BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.

Subject: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 12:59 PM

There are certain words that get used not to help people think and understand a situation, but to make sure they stop thinking...and give their consent to thoughtless actions.

In our time one of the foremost words of that sort, if not THE foremost is: "terrorism" and "terrorist"

These are words that are being used to manipulate people into supporting undeclared, pre-emptive wars of choice (illegal aggression, in other words)...and radical reductions in civil liberties at home. It's a scare tactic.

The reason I'm posting about it is because of this excellent passage posted by Stringsinger in answer to the question posed by the thread "Is Fox News a terrorist organization?"

No, there are real terrorists in the US, the offshoots of white supremacist groups
skinheads, the Nazi Party and certain fundamentalist religious organizations
that rival any Al Quaeda group in the Mid East. You only have to recall
Timothy McVeigh and the hazing of Matthew Shepherd to establish that point.
"Terrorism" is the new buzz word that has replaced "communism" to incite
violence. You heard it a lot under George W. Bush's administration.

What's needed is a response to Fox News and it's affiliates by:
1. Organizing a counter station that reflects Progressive values
2. Picketing Fox News and holding them to account for lies
3. Articles and broadcasts about their intransigence and falsehoods
4. Complain when health clubs or other institutions have it on
5. Drop the use of "terrorism" from your vocabulary. It's a catch-all
phrase that has lost its meaning through generalizations and overuse.
It is a propaganda term that is intended to manipulate a fear response,
a return to McCarthyism.

And that is right! It's just silly to refer to a rightwing news show as a "terrorist" organization, but it reflects the general misuse and overuse of the word "terrorist" lately....a word whose use became a verbal epidemic during the Bush administration. It's gone way out of context ever since. "Terrorism" and "terrorist" are post-911 propaganda terms being used by politicians and the media (the same way "communism" used to be) in an inappropriate and indiscriminate manner for no other reason than to generate a fear response, as Stringsinger says, and thus to get public support for unjustified wars, extreme militarism, and unjustified legal assaults upon domestic civil rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 03:07 PM

It won't work, LH. Recall that under new legislation in the USA regarding habeas corpus, all that has to happen to make a person disappear is to accuse that person of terrorism. Take away the word and the incarcerated person would actually have to be convicted by a jury, and if that happened, what would DHS do? You gotta give this stuff some thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 09:52 PM

Yeah...gosh, 999! I didn't think of that. Jeepers. I wouldn't want to stand in the way of an incipient police state, would I? Not over a mere word. Hmmm. Gotta rethink the whole thing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Oct 12 - 10:32 PM

I dislike the word terrorist because it belies what they actually are - criminals. Bombers, gunmen, arsonists, murderers. They are cowards, never in danger themselves and never actually exposed to the horrors they have wrought.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:17 AM

You have no idea how similar terrorist and tourist are in americanese.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Acorn4
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:21 AM

The bankers have achieved the 'terrorists' desired outcomes for them - the collapse of the economic system.

Al Quaeda can pack their bags and go home.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:32 AM

Yeah, Al qaeda are amateurs next to plain old Yankee greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:26 AM

I suppose suicide bombers 'put themselves at risk', in fact they choose to die for their cause. I reckon they are victims too, of brainwashing and indoctrination. I agree that the word 'terrorist' adds a certain cachet of heroism and righteousness to the actions of the wicked. Mass murderers is what they really are, and of the innocent, civilians, children, the old etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 07:11 AM

Suicide bombers are not demonstrating cowardice. They are demonstrating extreme misunderstanding of how best to address a political problem and lack of empathy for others whom their actions affect.

As for mass murderers, I would include in their ranks not only those who do suicide bombings, but also those who serve in high positions in governments and order "pre-emptive" invasions and bombings of other nations. In this case too, they have shown extreme misunderstanding of how to best address a political problem and lack of empathy for others whom their actions affect.

To put a little historical perspective on the "pre-emptive" doctrine, it is the same essential doctrine that was being followed by Hitler when he attacked Poland and by Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbour. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. When those who do it win a war, they look upon themselves as heroes, and the rest of the world bites its tongue. When they totally lose a war, they are tried in an international court as war criminals...which is what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 09:56 AM

How would that be different from eliminating "racist" and "sexist"? Or "fascist"?

BTW, Bin Laden once wrote that there was "good terrorism" as well as "bad terrorism." He said Al Qaeda practiced only the "good kind."

But that just means he was proud to be a terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 10:46 AM

While you're at it, past time to dump the word "hero" as well. Everyone and anyone - including the guy that selflessly and at great personal peril picks up a cigarette butt from the sidewalk is a "hero".

The term has become absolutely meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 11:01 AM

Economic santions are "terrorism"

Their purpose is to cause the people of....Cuba...Iran...Iraq, anywhere the great powers want to de stabilise, to be terrified of starvation, the want of medicines etc and rise against their government....sometimes a bad govt, sometimes a good govt. It does not matter, only that the powerful have their way.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 01:44 PM

No no no ~~

Please let not yet another thread be bogged down by semantic misconceptions because two words happen to sound alike. Not everything which might 'terrify' people is an act of 'terrorism': a word, and a concept, of precise meaning in political discourse, to define a certain manner of recourse intended to attain certain ends by certain recognisable and definable acts.

Your last post, Ake, might just as well, while about it, have denounced Bram Stoker as a 'terrorist' for writing Dracula, or Christopher Lee as a 'terrorist' for playing the part in a film made by that bunch of 'terrorists', Hammer Films...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Charmion
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:19 PM

The terrorist's mission is to cause so much disorder and fear by random attacks and irrational violence that governments start repressing their entire populations in the process of making it stop, and thus alienate the innocent good citizens who are then motivated to overthrow their rulers.

