recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[2] Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.
It has also been argued that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerrilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of people.[attribution needed]
As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest."[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Etymology
2 Reasons for controversy
3 Definitions
3.1 United Nations
3.2 European Union
3.3 United States
3.4 United Kingdom
3.5 Laws and government agencies
3.6 Individuals
3.7 Other
4 Criticisms of the term
5 References
6 External links


[edit] Etymology

A January 30, 1795 use of the word 'terrorism' in The Times, possibly the first appearance in English. The excerpt reads: "There exists more than one system to overthrow our liberty. Fanaticism has raised every passion; Royalism has not yet given up its hopes, and Terrorism feels bolder than ever."
The term "terrorism" comes from Latin terrere, "to frighten" via the French word terrorisme,[4] which is often associated with the regime de la terreur, the Reign of Terror of the revolutionary government in France from 1793 to 1794. A leader in the French revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, proclaimed in 1794, "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs."[5] The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists."[6] The English word "terrorism" was first recorded in English dictionaries in 1798 as meaning "systematic use of terror as a policy."[4] The term appeared earlier in English in newspapers, such as a 1795 use of the term in The Times.

[edit] Reasons for controversy
The modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated with a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include the disruption of a computer system wherein no violence is intended or results.
The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

[edit] Definitions

[edit] United Nations
While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism,[7] the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:
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 (Schmid, 1988).
UN short legal definition, also proposed by Alex P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime."[7]
On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."[8]
The General Assembly resolution 49/60,[9], titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism:
" Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[10] "

According to Antonio Cassese, that provision "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."[11]

[edit] European Union
The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002).[12] This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which;
"given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation."

[edit] United States
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.[13] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
...activities that involve violent... or life-threatening acts... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and... (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States... [or]... (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."
Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and ambassador to Mauritania:
In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us - this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group - they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. [...] After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says - one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." [...] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.[14]

[edit] United Kingdom
The United Kingdom defined acts of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 as the use of threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
Section 34 of Terrorism Act 2006 amended sections 1(1)(b) and 113(1)(c) of Terrorism Act 2000 to include "international governmental organisations" in addition to "government".

[edit] Laws and government agencies
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."
United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." [15]
USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." [1]
The British Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism so as to include not only violent offences against persons and physical damage to property, but also acts "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system".[2] This latter consideration would include shutting down a website whose views one dislikes. However, this, and any of the other acts covered by the definition would also need to be (a) designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, AND (b)be done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.[the latter three terms are not defined in the Act]. [3]
The Supreme Court of India adopted Alex P. Schmid's definition of terrorism in a 2003 ruling (Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar), "defin[ing] acts of terrorism veritably as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes.'"[4]

[edit] Individuals
Schmid and Jongman (1988): "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 are 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), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are use 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".[16]
L. Ali Khan: "Terrorism sprouts from the existence of aggrieved groups."[17]
Jack Gibbs (1989): "Terrorism is illegal violence or threatened violence directed against human or nonhuman objects, provided that it: (1) was undertaken or ordered with a view to altering or maintaining at least one putative norm in at least one particular territorial unit or population: (2) had secretive, furtive, and/or clandestine features that were expected by the participants to conceal their personal identity and/or their future location; (3) was not undertaken or ordered to further the permanent defense of some area; (4) was not conventional warfare and because of their concealed personal identity, concealment of their future location, their threats, and/or their spatial mobility, the participants perceived themselves as less vulnerable to conventional military action; and (5) was perceived by the participants as contributing to the normative goal previously described (supra) by inculcating fear of violence in persons (perhaps an indefinite category of them) other than the immediate target of the actual or threatened violence and/or by publicizing some cause."[citation needed]
David Rodin (Oxford Philosopher): "Terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process."[5]
Walter Laqueur: "Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."[citation needed]
James M. Poland: "Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience."[citation needed]
M. Cherif Bassiouni: "'Terrorism' has never been defined..."[18]
Robespierre (17 pluviôse an II = 5/2/1794):"Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." Original:"La terreur n'est autre chose que la justice prompte, sévère, inflexible; elle est donc une émanation de la vertu; elle est moins un principe particulier, qu'une conséquence du principe général de la démocratie, appliqué aux plus pressants besoins de la patrie."[citation needed]

[edit] Other
League of Nations Convention (1937): all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.

