Here what I reckon a terrorist is:
Someone who intentionally targets civilians to have an effect on a target audience to achieve a political gain - there victims are irrelevent.
And, I know that I will get stick for this, terrorism can be forgiven in my opinion. If military success is impossible to achieve and the only way to protect oneself against oppression and aggression is through political change, using the tactic of terror, the ends do jsutify the means. However, whereas Iraqis and foreigners fighters have a legitimate right to resist occupation under international law, they are not justified to use terrorism because they are not being oppressed or subjected to genocide. However, Hamas was justified to use terrorism against Israel because Israel was increasingly expanding despite International Law. The UN resolution for Israel to pullback to its 1967 boundaries was not upheld by the international community, therefore we do not have the right to condem Palestinian terrorism especially when the likes of the US and the UK were supplying Israel with Apaches, F14s and individual weapons.
Then look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - in each case a civilian population was bombed to bring about a political solution to the problem, at the expense of the victims. This is equivilent to terrorism, but we dont view them that way. The attacks ended the war and prevented the loss of thousands of allied soldiers. But then again, Japan was on the backfoot and was no confined to defense. The A Bombs were not neccessary and peace could have been brought about another way. If we called people like Mendela, the KLA (Kosovo) and Arafat terrorists, then wouldnt we also have to call the crew of the Enola Gay and Bockscar terrorists? Then ultimately President Truman would also have to be called a terrorist.
A way to prevent this would be to try terrorists under a world court and condem them so that they would not be able to become poliitcal leaders later on. But then again, I doubt that a US President, a British MP or a Chinese general would ever be brought to court.
In my opinion, when we fail to uphold international law and prevent aggression and oppression, the victims have a right to hit back however they can if the only other option is to surrender or to loose the right to freedom.
Hence the old saying - one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The word terrorism is a loose definition - it is used to discredit enemies even if they have legitimate reason to resist. There is not a universally accepted definition of terrorism, therefore there will always be a claim by one side that someone is a terrorist but another side will argue that they are a freedom fighter.
The best way to look at the issue at hand is from a nuetral perspective. Papers will have no hesitation to use the words terrorism to describe someone from Islamic extremists to animal rights protesters. Therefore they help to spread misconceptions of the threat at hand. Whereas media such as the BBC will ever use the word 'terrorism' unless quoting someone else, because they prefer not to take sides. They keep an open mind about issues. The result of this is that people will complain that they are giving an excuse to terrorists, even though terrorism has its roots in politics (right wing media such as Fox often complains that the BBC gives a distorted view of the world).
After 9/11, the US has basically said that any group or individual using violence against an allied state is a terrorist. It does not take into account why that group has took up arms - often in response to oppression, murder and torture. Therefore groups with a legitimate reason to resist have no been condemmed to defeat, and oppressive regimes now have the full backing of the US government to use oppression in order to put down internal uprisings. Therefore the likes of President Karimov has basically been excused to use torture and murder to remove peaceful Islamic protesters, who the government of Uzbekistan have labelled terrorists. Even here in Britain, the government has used new anti-terrorism measures to move against Hizb ut-Tahrir, a legitimate political pressure group. But then again, rebel groups that would overwise be labelled as terror groups have been ignroed by the West because they oppose enemies of the West - such as militant groups in Burma who oppose the military regime there.
If these measures were in place before 9/11, Slobodon Milosevic would still be in power becasue the KLA would have been a terrorist group. So would the likes of Radovan Karadzic and Saddam Hussein, because thier use of force could be jusitifed as defesnive measures against terrorism. For example, Saddam Hussein could have said that he used excessive force to put down a Shia and Kurdish revolt in 1991 because they posed a terrorist threat. However, in Saddams case he probably would still have been removed because he no longer served the West any purpose.
Share This Page:
cracking quote
Of course you are allowed differing opinions, and I'm allowed to argue with them. Opinions aren't sacrosanct; little-known-fact, the original idea of freedom of speech was not that you can say anything you want, but that you can debate anything you want... i.e. you can say anything that you can back up with a reasoned argument, which I didn't see much of in your first posts. Also, don't flatter yourself that you offend me, I just have a habit of challenging complete shite when I see it written down. You know, debate, argument, exchange of ideas, all those terrible ideas, ruining everything...kwew wrote:I dont know the hell you think you are, but I already know all this crap and my opinion is that the man is still a terrorist in my eyes, am I not allowed differing opinions?
Speaking of which, don't get pissy at me mate, who the hell do you think you are making it personal with the training bra comment? If you open fire, expect fire to be returned.
End of.
kwew do you think black people would be better off or worse off if mandela wasnt even there? the fact is something needed to be done, mandela did it, innocent people were killed-more innocent people would have died because of colour had nothing been done, and some believe the apartheid was a fate worse than death i know me and my family are all better off because of mandela-would you want to be under that oppresion or would you rather be an equal 
:ro ( ol: :lo :cy: :vil: P
:ro ( ol: :lo :cy: :vil: PThe issue of beliefs race and religion shouldnt realy be brought up on this site, they are very personal subjects which people always take to heart and one persons view may upset alot of people.