By that measure, the United States is well down the path set out by al-Qaeda back in the 90s when they started attacking embassies. I, for one, do not enjoy contact with U.s. officialdom because I don't like being treated as a suspect when all I want to do is go somewhere with my shoes on.

We Canadians saw it done by rank amateurs back in 1970, when Pierre Trudeau's government invoked the War Measures Act against the FLQ, and there are people alive today who have never forgiven the Liberal Party of Canada, and never will. Britain went through a similar experience with the Provisional IRA and their ilk, *and* the equal and opposite Protestant factions. The tone of rhetoric in this very forum when certain aspects of British law and public life are discussed shows how that went.

It's a truism of military strategy that regular armies are at a huge disadvantage in counter-insurgency operations because their toolbox contains only big heavy sledgehammers -- and the insurgents know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 04:23 PM

"A bogeyman (also spelled bogieman, boogeyman or boogieman) is an amorphous imaginary being used by adults to frighten children into compliant behaviour. The monster has no specific appearance, and conceptions about it can vary drastically from household to household within the same community; in many cases, he has no set appearance in the mind of an adult or child, but is simply a non-specific embodiment of terror. Parents may tell their children that if they misbehave, the bogeyman will get them. Bogeymen may target a specific mischief — for instance, a bogeyman that punishes children who suck their thumbs — or general misbehavior, depending on what purpose needs serving. In some cases, the bogeyman is a nickname for the devil."

from Wikipedia.

Does that ring any bells?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,ollaimh
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:01 PM

actually i think the word terrorism perfectly descries the foreign policy of america since the second world war.

it's pretty good for the fireign and domestic policies under the british empire as well

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:17 PM

Think what you actually like, Ollaimh. But a word used too broadly loses what meaning it might have started out with, and is reduced to a sort of emotive background noise to be used by the - er - not-right-bright as a boo-word. If that's how you want to use language -- well (in so far as such an absurd catachresis may have any referent), this is, as they say, a free country...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 05:24 PM

M....I see what you are getting at, but surely the motive is to scare people into doing what you want....and there are many ways of scaring or unsettling people.
Economic sanctions are one way.....starve them out?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 10:40 PM

Dammit. I agree with Meyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Oct 12 - 11:41 PM

'Myer', if you please, Mr Bridge, if you would be so kind as to remember.

Ah, well ~~ quite a lot of people do quite a lot of the time. There is no avoiding Kismet...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 12:41 AM

... and indeed Mr Myer, if you please. I see no reason to submit to being so dismissively and disrespectfully addressed or referred to, even by the oh-so-distinguished Mister Bridge!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 12:52 AM

Ever since 9-11, Amerika has been al-Qaeda's puppet.
(:-( P)=

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:23 AM

Or...perhaps Al Qaeda is really America's puppet. America's recent military efforts (mostly clandestine ones) directed with the intention of achieving regime change in Lybia and Syria have been aided and abetted by many Muslim proxy fighters who are associated directly with Al Qaeda and other extreme Muslim fundamentalist groups, and who are quite plain about that. They have been doing some of America's dirty work in Lybia and Syria...work which involves bringing down secular governments that don't cooperate 100% with the USA.

Al Qaeda has proven very useful for the architects of the PNAC (the Project for a New American Century)...planning first formulated in the late 90s, and brought to fruition after the 911 attacks...attacks which had the direct result of enabling the Bush administration to do exactly what the key planners of the PNAC wanted to do anway...namely, invade Afghanistan and take it over, invade Iraq and take it over, and after that take over every other independent Muslim nation in the area that had not already made itself an official or a tacit ally of the USA. That primarily meant targeting Lybia, Syria, and Iran...and possibly Pakistan at some point, depending on to what extent the Pakistanis followed American orders or didn't.

The general mood of the public in Pakistan now is hatred of America. It was once admiration for America...before the ruinous wars and occupations that have followed 911.

If Al Qaeda had not existed, the planners of the PNAC would have had to invent them or invent something very similar. Perhaps they indeed did that, to a great extent. They needed a new Boogeyman to scare people with after the collapse of the Communist Bloc in 1989. 911 was, after all, simply too good to be true from the point of view of those few highly-placed and influential people who put together the PNAC. They needed a "Pearl Harbour" type of incident to set their entire future political-military-industrial plan for a One-Superpower-dominated world in motion. Nothing else could have given them the foreign wars they wanted.

And they got it.

Very convenient indeed.

Look up the history of the PNAC. Consider who its members were, and what its plans and aims were. Consider how many of those people served in important roles in the Bush administration. And draw your own conclusions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:47 AM

Yea. It's all an inside job. And an old strategy that works.
(:-( 0)=

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 02:15 AM

Sorry about the spelling.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 06:14 AM

LH: I brought up PNAC in the same light about eight(?) years ago. I was asked by many regulars how my tinfoil has was. (Just letting you know what's coming.)

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:57 AM

"Al Qaeda has proven very useful for the architects of the PNAC (the Project for a New American Century)...planning first formulated in the late 90s, and brought to fruition after the 911 attacks...attacks which had the direct result of enabling the Bush administration to do exactly what the key planners of the PNAC wanted to do anway...namely, invade Afghanistan and take it over, invade Iraq and take it over, and after that take over every other independent Muslim nation in the area that had not already made itself an official or a tacit ally of the USA."

Unfortunately for that to be true then Afghanistan would surely would have to have been taken over by the USA - it hasn't

Same thing goes for Iraq - that has not been taken over either and as far as I am aware there are no US troops or bases left in Iraq.

