are you a terrorist?
- Thread starter kailat
- Start date
American society and it's view of the blurring line between what's military and what's civilian only shows that we need to be more involved in our voting process, and more concerned with the products we buy.
We've moved from a nation of free-thinkers to a cowed society of whining crybabies and Draconian-capitalists. And its our fault.
"Terrorism" and "Patriotism" are interchangeable; the only thing different is your opinion of the situation at hand.
We've moved from a nation of free-thinkers to a cowed society of whining crybabies and Draconian-capitalists. And its our fault.
"Terrorism" and "Patriotism" are interchangeable; the only thing different is your opinion of the situation at hand.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
your so-called "nation of free thinkers" allowed 19 people to kill 3000+................................................
think on that for a bit
it doesnt matter what you WANT to be true
the threats we face are real, and they only have to get lucky ONCE, as they have already proven.
think on that for a bit
it doesnt matter what you WANT to be true
the threats we face are real, and they only have to get lucky ONCE, as they have already proven.
Tomu
Orange Belt
He said "we've", meaning U.S.A.
I think the last time I checked Texas was still part of this country. Or do you not consider yourself a free thinker? So if your playing the blame game with this logic I think you are included.
Back to the OP. I guess by some recent standards and very old ones I would be considered a terrorist. Some famous "terrorists" that come to mind are: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin...etc.
OP
OP
kailat
Green Belt
For those of us who partake in or teach anytype of KOMBATIVE martial art to defend us if and when the poo slings to the fan... I think the govt' would consider us as terrorist. I belong to my state militia, and teach cqc and h2h combatives. I know we are watched by HS and other groups. But they'd be surprised as to who all belongs to the local militia.
I feel if a COUP of any type, or a police state or martial law goes into effect the only guys your gonna want on your side is the militia.
I took an oath while in the ARMY, while being a police officer, and while joining the militia to protect my country from terrorist both foreighn and domestic... I think our govt has things confused.. i can see how things are moving in a direction that is not a transition we as American Patriots want to be involved in if its all true. Just stay ready and awake..
I feel if a COUP of any type, or a police state or martial law goes into effect the only guys your gonna want on your side is the militia.
I took an oath while in the ARMY, while being a police officer, and while joining the militia to protect my country from terrorist both foreighn and domestic... I think our govt has things confused.. i can see how things are moving in a direction that is not a transition we as American Patriots want to be involved in if its all true. Just stay ready and awake..
Thanks for the support Tomu. I really didn't want to get into another argument over a possible miscommunication.
I'll try to be a little more eloquent next time.
Here's my view on this: I work for the "establishment."
I don't make huge decisions. I don't work for the government. But I do understand that some of the things I do on a daily basis can be lumped into fueling our consumer capitalism.
And I'm good at it. Scary good.
I said that it's all our fault: we need money and things to live and create an appearance of comfort, convenience, and . I'm guilty of it. Unless you're living off the grid, in the woods, living off the land, then we all are.
Back to my job: The thing is, since we're all guilty of fostering a lifestyle that's bringing back financial/proprietary chains to the public (credit, consumer dependency); that makes us status quo.
As soon as I step outside of my work reality, and declare shenanigans on the way we currently do things, red flags raise. If I declare a revolution, then I'm a radical. If I succeed, then I'm a revolutionary.
If I don't, and blood is spilled and/or threatened, THEN I'm a terrorist. Because I created terror/harm against the status quo.
I won't step out of that because me and the American public want to hold on as tightly as possible to our way of life. And I'd never consciously cause harm to people to further my cause.
"Terrorist" is overused and should be a source of character defamation and slander. It's not though, because in light of our anti-middle eastern posture, using the word "terrorist" is about as useful and deadly as using "witch" during the Salem Witch Trials, and can herd a population into believing a load of manure.
This is MASS HYSTERIA to cover little lies. This is the real terror.
(Actually, it's "Terruh")
We're no different from that. We've never changed from that, because it's still happening... That's just from an American perspective.
Now you take that mass hysteria idea and attempt to view from the receiving end of our weapons. To them, we are causing them harm. Innocent blood is being spilled. The idea of a sovereign state is a joke. And we've forced a population to fear aspects of daily life that we take for granted.
Who's the terrorist now?
I'll try to be a little more eloquent next time.
Here's my view on this: I work for the "establishment."
I don't make huge decisions. I don't work for the government. But I do understand that some of the things I do on a daily basis can be lumped into fueling our consumer capitalism.