Ive seen in the past on this forum many incidents were its been ruined by these subjects even ones like stinky furbys `i dont care if i die post` so realy i think there should be no more. I mean people will obivously react strongly to these issues.
so we shouldnt realy talk about these subjects so the friendly atmosphere on this site is maintained, dont forget the military is about getting on and working with each other.
Ive seen in the past on this forum many incidents were its been ruined by these subjects even ones like stinky furbys `i dont care if i die post` so realy i think there should be no more. I mean people will obivously react strongly to these issues.
so we shouldnt realy talk about these subjects so the friendly atmosphere on this site is maintained, dont forget the military is about getting on and working with each other.
Last edited by robbiew on Thu 15 Sep, 2005 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And, I know that I will get stick for this, terrorism can be forgiven in my opinion. If military success is impossible to achieve and the only way to protect oneself against oppression and aggression is through political change, using the tactic of terror, the ends do jsutify the means.
Sorry blair please clarify. For example;
the bnp believe that they are oppressed and subject to racial aggression.
from immigrants to britain. Military action is out of the question, political change is unlikly to happen to support their aims (quite rightly so) so therefore would you say bombing mosques ,synagogs and temples would be justified. I know this is very unlikly to happen but my point is it could, you will probably have a razor sharp answer that will cut me to shreds but I would like to here your reaction I suppose what Im trying to say is that each case must be dealt with seperatly. Taking into account all circumstances.
Sorry blair please clarify. For example;
the bnp believe that they are oppressed and subject to racial aggression.
from immigrants to britain. Military action is out of the question, political change is unlikly to happen to support their aims (quite rightly so) so therefore would you say bombing mosques ,synagogs and temples would be justified. I know this is very unlikly to happen but my point is it could, you will probably have a razor sharp answer that will cut me to shreds but I would like to here your reaction I suppose what Im trying to say is that each case must be dealt with seperatly. Taking into account all circumstances.
Sorry robbie in fact in the Royal Navy its against mess rules to discuss religion and politics in the mess, I was writing my response as you posted yours and probably wouldnt have posted it if I had seen your last. I was just trying to make a point that any argument can be twisted round to meet the individuals viewpoint. Its worth bearing in mind that history is always written by the victor.
oh ok sorry bout that,
Yes i believe in most forces you cant talk about religion. im assuming that the majority of this website are grown ups joining or in or ex military.
you lot should know about this sort of thing and act like men (and women) about it. I know how to have fun and a wind up but i also know where the line is and when ive crossed it.
I dont go out and look for arguments and fights but i wont back down either, i just avoid in the first place and if you cant get on with people or do that in the first place then how can you say youre an adult.
i know i shouldnt have made my above post but my point is people take this stuff to heart and get carried away-and that is a bad thing.
Yes i believe in most forces you cant talk about religion. im assuming that the majority of this website are grown ups joining or in or ex military.
you lot should know about this sort of thing and act like men (and women) about it. I know how to have fun and a wind up but i also know where the line is and when ive crossed it.
I dont go out and look for arguments and fights but i wont back down either, i just avoid in the first place and if you cant get on with people or do that in the first place then how can you say youre an adult.
i know i shouldnt have made my above post but my point is people take this stuff to heart and get carried away-and that is a bad thing.
Last edited by robbiew on Thu 15 Sep, 2005 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bliartheliar
- Guest
OMSSMretd, your right that each case should be dealt with seperately. Simply labelling someone a terrorist or al Qaeda does not take into account that persons grieviences, therefore someone with a legitimate right to resist will be basically classified as a terrorist - which is exactly the norm thses days after 9/11.
But the BNP would not be jsutified to use terrorism. First of all they do not represent anyone other than a small minority of racists and dissolusioned voters. Secondly, they are not being oppressed. Immigration may be a concern to them, but thier are other ways for them to voice thier opinion - through politics for example. And thirdly, there opinions are not met with torture or execution. Not every BNP is a racist and its members have a right to voice thier opinion. Then immigrants to this country have a legal right to be here, while aslym seekers are not breaking international rules of war and are not plotting to overtake the country (despite some peoples beliefs). For BNP supporters to go around buring mosques it would be downright discriminative.
Whereas, the people of Palestine have been let down by the international community and have been forced into a corner. We supply Israel with the most modern weaponry and they use this to root out and kill leading political figures, some of whom have never been connected with terrorism, and to occupy Palestinian land and to expand Israeli land. The Palestinians are being economically and socially wiped off the map, so they decide to hit back using one of the few tactics they have at thier disposal. All the suicide bombers in Palestine could not defeat the Israeli army and airforce, so they only way to fight back is through terrorism. Becasue military success is impossible, the Palestinians only hope is through poliitcal success. Terrorism creates world attention to focus on the Palestinians, and without it there would probably have been Oslo accords of Camp David meetings. Terrorism offered the Palestinians one of the few hopes they had left.
Think about it this way. One of the reasons for invading Iraq, that the Bush admin. used, was that Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We have no right to condem the use of terror while we are supplying the other side with the most powerful weaponry on the planet, while igoring thier own crimes. Without terrorism, Israel would have basically been able to wipe the Palestinians off the map because no one would have paid any attention to them.