Lybia ??? well as a typo I guess it could have been much worse, but IIRC the US took a back-seat role in LIBYA and the subsequent removal of Col Gaddafi and has not got itself much involved with what has gone on there since - oddly enough neither have the UK, France or Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 11:20 AM

It's an old debating trick: stretch and redefine the ordinary meaning of a word till it fits what you want it to. Then claim that what it refers to is really no different from some other, obviously different, thing.

Oh, you don't think it's obviously different at all? Well, you're certainly entitled to any mistaken opinion you like. Just don't expect the world to accept it.

And I'll save many of you some time by admitting that even my opinion can be wrong. We believe what makes sense to us and disbelieve what seems like nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 12:34 PM

Yeah, yeah...Libya. It happens when one types too quickly. Thanks for the correction, Teribus.

The USA has been using jihadists and Muslim extremists to fight for its own purposes ever since the old campaign against Russia in Afghanistan back when Russia's Karzai, Najibullah, was running the place. The USA was happy to do enlist the aid of Muslim religious fanatics, because it hurt the Russians at the time, and it helped destabilize and break up much of the Soviet Union in the years following.

But in the long run it has created a Frankenstein Monster of Islamic fundamentalist groups who now fight the new overlords...the Americans and their allies. And they will continue doing so. I think that the USA/UK will inevitably lose in Afghanistan just as the Russians did before them, and for the same reason: they have no business being in Afghanistan. It's not their homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: pdq
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM

"They needed a new Boogeyman to scare people with after the collapse of the Communist Bloc in 1989." ~ Birdfeathers

If your year of 1989 is taken as correct (the Soviet Union was falling apart for a long time), it seems quite convenient that Saddam Hussein had his goons invade Kuwait just one year later.

All the unrest and eventual war since 1990 is a direct result of the allied reaction to Saddam's aggression. The first attack on the Trade Towers in 1993 was called a payback for our ridding Kuwait of the Iraqi invaders. The 9/11 attack was done because the 1993 attack failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 12:59 PM

And here's how not to ever mispell Libya again...

Pronounce it in your mind as:

Lib..........ya! Lib--------------ya! LIB---------------YA!!!

Oooooo...that feels just lovely! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:03 PM

General Sir David Richards gave everybody the ISAF timeline for its mission in Afghanistan when he commanded it in 2006 - So far - Guess what LH? He was right on the money:

- The prediction in 2006 was that the embryo ANSF would be ready to assume frontline responsibility for security and law enforcement within a 5-10 year period so sometime between 2011 and 2016. Turns out that it will be December 2014.

- David Cameron and Hamid Karzai stated in 2010 that by 2015 ISAF troops will no longer be required to take part in combat operations - By the byw it's the combat elements that are being withdrawn from frontline operations - support units will still be there - the US until 2024 according to the recently signed bilateral agreement between the USA and Afghanistan

What did the US and the UK go into Afghanistan to win by the way? They did go in at the request of the United Nations - I know that much.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 12:42 PM

boogeyman, terrorist, scare-orist is an idea with a lot of mileage, since, at least officially, July 04, 1776 in the USA

from the Declaration Of Independence :
"He (King George) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers,the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 01:07 PM

The U.N. Security Council is the part of the U.N. that matters, Teribus, when it comes to actually doing anything substantial, and it is nothing more than a compliant tool of a few great powers, most primarily of the USA. It rubber stamps something when they need it to, in order to provide a flimsy veneer of supposed moral legitimacy for an immoral act. It's a toothless puppet that does whatever its puppetmasters require of it...the primary purpose being to fool the domestic public of the USA and other western powers into going along with the charade.

The USA's client regime in Afghanistan, run by their "Najibullhah", Mr Karzai, will no doubt survive for a short while after the western military forces leave, just as Najibullah survived for a short while after the Russians left. And then it will fall, as Najibullah fell.

The West is getting out of Afghanistan for the same reason the Russians did. They can't afford to stay there much longer.

I expect the strongest tribe in that nation, the Pashtuns, will again be running the place not too long after the USA and its allies depart, and Mr Karzai's administration will be gone. This is what happens to neo-colonial stooges who try to take over Aghanistan, regardless of whether they are British, Russian or American neo-colonial stooges. They lose eventually. They leave. And the Pashtuns end up running the place again. And the various weaker tribes (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc) grind their teeth, some go off into the hills to snipe at the Pashtuns, and life goes on much as it did before.

But what a shame that the poor old USA corporations probably won't get to pipe their oil through Afghanistan from the Caspian region after that! (sniff! sob!)

There is one great power that I think might someday be able to occupy Afghanistan and succeed in staying there...China. And why? Well, by the simple expedient of moving in so many ethnic Chinese immigrants that they end up outnumbering the local population. The "Tibetan" solution, in other words. That's something the USA is never going to be able to do nor could the Russians, but I can see where the Chinese might manage it...theoretically.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Charmion
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 03:18 PM

I'd like to see them try.

Mind you, I would prefer to observe that phenomenon from right here in eastern Ontario, where I am just about as far from Afghanistan as I can get without leaving the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 05:02 PM

Me too. By the way, I despise the Chinese actions in Tibet, and I do not wish them well should they ever attempt a similar takeover in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Charmion
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 08:01 PM

On their current form, however, the smart money would be on the Afghans -- in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 12 - 09:44 PM

Yeah, most likely, Charmion. I was just saying...if anyone could ever pull it off successfully, it would have to be the Chinese.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 05:12 AM

Are the Taliban terrorists?
They head shoot a 14 year old girl because she believes girls should be allowed to go to school.

Using attacks against defenceless civilians for political gain is correctly described as terrorism, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:39 AM

I disagree, Keith. They are not 'terrorists,' whatever that's supposed to mean. They are murderers.