And I'm good at it. Scary good.
I said that it's all our fault: we need money and things to live and create an appearance of comfort, convenience, and . I'm guilty of it. Unless you're living off the grid, in the woods, living off the land, then we all are.
Back to my job: The thing is, since we're all guilty of fostering a lifestyle that's bringing back financial/proprietary chains to the public (credit, consumer dependency); that makes us status quo.
As soon as I step outside of my work reality, and declare shenanigans on the way we currently do things, red flags raise. If I declare a revolution, then I'm a radical. If I succeed, then I'm a revolutionary.
If I don't, and blood is spilled and/or threatened, THEN I'm a terrorist. Because I created terror/harm against the status quo.
I won't step out of that because me and the American public want to hold on as tightly as possible to our way of life. And I'd never consciously cause harm to people to further my cause.
"Terrorist" is overused and should be a source of character defamation and slander. It's not though, because in light of our anti-middle eastern posture, using the word "terrorist" is about as useful and deadly as using "witch" during the Salem Witch Trials, and can herd a population into believing a load of manure.
This is MASS HYSTERIA to cover little lies. This is the real terror.
(Actually, it's "Terruh")
We're no different from that. We've never changed from that, because it's still happening... That's just from an American perspective.
Now you take that mass hysteria idea and attempt to view from the receiving end of our weapons. To them, we are causing them harm. Innocent blood is being spilled. The idea of a sovereign state is a joke. And we've forced a population to fear aspects of daily life that we take for granted.
Who's the terrorist now?
Not totally in the minority. I'd rather be free because being free I can do what I need to do to make me and mine safe.
I think this is where you go wrong. Either you're incapable of empathizing with the other side of the argument, or you're actually trying to pick a fight.
You put your own words into others' mouths.
And this is a serial habit of yours. Many would agree with me.
While I respect your opinion, some of which I agree with (but never point out) because it might fuel your ego, I can't respect your blatant animosity through passive-aggressive dribble. You impose your will on conversation. What do you need to prove?
What I wrote, and tried to get at, was that there are acts that might be classified as terrorism by any country, by any group of people.
This doesn't mean that the entire country or nation is a "terrorist country."
I'm just trying to portray perspective.
Instead of making a crack, why not ask a question?
Here's one:
Why DO you love it when Americans call America a terrorist nation? Is it amusing to you?
A valid point, Nolerama that applies to more than just one person at MT in the present.
The Study allows a broader latitude in the nature of peoples posts, to better enable lively debate. What is happening tho' is that latitude is being stretched beyond reasonable limits.
It is not ony assumed but required that posters here are mature adults, considered capable of restraining their behaviour and words at need.
Emotive issues permit more pointed argumentation in this fora than elsewhere within MT but people are still expected to be able to disagree without resorting to tones that would earn them a black-eye in the school playground.
The Study allows a broader latitude in the nature of peoples posts, to better enable lively debate. What is happening tho' is that latitude is being stretched beyond reasonable limits.
It is not ony assumed but required that posters here are mature adults, considered capable of restraining their behaviour and words at need.
Emotive issues permit more pointed argumentation in this fora than elsewhere within MT but people are still expected to be able to disagree without resorting to tones that would earn them a black-eye in the school playground.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
ok,
i have no desire to empathize with people that strap explosives to mentally retarded women and send them into a market to blow people up. I think the ability to empathize with that mind set it a sign of a lack of basic humanity.
Mind you, understanding is not the same as empathizing. If you mean "can I understand thier view point" i can, but it is WRONG because the things they do can NEVER be justified. Because it is wrong, I can not and will not emphathize.
I am not putting words in your mouth dude, YOU said it, you described america's actions and then suggested we ask ourselves 'who the terrorists are"
there is only ONE meaning behind that....it isnt "perspective" since there is no perspective that I can think of that says it is ok to do the things these people do. Thier actions delete thier right to complain about anything.
"Why DO you love it when Americans call America a terrorist nation? Is it amusing to you?"
it amuses me that people, most of whom have never been anywhere else in the world, as I have, and have no idea how nice they have it here are so quick to gripe about America and how bad we are...
I have seen bad
America aint it.
here's a thought Nole, instead of just assuming "Twin's wrong" why dont YOU ask yourself why i might get that impression from what you said, and figure out if thats what you meant.
i have no desire to empathize with people that strap explosives to mentally retarded women and send them into a market to blow people up. I think the ability to empathize with that mind set it a sign of a lack of basic humanity.