[edit] Criticisms of the term
Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the word "terrorism":
"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22)
Other arguments include that:
There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.
Almost every serious attempt to define the term have been sponsored by governments who instinctively attempt to draw a definition which excludes bodies like themselves.
Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.
Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist".
The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons.
It allows governments to apply a different standard of law to that of ordinary criminal law on the basis of a unilateral decision.
There is no hope that people will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.
The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is considered dubious by some; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism".
If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:
State of Israel, USA, but also the states of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban
The Contemporary Palestine Liberation Organization
Groups conducting revolution, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), are routinely denigrated as "terrorist"
Almost all guerrilla groups (like Tamil Tigers or Chechen rebels) are accused of being "terrorist", but almost all guerrilla groups accuse countries they fight against of likewise being "terrorist".
Resistance movements during World War II. For instance, French revolting against Nazi occupation of France (see also Vichy Government).

[edit] References

[sesame]

The terrorists dont kill the innocent by chance, its their primary target! They intend to kill the common people and make their mark.
Examples:

9th July 2008, Terrorists blew up the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. 41killed, 139 injured. The terrorists dont even care about who they kill, they just KILL!

26th July 2008, about 50 innocent people died by terrorist bombing in Ahmedabad, India. 27 dead, 160 injured. 5 bombs shattered the peaceful market places of Ahmedabad city. As if it was not enough for the villains. A few hours later as the injured people were being carried to the Hospital, a car bomb parked at the gate, exploded, instantly killing another 22. Total death toll: 49 dead.

28th July 2008, Monday. 2 female suicide bombers (vampire whores) mingle with Shia Pilgrims to a Holy shrine and blow themseves up! Amazing Blowjob! 25 dead, 70 more injured!


Joke: Pun Fully Intended!!
I think terrorists are impotent individuals who cant satisfy their partners in bed. They will probably lose a wrestling match with a five year old! So they take out their anger on innocent, unarmed people, they have never seen or known in life. They plant a bomb and run miles away. And when there is a large crowd, near the bomb, they detonate it by remote control. BOOM

In their flea infested bunkers, wherever those filty rats, I mean, "Terrorist freedom fighters" hide, they are rejoicing: Hoorah, victory, in the name of Lucipher! I have killed 50 men, women, old and children singlehandedly! Amazing, congrats, you have broken the world record of Cowardice and Treachery!

yeah i could give examples of times when state's have intentionaly targeted civiilian's killing people in the thousands, or when so called terorists have targeted solely military targets. but someone once gave me a great piece of advice, never argue with a fool.
anyone who takes such a black and white view on things is a fucking moron, but then i already knew that. BRAVEHEART wasn't a fucking person it was the title of a mel gibson film but i guess your talking about william wallace and your obviously a real authority on him, given that you've seen the film you must know all there is to know about him.
the truth is never black and white its always somewhere inbetween harder to pin down and harder to prove, the best thing to do is hear both sides of any story and asume the truth is somewhere inbetween.

[sesame]

when state's have intentionaly targeted civiilian's killing people in the thousands

My Dear Man,
If a Govt. has commited heinous crimes, then it is guilty.
Only its very difficult to punish them. But just because
its a politically organised body, it doesnot lighten their
offence. History will remember their tyranny.
In the same way, if a radical group or whoever
spills civilian blood, it is an act of terrorism.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Ok, I see in this thred a LOT of shit talk. Basicly Sesame, you think the governments of this world really give a shit wether its civilian or military targets. When Hezbolla sent truckbombs into the US base in Lebanon, they called it terrorism, even though it was a military target. When Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, they called it terrorism, yet it was a warship they attacked.

