Terror in my country :(

[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

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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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 ...

[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..."