When is word ends in -ism, it implies that there is an organized set of beliefs or principles behind it. For example, socialism, capitalism, spiritualism.

There is no such set of beliefs behind 'terrorism.' Journalists use the term to hide the fact that they have no idea what the bombers or murderers are after.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 10:49 AM

> When is word ends in -ism, it implies that there is an organized set of beliefs or principles behind it.

Says who? What about "witticism," "embolism," "aphorism," "magnetism," "organism"? What about "barbarism"?

Anyway, all terrorists by definition do operate on the belief and principle that their ideology alone authorizes them to commit brutal and sensational acts of lawless, often mass, violence, particularly against the innocent and defenseless (because that's more brutal and sensational), so as to further their own often totalitarian or fringe agendas.

If that's not terrorism, what is?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: musicmick
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 12:27 PM

Little Hawk's paranoia aside, the defining aspects of terrorism have not changed. The tactics have been altered by technology but the heartless actions and cowardly manner are ageless.
You may. well, oppose the policies of a particular nation (The United States and Israel are the favored bogeymen, in this thread, with an occasional swipe at what's left of the British Empire),I often take issue with them, myself. But, when a state acts in an offensive manner, it is subject to retaliation. It can not hide behind innocent civilians to avoid recognition and responsibility. It must answer to its own people in frequent elections and those people are a lot more moral than their leaders. (During the Viet Nam War, Lt. Calley was tried, and convicted, for war crimes against the Vietnamese, a verdict that displeased the army but showed the minds of the American people. Contrast that with the cheers that greeted the "brave warriors" who blew up an Israeli school bus or the street celebrations that marked the deaths of thousands of noncombatants in the World Trade Center.
Only an America hater, like the Hawk, could equate retaliatory strikes against military targets with random killing of civilians.
What must it be like to hate so fervently?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Charmion
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 12:56 PM

Okay, I'm confused.

Musicmick, when you wrote "equate retaliatory strikes against military targets with random killing of civilians", which incident(s) were you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 12:59 PM

Thought experiment:

Suppose a perfect superweapon has been developed. At the touch of a button, it will destroy (hideously and painfully) all of its operator's perceived enemies - but *only* his or her perceived enemies. Everybody else will be fine.

Because you're dispassionate, and on Mars, you'll be safe in any case. And you're beyond politics. All you're interested in is what's best for those poor suffering earthlings.

Now who would you rather see in control of the button (and you have to choose): Any American President from George Washington through the one in office next year, or the late Osama bin Laden or his successors?

A different experiment. You're still on Mars. Which would you rather see with nuclear weapons (and you must choose): the State of Israel, the Iranian Islamic Republic, or both?

Explain your answers.

No peeking.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 02:54 PM

I'd like to see the state of Israel and the state of Iran treated in an absolutely equal and unprejucided fashion by the world community and the major powers, Lighter.

So which would I rather see with nuclear weapons? Neither, ideally. Or if they had to have them...then both, in an equal fashion. This alone would be enough to persuade both parties NOT to launch a first attack on the other for fear of retaliation in kind, and that would be very good thing. Mutual deterrence is the only thing that can persuade a nuclear power not to use its muscle on another power if it wants to. Moral arguments do not suffice to deter any aggressor, but fear of one's own inevitable destruction does.

I would also like to see Isreal treated equally as all other nations are in EVERY respect. Israel has secretly built up an enormous arsenal of nukes over the years, no doubt with USA financial and technical help, and has been allowed to without a peep of protest from America or NATO. This is extraordinary. Other nations aren't treated in that fashion. NO other nation is treated in that fashion. Iran is condemned for just maybe wanting to build nukes, which no one even knows for sure, while Israel is not even questioned for having built many nukes and not admitting to doing so.

Unequal treatment of nations is hypocritical and unjust, and no other nation has been favored so unequally as Israel has by the USA.

Israel has launched several wars on its neighbours, and has occupied parts of their land, and has settled people on those areas. Iran has attacked none of its neighbours and has occupied no one else's land. Yet Israel is favored in a completely one-sided fashion. Why? Are they God's Chosen or something? Do they run the USA government as well as their own? What could account for such one-sided backing by the USA? What could account for the demonization of Iran by the USA, other than the fact that they have not yet surrendered unconditionally?

People frequently quote a statement supposedly made by Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map". What he actually said on that occasion was he quoted an old statement by the Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that the Zionist regime in Israel would someday pass from the stage of history (as all regimes eventually do, by the way, if you study your history). The statement said nothing about Iran wiping anybody off the map or making an attack on Israel, it simply said that the Zionist regime wasn't going to be around forever.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, has been openly threatening for YEARS to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear power plants and research facilities as well as (obviously) its military installations. It shouldn't even be LEGAL for the head of a state to threaten another state in that manner. It's a death threat, and death threats are illegal in a modern society. Netanyahu has made such threats not just on one occasion, but hundreds of times....yet the USA does not condemn Israel for threatening to start a war! In fact, the USA makes frequent veiled threats against Iran of a very similar nature.

All of that should be considered illegal in a lawful world, as should ANY pre-emptive attack launched on another nation by anyone.

The international outlaws in this situation are the USA, Israel, the UK, and France...not Iran. They are also applying sanctions against Iran, and that itself is an act of war. If someone did it to the USA in any way that seriously impacted the American economy, it would be regarded as an act of war, and the USA would go to war over it.

****

Regarding your first question, the Superweapon that destroys all the perceived enemies of whoever has it... That's a stupid idea, ridiculous in fact, it wouldn't be a good thing for anyone to have such a weapon, because they would certainly misuse it eventually and kill a lot of innocent people. It is best if the perceived enemies in this world are either armed in a relatively equal manner...or are totally disarmed. As the latter seems to be impossible to achieve at present, we might as well settle for the former.