When the US shot down an Iranian Airliner in Iranian airspace, with a warship that was illegaly in Iranian water, they called it an accident, collatoral damage, they refused to appologise, when the Russians shot down a Korean airliner that flew into Russian airspace, over russian land, they called it a crime.

Last week a palestinian rammed a bus with a bulldozer, he was called a terrorist, when the Isrealis flatten a house full of Palestinians with a millitary bulldozer they are defending themselves.

When Hezzbolla fire unguided missiles at isreal, they are terrorist, and targetting civillians, when the Irealis fire back with guided missiles, they are defending themselves and trying to keep civillian casualtys down. Hezbolla killed more soldiers than civillians with thier unguided missiles, Israel killed more civillians than fighters with thier guided missiles. Yet it is Hezbolla who are the terrorists.

You say terrorists are cowards. Everyday a man's family are abused by soldiers, they are taunted and mocked by his enemys, they come into his house, they put a gun in his face and tell him they will kill him, thier planes fly over his house, they bomb him, thier hellicopters shoot his family and friends, soldiers shoot his children from across hte border, finaly he makes a bomb and straps it to his own body, he goes up to the soldiers at the checkpoint and blows himself up. It is the only way he can kill hte soldiers. Is he a coward? or are the soldiers who killed from safe inside thier planes and tanks and sniper towers?
Oh he did he for his 72 virgins, he did it because he has no respect for life, he did it because he is evil.
No, he did it because he hates his enemy more than anything else, and he hates them for a reason, because they are the occupiers, teh oppresors.

When you apply bullshit morality, you say, oh they are both wrong, they are both bad. But one man has power over the other. A man in a tank in a plane in a high tower, the man who contorls the other, who imprisons him with a wall, who came into his home, came into his country, came and took his land, destroyed his home, and then finally kills his people, kills the people he conqured and oppresses. is he hte same as the man who endures all that and then retaliates against the people who did it to him? Are they the same? Are the equal?

Does the crime of the oppressed lashing out against those who are his tormentors balance out the crimes of the oppressor against his victim?


_________________________________-

As to the PKK, I won't comment on them, I do not thing thier actions are justified, they have not persued political aims very hard, but the Turkish government has also refused to negotiate, and has not responded to the PKK's ceasefires, and it had destroyed thousands of Kurdish communities and created millions of regugees.

As far as Translover's satement that there is no place called Kurdistan, well, rember that at the start of WW1 there was no such place as Turkey, your nation was part of hte ottoman empire and after it's defeat, was divided into many different countrys with Turkish and Kurdish territory, and the south eastern kurdish terretory becoming part of Iraq. It was only because of war by Mustafa Kemal that the republic of turkey cam into existance and took the Kurdish territory that was to be given to Iraq. And the Kurdish territory in Iraq was only place in that nation because the Britsh drew a line around thier territory in the middle east and it went straight through hte Kurdish part. The fact is, the borders in that part of the world were drawn arbitrarily by the collonial powers, Turkey only exists because they fought against the lines the Europeans drew, why is that more legitimate than the Kurds fighting against the lines the Turks have drawn? The only difference is the Turks won thier war and so they are a country and act like they were a country since the begining of time, but they were just a province of the ottoman empire, and the ottomans talked of Turkish nationalists and Turkey the same way you now talk of Kurdish nationalists and Kurdistan.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Oh, and I just noticed your denial of the Armenian Genocide. Now I really don't want to be arsed posting sources and evidence. But it fucking happened, look it the fuck up in a real source. Ask any real historian, they all agree, it happened. You know it did and we all know it did, denying it is bullshit, excusing it is bullshit, when your country does bad, fucking acknowledge it and denounce it for what it really is, no country is without crimes, I know mine isn't, if you excuse them, you are just setting out on the same road to repeating them. You really are setting a double standard if you condemn terrorism, but you excuse genocide.

[sesame]

Hey Rhythmic Delivery,
your English suddenly improved to a professional standard in post numbers:
TERORISIM = that must be yours Post # 15 and 16

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as "terrorism." A 1988 study by the US Army[1] counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers," "militants," etc.

And this is someone else's.