Mind you, understanding is not the same as empathizing. If you mean "can I understand thier view point" i can, but it is WRONG because the things they do can NEVER be justified. Because it is wrong, I can not and will not emphathize.
I am not putting words in your mouth dude, YOU said it, you described america's actions and then suggested we ask ourselves 'who the terrorists are"
there is only ONE meaning behind that....it isnt "perspective" since there is no perspective that I can think of that says it is ok to do the things these people do. Thier actions delete thier right to complain about anything.
"Why DO you love it when Americans call America a terrorist nation? Is it amusing to you?"
it amuses me that people, most of whom have never been anywhere else in the world, as I have, and have no idea how nice they have it here are so quick to gripe about America and how bad we are...
I have seen bad
America aint it.
here's a thought Nole, instead of just assuming "Twin's wrong" why dont YOU ask yourself why i might get that impression from what you said, and figure out if thats what you meant.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Just to clarify and muddy things at the same time
First there is no globally agreed upon official definition of terrorism
Definitions
* Dictionary
terrorism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
* United Nations
1. 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".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that 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 other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992): Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).[9]
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 discusses terrorism and is a primary UN authority for terrorism because it was issued under Chapter VII UN authority.
Resolution 1566 gives a definition:
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
—UN Security Council Resolution 1566
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."
The General Assembly resolution 49/60,, 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. ”
According to Antonio Cassese, that provision "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."
Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that there are several Conventions on Terrorism by non-state actors. They a) define a particular type of terrorist violence as an offence under the convention, such as bombing, financing, etc...; b) require State Parties to penalise that activity in their domestic law; c) identify certain bases upon which the parties responsible are required to establish jurisdiction over the defined offence; d) create an obligation on the State in which a suspect is found to establish jurisdiction over the convention offence and to prosecute if the Party does not extradite pursuant to other provisions of the convention.
*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).[15] 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."
*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. 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…"
-U.S. Department of Defense Definition of Terrorism
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
-The FBI defines terrorism as:
The unlawful use of force or 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.
*United Kingdom
The United Kingdom defined acts of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 as the use or 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.
*Definition from the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism
Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.
OK…now who who do we call a terrorist?
First there is no globally agreed upon official definition of terrorism
Definitions
* Dictionary
terrorism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
* United Nations
1. 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".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that 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 other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992): Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).[9]
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 discusses terrorism and is a primary UN authority for terrorism because it was issued under Chapter VII UN authority.
Resolution 1566 gives a definition:
criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
—UN Security Council Resolution 1566
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."
The General Assembly resolution 49/60,, 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. ”
According to Antonio Cassese, that provision "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism."
Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that there are several Conventions on Terrorism by non-state actors. They a) define a particular type of terrorist violence as an offence under the convention, such as bombing, financing, etc...; b) require State Parties to penalise that activity in their domestic law; c) identify certain bases upon which the parties responsible are required to establish jurisdiction over the defined offence; d) create an obligation on the State in which a suspect is found to establish jurisdiction over the convention offence and to prosecute if the Party does not extradite pursuant to other provisions of the convention.
*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).[15] 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."
*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. 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…"
-U.S. Department of Defense Definition of Terrorism
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
-The FBI defines terrorism as:
The unlawful use of force or 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.
*United Kingdom
The United Kingdom defined acts of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 as the use or 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.
*Definition from the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism
Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.
OK…now who who do we call a terrorist?
I'm done with this. Arguing semantics is ridiculous.
I don't think you'll ever be dissuaded from your point of view, TF. That was not my intention. It was, however, an attempt to portray another side of the argument.
I'm right. You're right. From both sides of the coin. However, I've seen your side. I've been there.
Oh yeah, I've been all over the world as well (if you pointed that quip at me). I've seen some stuff that would make blood curdle. America isn't the worst, but it's definitely not the best. That's just plain arrogance.
Another thing, one can justify almost ANY action. Since you refuse to make an attempt at perspective thinking, then you won't get it.
I don't think you'll ever be dissuaded from your point of view, TF. That was not my intention. It was, however, an attempt to portray another side of the argument.
I'm right. You're right. From both sides of the coin. However, I've seen your side. I've been there.
Oh yeah, I've been all over the world as well (if you pointed that quip at me). I've seen some stuff that would make blood curdle. America isn't the worst, but it's definitely not the best. That's just plain arrogance.
Another thing, one can justify almost ANY action. Since you refuse to make an attempt at perspective thinking, then you won't get it.