If Iran had 20 or so sizable nukes and delivery systems in place right now, there would be no war, because it is Israel and the USA who keep threatening one, and they would be constrained from doing so in the presence of a sizable Iranian deterrent force of nuclear weapons. It is Iran's relative weakness, a LACK of nukes, that makes them a target...not their strength or any kind of real danger they pose to the existence of Israel.

The Russians and Chinese have already made it pretty clear that they are not going to stand idly by while yet more sovereign governments are brought down by conflicts planned and armed, orchestrated and assisted by the American-NATO-Israeli alliance. Libya was such a conflict, and Russia and China did nothing about it. Syria is such a conflict, and this time the Russians are drawing the line. What is being risked this time if Syria is invaded or its government brought down, is not just a regional conflict, but a Third World War. I think the same risk applies to any attack launched on Iran.

If it happens, you and I may not even get any time to comment on it or argue about it.

I don't hate the USA. I don't hate Americans. I disagree almost totally with American foreign policy, however, therefore I criticize it. I also disagree with Netanyahu's foreign policy, and I agree with the many people in Israel, both civilians and military, who are opposed to starting a war with Iran. The majority of Israelis are opposed to that idea, which shows good sense on their part. They know well that it would have disastrous consequences not just for Iran, but for the whole region, including Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 03:00 PM

L.H., I agree wholeheartedly. It's a buzz word that attempts to make people afraid.
One is likely to be in a car accident or to be struck by lightning than be at the hands of a terrorist. The fear factor has made the government a little crazy such as taking off shoes at the airport or risking x rays in the body scans.

It used to be "communism" and it still is "socialism" replaced by "terrorism".
Most Americans who collect social security and are inducted into the arm services are "socialists" because these institutions are a form of "socialism".

Actually, although he decried it, FDR's policies were "socialistic". Being born rich, FDR vacillated during the Depression by shutting down the WPA in the arts, which
gave us the "Mercury Theater", Orson Welles as well as many great talents.

BTW, the correct Bush pronunciation is "Terrist" as the nuclear industry is referred to as "nucular".

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 04:06 PM

Yes Little Hawk that's pretty well how I see things too.

The fly in the ointment of course is fundamentalist Islam...I know these countries and their people have been exploited and abused for generations, but we must be prepared to defend ourselves against lunatic suicide bombers and the like.
These guys want to butcher every man woman and child who doesn't sign up to their religious views.

Maybe Western culture is sick,exploitative and in the end unsustainable, but that is for the Western nations to sort out; and with the financial meltdown we need to change pretty damb quick, but still keep vigilant against dangerous madmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: musicmick
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 05:44 PM

Let's see if, perhaps, there might be some reasons why Israel is a little different from it's Arab brethren and should be treated differently.

Israel is a democratic nation with diverse parties representing diverse philosophies and beliefs. Minorities have votes in the knesset and have equal standing in the courts.

Israel has a constitution that guaruntees the rights of women and orginized labor. The Histadrut, the national labor union, is the most powerful political entity in the state. Israeli law does not permit violence against Arabs, by rogue civilians, nor does it permit disrespect to Muslim shrines or temples. Fundimentalist Jews sit in Israeli prisons for such acts.

Israel rates the same support, from the Western states that the Palestinians receive from the Arab states, and for the same reason, historic and religious identity. I have, yet, to read, in these threads, a condemnation of Saudi, Yemeni, Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi solidarity in their "even handed" treatment of Israel.

Terrorism has become a cliche and that cheapens the horror it should engender but, in this thread at least, let's be straight. Terrorism is terrorism and hipocracy is hipocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 06:13 PM

Iran also has democratic elections, musicmick, and it has a government in which minorities and opposition parties are represented. Ahmadinejad was elected to office, and there was no guarantee that he was going to win that election. Furthermore, Iran had a parliamentary democracy already in the 1950s, one which was overthrown by a USA and UK-financed coup carried out with the help of the CIA. Why did they do it? Because the UK wanted control of Iranian oil, that's why. The coup ended Iran's young democracy and replaced it with absolute rule by the Shah. The present government came about when a popular revolution finally overthrew the Shah, and it regularly conducts multi-party elections.

The various Muslim nations around Israel basically treat Israel as Israel treats them...as a hated and feared enemy. This is not surprising in the light of the past 60 years of history! Both Israel and those Muslim nations you mentioned have an equally hostile and unpleasant attitude toward each other....but only Israel gets to build hundreds of atomic weapons without anyone making a peep about it...and only Israel holds the entire region in a state of terror...not through a few ragtag terrorists...but through the threat of their elite military, Blitzkrieg style war, and nuclear annihilation. Only Israel grabs areas of land from its neighbours and settles them with its own people. They have also, by the way, committed a number of terrorist attacks and assassinations in Iran in the past few years, carried out by agents of Mossad.

You can list all kinds of things you like about Israel better...as opposed to this or that other nation in the area...and some of them are true. But all that really says is, you happen to like Israel for whatever reason better than you like a bunch of Muslims. That's your emotional bias in the matter. It doesn't have political bearing on who has the right to wage pre-emptive wars. No one does.

I agree that there are many progressive things about Israeli society...it doesn't change the fact that I disagree with their political-military stance and their notion that they have the right to make a pre-emptive attack on another nation whenever they desire to.

Iran has made no such threat against Israel, but has only threatened to respond TO an attack by Israel. Ahmadinejad has warned of launching destructive attacks on Israel IF Israel attacks Iran first, but he has never said Iran would attack Israel first.