The United Kingdom defined acts of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 as the use of threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,

Hey, thats someone's intellectual property you are cutting and pasting!

[sesame]

Originally Posted by sesame

Hey Rhythmic Delivery,
your English suddenly improved to a professional standard in post numbers:
TERORISIM = that must be yours Post # 15 and 16
And this is someone else's.
Hey, thats someone's intellectual property you are cutting and pasting!

I got it! Its straight from Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Ok, I see in this thred a LOT of shit talk. Basicly Sesame, you think the governments of this world really give a shit wether its civilian or military targets. When Hezbolla sent truckbombs into the US base in Lebanon, they called it terrorism, even though it was a military target. When Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, they called it terrorism, yet it was a warship they attacked.

Does it make it any less of a terrorist act because the target was military?

Is it okay to attack anyone because they are military?

Are soldiers any less deserving to live than civilians?

[sesame]

If a radical group has to make a point aggressively against a Govt.,
how should they do it? Protest peacefully until the end of time?
In all ages, in every country, there has been uprising and conflict.
This is the nature of politics.
So people will always come down to a fight if their pleas are ignored.
First petition, then demonstration, then battle. Everyone is not Gandhi.

So when the conflict is unavoidable, whom should the radicals target?
In my opinion, they should fight against the politicians (who are the
actual decision makers) or the military forces. The military are trained
to fight, their very purpose is to protect the state. They are the actual
strength of a state. They keep the borderline safe.

Fighting against the military is much more justified than mutilating
the unarmed civilians indiscriminately!

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

Does it make it any less of a terrorist act because the target was military?

Is it okay to attack anyone because they are military?

Are soldiers any less deserving to live than civilians?

So what makes a terrorist? if the millitary are not legitimate targets, then why is not terrorist and soldier interchangeable? Should all soldiers be taken away as terrorists? Should we demolish war memorials to stop the glorification of terrorism? If funding terrorism illegal, then should we all be arrested for paying taxes that get used on the military? Is hte USA the biggest terrorist nation, because it spends more on it's terrorists than any other nation? Are 1 in 8 Americans terrorists or ex terrorists?

Take your statement and reverse it.

Is it okay to attack anyone because they are terrorists?

Are terrorists any less deserving to live than civilians?


I can accept either stance, but the thing I demand is consistancy, if there are no legitimate targets, then that makes all soldiers terrorist criminals, even if they only defend thier nations against invading militarys.



Fact is, Terrorist means 'them on the other side', 'the enemy', 'the huns', 'the gooks', 'the ragheads', it's just another word to dehumanise the enemy, it's always 'them' who are the terrorist, never 'us'. Our fighters are the soldiers hte enemy's fighters are the terrorists. Our's are brave, the enemy's are cowards. When asked what's the difference, the reply is always, they kill civilians, they kill kids, we don't and if we do, it's by accident. But the real difference is, they fight against us, and our soldiers fight for us. Whoever the fuck us is.


So you tell me, what do you call a terrorist?

[sesame]

Originally Posted by ssAnna

Are terrorists any less deserving to live than civilians?

Yes, they have lesser rights to live as they live only to destroy the innocent. Terrorists who shed civilian blood deserve punishment.


Politicians of established nations, who arrange for civilians to be massacred also deserve the same punishment.

[ila]

Originally Posted by sesame

If a radical group has to make a point aggressively against a Govt.,
how should they do it? Protest peacefully until the end of time?
In all ages, in every country, there has been uprising and conflict.
This is the nature of politics.
So people will always come down to a fight if their pleas are ignored.
First petition, then demonstration, then battle. Everyone is not Gandhi.

So when the conflict is unavoidable, whom should the radicals target?
In my opinion, they should fight against the politicians (who are the
actual decision makers) or the military forces. The military are trained
to fight, their very purpose is to protect the state. They are the actual
strength of a state. They keep the borderline safe.

Fighting against the military is much more justified than mutilating
the unarmed civilians indiscriminately!

So you do condone terrorist activities.

