Terror in my country :(

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]

[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!