No nation has the right to threaten to attack another nation first. Not Israel. Not the USA. Not Iran. No one. That's not self-defence. It's the same as uttering a death threat in civilian society, and to do that is illegal in a democracy such as Israel, isn't it? It's illegal in most places. So why does Netanyahu think he has the right to threaten Iran in that manner?

(It's also against the United Nations Charter to threaten an attack on another sovereign nation or to launch a first attack on another sovereign nation...and for obvious reasons. That's what aggressors do, and aggression is completely illegal...no matter who does it.)

It is simply outrageous that the USA and Israel and the UK and France talk openly and frequently about possibly attacking Iran...as if they had the right to! Iran does not talk about attacking anyone unless Iran is attacked first, in which case they would have a perfect right to fight back, as any nation does when attacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: musicmick
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:01 AM

Little Hawk, I am not your fact checking machine. Yours is as one sided a defense of the Arabs as I have read. If you think that women, in Iran, have rights or that non Muslims are represented, you don't know very much about the reality. I am willing to bet that you have not lived in the Arab world. A man, with strong opinions, does not fare well there.
The conflict, and its adherents, stand on one fundemental question, Can, or should, there be a Jewish state in the Middle East. Those, who see Israel as an affront to Islam, those, who see Israel as a capitalist colony, those, who, in most conflicts, support the darker or the poorer side (They call us iberals) and the few, who just don't like Jews, can, easily, dismiss the fate of Israel as they would dismiss the fate of Enron.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 08:14 PM

Are terrorists really just good ol' freedom-fightin' boys who've had it up to here with Western arrogance?

I think not.

http://news.yahoo.com/conversations-malala-yousafzai-girl-stood-taliban-133500248.html

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 10:23 PM

I'm not defending terrorists. I'm saying that the word "terrorist" is being misused a lot these days as a scare tactic to justify wars of choice launched by the western alliance. Those wars have definite objectives. Their objectives are not to stop terrorism, but to secure USA/UK/Israeli/French interests in the Middle East and to win the longterm (undeclared) war of empires against Russia and China...which is mostly about having allies and client governments in strategic regions and controlling oil sources and markets.

And that's why the Middle East is the primary battleground. "Terrorists" are just the latest excuse for waging the great game of empire. It used to be "communists". Remember? It's always something. For Hitler it was "Jews and communists". People seeking to wage war always need something they can scare their own public with first in order to get them onside for their wars of choice. Hitler had his Reichstag fire, the USA had 911. Same basic approach...different target...different set of scapegoats. It's the Shock Doctrine. You shock the hell out of your own people with some totally unexpected disaster, frighten and anger them, focus all their anger on a foreign (or sometimes even a domestic) enemy, and then do what you'd planned to do all along...which normally involves killing a lot of people who happen to be in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 10:24 AM

I am refreshing this thread because of a lot of misuse of the word Terrorism - not every crime committed by a moslem against people who aren't moslem is terrorism, the lastest (Chattanooga) shooting notwithstanding. In fact, no attack on any *military* target can be called terrorism, not even the Marine barracks bombing. If you're killing soldiers, you aren't a terrorist, no matter what your motive.

It isn't only the motive that makes an act of violence terrorism.

Who commits it matters, and whom the target is matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 10:52 AM

Ah, but if we don't call it terrorism the U.S. voting public won't be scared shi...err witless enough to fund the Department of Hopeless Stupidity and won't keep voting for bloviating Republican idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 01:26 PM

Are you under the impression iran is an Arab country, musicmick?
.....................

Best definition I know of for terrorism is that it is carrying out violent acts against civilians with the aim of achieving some political objective. Mostly this is done by governments, but whoever does it is acting as terrorists. Of course it may not be the case that everything people who carry out terrorist acts constitutes terrorism, and the term "terrorist" does tend to suggest fulltime terrorism, which isn't the case much of the time (eg Hamas, or rhe Israeli, US or Iranian governments). Even when it comes to violence, acts directed at military targets, for example, do not qualify as "terrorism".

Isis is perhaps a rare case where the label might be accurate. Generally however I think it is better to avoid using the noun, and just use terrorist as an adjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 01:40 PM

No attack on a military target can be called terrorism ! That seems absurd to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 03:54 PM

Whatever you want to call it or not call it matters not a whit to those killed and their loved ones so, just go on and keep fiddling.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:05 PM

The terrorist is the one with the small bomb. [Brendan Behan]

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:10 PM

An attack on a military target may well involve an atrocity, it may indeed be a war crime, but, no, it's not terrorism. Just because something doesn't meet the definition for a terrorist act doesn't mean it's somehow less terrible.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 06:46 PM

So a soldier shot dead at an Ottawa war memorial is not a victim of terriorism ? Soldier dead on the streets of London ? a soldier run down in Quebec ? What do you call that ?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 06:48 PM

What do you call that ?

Dead soldiers?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 06:53 PM

Yes Greg and who killed them ? Stop being so glib and actually contribut sOmething !

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 06:58 PM

Hilo, you want to take that up with Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Blair. They're the four horsemen of the current IS/ISIS apocalypse.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 07:08 PM

Terrorism is a 'useful' word... like 'folk'. People use it because they want a single term to refer to attacks by enemies those they don't like against themselves or their countrymen (military or not).

In many cases, 'terror' IS the goal. Those who do it usually have no illusions their act will have serious effect by itself, but it is intended to cause fear and discomfort... and to make their enemies spend inordinate amounts of money trying to defend against it.

Any semi-useful word used as a generalization inevitably gets overused and applied to situations where it may NOT be directly appropriate. (Note the newish phrases 'urban terrorism' and 'economic, religious, political, or ideological' terrorism to clarify some events.)

Drop it? I doubt we can...unless someone comes up with another term-- which would no doubt suffer the same overuse and confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 07:13 PM

Greg, I asked you an easy question; who killed them ? You gave me easy lie !