[sesame]

I dont support terrorism in any form.
But people have faught and will fight
in future anyway. Harmony is rare.
I am referring to the target of the conflict.
In the past, it was specific,
nowadays its anyone!
Blind date with death!
The separatists have become
more and more confused with time.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

So you do condone terrorist activities.

So you believe terrorists should be allowed do as they please?

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

So you believe terrorists should be allowed do as they please?

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. I haven't anywhere said that terrorists should be allowed to do as they please.

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Oh, and I just noticed your denial of the Armenian Genocide. Now I really don't want to be arsed posting sources and evidence. But it fucking happened, look it the fuck up in a real source. Ask any real historian, they all agree, it happened. You know it did and we all know it did, denying it is bullshit, excusing it is bullshit, when your country does bad, fucking acknowledge it and denounce it for what it really is, no country is without crimes, I know mine isn't, if you excuse them, you are just setting out on the same road to repeating them. You really are setting a double standard if you condemn terrorism, but you excuse genocide.

??????
How can u be sure about that ??? Were u there ?

"This is Historians job" When we say that this ? France says " There is Armenian Genocide !!! ",
But when Algerians say to France "excuse us for the Algerian Genocide" France reply was "this is historians job" ...
If there were any genocide, Armenians know very good why it was happened that "supposedly genocide".

this isn't exactly evidence, i don't think it would stand up in court its just some ones views on the subject, its quite funny to: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wpk_VUOybE

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

Does it make it any less of a terrorist act because the target was military?

Is it okay to attack anyone because they are military?

Are soldiers any less deserving to live than civilians?

I'd have to agree with Sesame and (gasp) SluttyShemaleAnna. That was actually a very good and thought provoking post Anna. When Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, that was not terrorism. It was a legitimate military target. Attacking the Pentagon was a legitmate military target. Even if they used a plane full of civilians. The passengers were not the primary target. Of course attacking the twin towers was terrorism.

Ila, it's a soldier's duty to stand between his country's enemies and his country's citizens. Yes their lives as valuable as the lives of citizens, but they represent their country's best values and are the best trained and equipped to defend their country. So to attack a country's military is always more honorable than attacking a country's untrained, often unprepared civilians.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

When Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, that was not terrorism. It was a legitimate military target.

That should have been the wake-up call: "THIS IS A DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE INFIDELS! WE WILL KILL ALL OF YOU IF YOU DO NOT CAPITULATE!"
Instead, some idiot or collection of idiots in the Clinton administration decide that an attack on an American warship is not a military matter, but a criminal one.
"Eh, just send in the Feebs and shoot off a few missiles at al-Qaeda's camps in the 'Stan. In the meantime, I got an important meeting with an intern..."

[shemalelolatoronto]

what a right replay for this turkish, my mom is Kurdish from Turkey and I am so glad to be a Turkish Kurdish and fuck all over the world who I want to ( I meant intercourse ) Tslover needs to read more books or go to leave in some kurdish areas and see their pain and war between each other for food , fabric and a decent life

Originally Posted by tux

I do not adorse or like violence at all... Dont get me wrong on this. (please).

Anyway..
For me, pkk are not terrorists, they are fighting a fight, wich for them are a freedom-fight.. That is bad in it self, because people eventually die horribly..
For them it is fighting for the survival of their culture and so on... etc. etc..

For a normal turkish man, woman or child, they could easily be looked at, as a terror-organisation (christ it is a popular word these days..)..
Why?? Because people on the other side of the struggle, are likely to be considered terrorists..

I look at this on a different angle... My angle says that both sides of this loong conflict, are fighting for power.. Yes.. The core of this conflict, have allways been the question of who are the ones, that can or can not tell others to do or not to do...

Look at it this way... Will U consider braveheart to be a freedomfighter or a terrorist?? Well.. If it was today, that he lived, then he would for shure (pardon my bad english), be considered a terrorist..

All that said... PKK is only fighting on the same terms and wishes, that schotland and ireland were fighting years and years ago..
The only difference today, are the way that people are dying...

