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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:34 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: 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: 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,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: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 02:15 AM

Sorry about the spelling.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 04:17 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Time to drop the word 'terrorism' & why.
From: 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: 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,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.