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 07:49 PM

The more I reflect on merrzy,s reason for refreshing this thread , the more distasteful and shallow I find it . Unbelievable really.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 07:50 PM

Another IRONIC note....the 'so-called libs' tend to sympathize with the Muslim cause...and certainly avoid the thought of calling their tactics 'terrorism'...but wait a minute...is there a separation of Church and State in the Theocracy of Islam???..and don't they represent a government that opposes women's rights, and will put to death homosexuals??
Now who is being the puppet here?

Liberals love to spout hypocrisy...but only when it suits their 'progress'!

...unless some of you ASSUME otherwise!!

Peace!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:04 PM

Here's another question or two. Eitan Livni was director of operations for the Irgun, who blew up the King David hotel in 1946, which killed 91 people and injured many more. Was he a terrorist? Menachem Begin was the Irgun commander at the time. He later became Israel's top dog. Was he a terrorist? Livni's daughter,Tzipi, is a prominent cabinet politician in the Israeli government. And they say that democracy isn't dead. I'll let you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:08 PM

Oops, I don't know how those last two sentences got in there from an earlier post of mine. They don't belong!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:11 PM

I don,t see the defenders of terror as liberals or "left wing" . I see them as right wing reactionaries of the worst kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:15 PM

HiLo: "I don,t see the defenders of terror as liberals or "left wing".."

'Left wing' of WHAT????

Or is the 'left wing/right wing thing just an illusion???

Right wing and left wing are all on the same bird!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:26 PM

I didn't really finish my point. Begin and Livnj's daughter went on to have "honourable" political careers. Is that what happens with terrorists/terrorist offspring? Are there good terrorists and bad terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 09:16 PM

I don't see how the daughters enter into it. But I can' recall ever hearing of a good terrorist. My point is that to suggest that we are all so stupid that we don't know what a terrorist is, is the point at which one has to stand up and say... Enough already!
no , we are not misusIng the word. There have been zioinist, Irish and Muslim terrorists and many others.... They are all evil. But to pretend that word terrorist the problem is to have your head so far up your arse that you can' see daylight.
I usually don't get too involved these types of discussions, but the assumption that we are dim as sheeP, drives me crazy,,, it is so odious and condescending that half reasOnable person should be offended by it .

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 07:58 AM

Well, I disagree about your disquiet on the reopening of the thread Hilo, it's lovely to read a reasonable discussion conducted in a reasonable fashion......the thread would have had to be closed if it had been opened with the present "contributors"!

It's also nice to read the contributions of Little Hawk, always thought provoking and civil, no matter the subject.

Little Hawk was the greatest loss to this forum, without doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 08:49 AM

Admittedly, Ms Livni is among the more dovish Israeli politicians these days (it's all relative, of course), but her father was a terrible man, a terrorist by whatever measure you care to apply, and she has followed him Into the political arena. I'm just wondering whether I'd want the unapologetic daughter of one of the Great Train Robbers looking after my money. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 09:02 AM

"But I can' recall ever hearing of a good terrorist"
Don't suppose you've got too much time for Nelson Mandela then?
Terrorism is a convenient label to stick on those who you don't like - some people consider them freedom fighters - depends which side you're on, of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 09:57 AM

I wonder what HiLo thinks my reason was? I think it was not wanting to start a new one when there was already something so close to what I wanted to discuss.
In answer to the military thing, now that there is no draft, anyone in the military has volunteered to kill or be killed for a salary. If they are then attacked, it isn't terrorism because it's the military's *job* to be the target of attack so that the civilians, whom they have volunteered to protect, are not so targeted. It is attacks directed towards those civilians which are terrorism.

The one Marine who died in the bombing that killed Dad is a case in point. The target was the civilians, and it was the Marine's *job* to die protecting them. I admire and respect and thank him for it every day that I think of my dad being killed by terrorists, but to my mind, that attack killed 16 civilians through terrorism and one Marine through occupational hazard. Same act. Same actors. Different victim.

It matters, HiLo, whether the term terrorism is thrown around whenever moslems are the killers. It matters to moslems and it should matter to you.

It matters to me, whose father was not, not, not a military man, but rather a conscientious objector in WWII who volunteered to be a guinea pig for medical experiments since it was the only thing he could volunteer for morally, and who did not, not, not volunteer to be in a war zone since the US government had declared Beirut safe and restaffed the embassy with civilians who were not, not, not offered danger pay, and in fact the people who had been there had been taken *off* danger pay.

If "freedom fighters" target civilians for death to make their political point, those freedom fighters are terrorists. If they target the military, they aren't, even if sneaky and firing from behind stone walls instead of meeting them where the Redcoats would have preferred, or bombing them in their beds while they are not being watchful.

If "moslems" are targeting the military to achieve their political aims, those moslems are not terrorists. When they bomb a market full of civilians, whether other moslems or foreign tourists or people they think are not moslem, then they are terrorists.

And the use of the term terrorism to mean "we Americans are agin it" is reprehensible. GregF has a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 10:16 AM

Ooh, from Slate Magazine: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/07/the_chattanooga_killings_aren_t_terrorism_they_are_a_rational_horrific_act.html

Blicky

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 10:32 AM

Well Mrrzy, we shall have to agree to disagree. As for Jim, well, what can one say ?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 10:46 AM

If "moslems" are targeting the military to achieve their political aims

I understand and appreciate that you put "Moslems" in quotes, but just to clarify, it ain't "Moslems". Its crazy people who happen to be of the Moslem faith.