Please look for "Henry Rollins 'Ember of Rage' " on You tube...
He is sooooo right on war... The reason for war, are allways bad..

Keep in mind, that if U don't stop this war, then U will give the war to your children. And the only thing that U can say, when they ask U, are that u did not stop the war for them...


Now... Sorry if I offended U.. I just want people to stop fighting...

[Rachel]

[QUOTE=? Is hte USA the biggest terrorist nation, ? ?



Yeah you just holler for us again if the Germans come back Anna

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

So what makes a terrorist? if the millitary are not legitimate targets, then why is not terrorist and soldier interchangeable? ... So you tell me, what do you call a terrorist?

Fighting as a distinguished combatant or a legitimate soldier in defense of ones country is what seperates terrorists from soldiers.

1) Terrorists don't don military garb and engage the enemy as a proper military force; they blend in with the civilian population and try to draw enemy fire into the crowds with the purpose of trying to incite and inflame.

2) Terrorists operate by fear. They attack their own and other civilian populations to try and belittle them into not fighting or helping out any other forces other than their own; nor do they have any sense of what collateral damages are. We try to win hearts and minds; we've built up the infrastructure and brought decent medical care and things of the sort to the nations we invade. I don't hear Al-Quaeda doing that.

3) The Pentagon attack was not a legitimate military targat as they had not identified themselves as a legitimate force, and they did take hostages when they hijacked the plane. The USS Cole was also not a legitimate military target as the Cole was docked and refueling and was not engaged in hostile actions. Soldiers do not take hostages nor do they engage targets unless they are openly hostile.


Military are legitimate targets if they are openly hostile. If it is just a presence and there are no acts of violence towards the population, military or not, there is no cause or need for retaliatory violence. Same reason why we don't shoot EPW's(Enemy Prisoners of War) when they surrender.

[The Conquistador]

For the Hezbollah vs IDF crowd: A British Colonels account of Hezbollah fighters actions compared to IDF soldiers actions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8R ... r_embedded

[Jenae LaTorque]

It really doesn't matter which side you take, or how you define terrorism. They are all wrong and, they are all right. The facts are:

1. This last century has been the bloodiest in terms of humans killed by other humans in all of recorded history - well over 150 million dead from wars, genocides, ethnic cleansing, harsh regimes, etc.

First World War

(1914-18): 15 000 000

Russian Civil War

(1917-22): 9 000 000

Soviet Union

, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000

Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 000

Post-War Expulsion of Germans from East Europe

(1945-47): 2 100 000

Chinese Civil War (1945-49): 2 500 000

People's Republic of China

, Mao's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000

Tibet

(1950 et seq.): 600 000

Congo Free State

(1886-1908): 8 000 000
Mexican Revolution (1910-20): 1 000 000

Armenian Massacres

(1915-23): 1 500 000
China, Warlord Era (1917-28): 800 000
China, Nationalist Era (1928-37): 3 100 000
Korean War (1950-53): 2 800 000
Rwanda and Burundi (1959-95): 1 350 000
Second Indochina War (1960-75): 3 500 000
Ethiopia (1962-92): 1 400 000
Nigeria (1966-70): 1 000 000
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975-1978): 1 650 000
Mozambique (1975-1992): 1 000 000
Afghanistan(1979-2001): 1 800 000
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): 1 000 000
Sudan (1983 et seq.): 1 900 000
Kinshasa Congo (1998 et seq.): 3 800 000

2. There is no universally recognized rule book for the conduct of war. There has seldom been a war where atrocities were not comitted by one side or both sides. And ever mounting are the death tolls of non-combatants.

3. Warfare is NOT limited to actual battles between armies. It is rather naive to think it is. Any act to oppress or force an adversary in an unwilling direction is a type of warfare; whether it be armed force, nuclear threats, economic sanctions, etc. Terrorism is a form of warfare and may be the only form of resistance available to a group.

4. Reaction to oppression runs the whole spectrum from submission, to Ghandi's passive resistance, to covert sabotage, to terrorist acts, and so on....all the way up to outright full blown military war. Somewhere in there fall the normal and preferred political actions such as appeals to world opinion, the World Court, United Nations, "Big Bothers", etc.