Best,

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 10:54 AM

Mrrzy...The people who burned the pilot to death in the gruesome video, must surely be "terrorists"? Yet the pilot was definitely a combatant.
Terrorism can take many forms...to frighten other govts into compliance....to frighten other populations into changing their govts...as in the Greek scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 10:59 AM

Greg..When we bombed Dresden or Hiroshima, did we stop to think that it was only a few Nazis, or Imperial soldiers who were the badies?

Were all the dead peasants in Vietnam, killed by allied bombing or maimed by Agent Orange, really Communists...and if they were, did they have it coming because they all wore the same hats?

Terrorism takes many forms.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 11:04 AM

I have no idea what you're rabbiting on about, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 11:16 AM

Terrorism is used by all as a weapon Greg, Dresden and Hiroshima were embarked upon to break the will of the German and Japanese people, not to defeat their armies.

IS is Muslim fundamentalism taken to its logical conclusion "the means justifying the ends"....and all who support those ends however tacitly is not blameless.

BTW what happened to the Merkel thread? if there is really subjects which "must not be discussed," should we not be made aware of them?
I saw no serious personal abuse or actionable statements.

Why is the personal abuse in the Greek thread allowed to stand?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 11:17 AM

Sorry, "end justifying the means"

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 11:22 AM

Its crazy people who happen to be of the Moslem faith.

It is Muslims who are applying the precepts of Islam in a literal fashion. Whether this makes them crazy people is a matter of opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Dormie
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 12:25 PM

What was the cause of bombs dropped on Dresden? How can anyone shrug of the
bombing of Poland,London,and many other places.
The Germans used the latest technology available to them at the beginning of the
war.Also the same goes for Pearl Harbour vid-a-vis Japan.

Does ANYONE dare to think if the Atomic Bombs had been available to Hitler,or Tojo,
they would have sat on their hands,and not used them? Get a life!!

There have always been lunatics in the world,the problem is, the more peopled in the world,the more Crazy people,the more Nymphomaniacs,the more religious Bible
Thumpers,the more Drunks,and so on,we are bound to have on Planet Earth.

If there is a God ??? There is only ONE! So all peoples are giving Him different names.

Nuff said

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 09:27 PM

Nymphomaniacs?? Heheheh!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 11:35 PM

People of the moslem faith are moslems, people who believe in the divinity of jesus are christians, and if they commit acts of violence targeting civilians to achieve political ends, they are terrorists.

Although only a teeny tiny minuscule fraction of moslems are terrorists, the large majority of terrorists by now are moslem (since ETA and the IRA gave it up).

I am not sure which video is referred to in The people who burned the pilot to death in the gruesome video, must surely be "terrorists"? but no, that's just it, it isn't the gruesomeness that makes something terrorism; if the target is military, the term is not appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:47 AM

Depends whether you regard the actions of certain states to be terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM

Does anyone, apart from BBC, object to the word being used about IS?

The Independent 3 hours ago,
"Asked to address the threat posed by Isis during an interview on US television network NBC, Mr Cameron said: "Look, we know that we have to defeat Isil, we have to destroy this caliphate, whether it is in Iraq or in Syria.

"That is a key part of defeating this terrorist scourge that we face.

"I want Britain to do more. I'll always have to take my parliament with me. We're talking and discussing at the moment, including with the opposition parties in Britain, what more we can do.

He went on: "But be it no doubt, we're committed to working with you to destroy the caliphate in both countries," he told the Meet The Press programme to be broadcast today."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 09:34 AM

"Does anyone, apart from BBC, object to the word being used about IS?"
Can't see how anybody can object to the word being used correctly about genuine terrorists like Isis
The problem arises when the word becomes a convenient catch-all to describe anybody whose politics they don't approve of (or who threaten their oil supplies.)
Some of the worst offenders are powers that are no strangers to acts of terrorism in their own National, political or economic interests
It is worth remembering the part some of these states have played in assisting the rise of Isis, et al
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:55 PM

Steve Shaw: "Depends whether you regard the actions of certain states to be terrorism."....

....In response to Mrrzy: ..."The people who burned the pilot to death in the gruesome video, must surely be "terrorists"? but no, that's just it, it isn't the gruesomeness that makes something terrorism; if the target is military, the term is not appropriate.

What qualifies, in your opinion?

Sometimes, in war, which is, in fact, lawlessness run amok, one side may not adhere to the 'politically correct' rules of 'civilized warfare', as agreed to, in the Geneva Convention. Remember that the terrorists see Democracy(and its tenants) as being Satanic, and therefore, according to them, as being targets of slaughter......so what do you suggest?

GfS

P.S. I've noticed that most all my posts, which have been dead on target to the topics, get deleted....
What is this??...a war,(see above), on words

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:31 PM

Remember that the terrorists see Democracy(and its tenants) as being Satanic

Not so, Goofus. They see Western culture as "satanic".

Then there's "The Satanic Verses"......

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 07:33 PM

The writing of wich put an author under threat of assassination. That is one form of terrorism, is it not ?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 08:15 PM

Actually, it was the publication of which, Hilo.

How many letters do you think President Obama gets every day threatening assassination? And not from Muslims, mind you.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 08:51 PM

What qualifies isn't a matter of opinion, but of definition:

Title 22, Section 2656 of the U.S. Code: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 08:55 PM

Greg , you never cease to amaze !

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 09:05 PM

Greg , you never cease to amaze !

Not hard to read, I've had his number for a long time now.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 10:06 PM

Then, by all means, give me a call, guest, and we'll chat.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:34 AM

Greg: "Not so, Goofus. They see Western culture as "satanic"."

Gosh, does 'Western culture' have anything to do with Democracy????

Islam, sees 'Democracy' as 'man's will' over 'God's will'.

(...and Western Culture uses 'Democracy' as a ruse, for the ruling class!!)

You really should do your homework.

GfS