5. The fact is also that those in power determine what goes into the history books that are used to teach in the schools. Witness our thread opener who seems to have a distorted picture of the Armenian genocide. When you add to this:slanted news stories in the press and very biased web sites; is it any wonder that we still have people who revere the likes of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pat Robertson, etc.

6. The biggest fact of all is that there are really very few of us that are knowledgable enough to really give judgement on most world issues. There are many differances from one culture to another, and it is very hard to understand the issues from the viewpoint of the other side. Many times it is hard just to separate out the right course from the viewpoints on our side. I usually try to understand the motivations of each adversary as a starting point and go from there.

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. The Boston Tea Party and Samuel Adams are golden icons in American History, but to the British it was an outrage and Samuel Adams deserved to be hung. Someday it is possible that the events of 9-11 will be considered as just actions by victims of US militarism and financial opression. You all did notice that is what the targets were didn't you? It's not like they bombed the SuperBowl or Madison Square Garden.

[smc]

One should always be wary of any nationalist denial of an historical act of genocide. The world's great historians are those who take what is fact -- that is, objective reality -- and help us interpret it. But the starting point is fact.

When a German claims there was no holocaust, be wary.

When a Japanese person denies the "rape of Nanking" in China, be wary.

So, when a Turk says there was no Armenian genocide, be wary.

When an American denies the wholesale extermination of native peoples as part of "manifest destiny," be wary.

When a Sudanese claims not to know of any atrocities in Darfur, be wary.

And so on ...

[johndowe]

Originally Posted by prague

Oh, the paradoxical quesiton of "terrorist" and "terrorism". How does one define a terrorist? When should a act of violence be considered terrorism? Hmm, the question aren't easily answered; however, just remember: "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Hi there.

A terrorist is a terrorist, the expression "freedom fighter" was created by them for them to justify their COLD BLOODED MURDERS, and if they cared about their people, they would take their fight to the streets protesting, doing petitions, using every diplomatic tool in the book, but not MURDER, saying you are a "freedom fighter" doesn't make it so, any more than if i say i am the king of the world, diplomacy takes years to come through with positive results, while over the last 2000 years terrorism hasn't accomplished a damned thing other than MURDERING and MAIMING inocent people both neutral, friend and foe, VIOLENCE is never a good solution to any problem, all it achieves it to cause more violence and hate.

AND to me terrorist are the lowest most disgusting sub human beeings in the universe, if anybody would deserve to be exterminated it would be them.

Also, when they MURDER all those people they get people to side with their enemys, so terrorism is self-defeatist, the more you "PLAY" the more you lose, you lose your freinds, your family, the people you MURDER, your cause and most importantly you lose yourself to the hate and violence.

GOOD JOB, RETARDS!

There are always alternatives to violence, aspecially terrorist type violence, if you protest and your people get killed, you get public sympathy for your movement instead of losing that person to a suicide bombing and LOSING public sympathy.

There are a lot of ways to get your point across today, terrorism isn't one of them, there are news agencies, like newspapers, tv news, the internet, word of mouth, marches, petissions, business strikes; refusal to work etc. one person can be repremended, 10 also but 100, or 1000, harder to do.

If you are under an oppressive, dictatorship, the only violent action that i and many would find acceptable would be to kill the dictator and his top aides and no more, you "take care" of the problem, and you don't MURDER the inocent victims of his reign of violence along a few of his men that are usually in it to save themselves and to make a living.

JohnDowe.

[ila]

Originally Posted by johndowe

Hi there.

A terrorist is a terrorist,......

That was pretty blunt and to the point, John. You have some very good points.

[johndowe]

Originally Posted by ila

That was pretty blunt and to the point, John. You have some very good points.

Hi there.

Sometimes blunt is the only way to get your point across on topics like this one, and sometimes it's not enough you'd have to slap them around to make them understand. (what pain the terrorost inflict, not only physical but more isnidiously, psychological)


JohnDowe.