Terrorism is a tactic often used by desperate people who have no other way to voice thier opinions. Even the most hardcore Islamic extremists turn to terrorism because thier democratic right to free speach has been denied to them (eg: the Muslim Brotherhood). Islamic extremists are not derranged lunatics hell bent on destroying the west - that it complete bollocks.
Im aware that about 120 people were killed in Baghdad today. These attacks were not jsutified because the attackers do not represent the Iraqi people, and the US and UK are not oppressing them despite thier beliefs. Also, the fact that military loss plays into the hands of the anti-war lobby so well, military success in Iraq is still possible for the Iraqis and foreign mujahideen, therefore terrorism is not neccesary. However anti-occupational forces have the right to wage guerrilla warfare under international law.
Terrorism may not be exactyl justified - the victims of terrorism are innocent by definition, therefore thier families will always condem the act (why America after 9/11 refuses to accept terrorism anywhere), but history cares about the result and not neccessary the act. Mendela overcame aparthied. Maybe Bin Laden will one day be viewed as the man who overcame globalisation and dominance in the Arab world (he is viewed that way now by millions accross the globe).
Another point id just like to make is in respsonse to what Tony Blair said about an hour ago - 'we must work against radicalisation'. Radicalisation is the act of radicalising someones against another thing through poliitcal action. If Tony Blair is saying we need to stop this, he is basically saying that no one can politically oppose us. If he bans legitimate groups he is only going to contribute to terrorism.
To prevent Islamic terrorism we need to rethink our foreign policy in the ME. Curbing human rights and bringing about new anti-terror legislation after every single incident does nothing to prevent recuitment. If anything it contributes to it. We were attacked on 7/7 for the support we have given the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Spain was attacked on 3/11 because it gave support to the US. The US was attacked on 9/11 for giving support to the likes of the Saudis, Israelis and Egyptions. The Egyptions banned the Muslim brotherhood, the Saudis have clamped down on intenal Islamism and the Israelis have oppressed the Palestinians. Reform the ME, remove troops and spread democracy and that will help solve the problem. We were not attacked simply because we are 'infidels', christians, because of immigration or because the Muslim community has failed to integrate. If you are willing to believe that you may as well believe that Flintoff is responsible for under-age drinking as some people have already claimed. Complicated issues can not be solved with simple solutions.
robbiew, I have to admitt I have provoked the odd discussion here or there. But after talkling about nothing but football and the weather at work all day its nice to have a political argument. Im not trying to wind people up though.
But the BNP would not be jsutified to use terrorism. First of all they do not represent anyone other than a small minority of racists and dissolusioned voters. Secondly, they are not being oppressed. Immigration may be a concern to them, but thier are other ways for them to voice thier opinion - through politics for example. And thirdly, there opinions are not met with torture or execution. Not every BNP is a racist and its members have a right to voice thier opinion. Then immigrants to this country have a legal right to be here, while aslym seekers are not breaking international rules of war and are not plotting to overtake the country (despite some peoples beliefs). For BNP supporters to go around buring mosques it would be downright discriminative.
Whereas, the people of Palestine have been let down by the international community and have been forced into a corner. We supply Israel with the most modern weaponry and they use this to root out and kill leading political figures, some of whom have never been connected with terrorism, and to occupy Palestinian land and to expand Israeli land. The Palestinians are being economically and socially wiped off the map, so they decide to hit back using one of the few tactics they have at thier disposal. All the suicide bombers in Palestine could not defeat the Israeli army and airforce, so they only way to fight back is through terrorism. Becasue military success is impossible, the Palestinians only hope is through poliitcal success. Terrorism creates world attention to focus on the Palestinians, and without it there would probably have been Oslo accords of Camp David meetings. Terrorism offered the Palestinians one of the few hopes they had left.
Think about it this way. One of the reasons for invading Iraq, that the Bush admin. used, was that Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We have no right to condem the use of terror while we are supplying the other side with the most powerful weaponry on the planet, while igoring thier own crimes. Without terrorism, Israel would have basically been able to wipe the Palestinians off the map because no one would have paid any attention to them.
Terrorism is a tactic often used by desperate people who have no other way to voice thier opinions. Even the most hardcore Islamic extremists turn to terrorism because thier democratic right to free speach has been denied to them (eg: the Muslim Brotherhood). Islamic extremists are not derranged lunatics hell bent on destroying the west - that it complete bollocks.
Im aware that about 120 people were killed in Baghdad today. These attacks were not jsutified because the attackers do not represent the Iraqi people, and the US and UK are not oppressing them despite thier beliefs. Also, the fact that military loss plays into the hands of the anti-war lobby so well, military success in Iraq is still possible for the Iraqis and foreign mujahideen, therefore terrorism is not neccesary. However anti-occupational forces have the right to wage guerrilla warfare under international law.
Terrorism may not be exactyl justified - the victims of terrorism are innocent by definition, therefore thier families will always condem the act (why America after 9/11 refuses to accept terrorism anywhere), but history cares about the result and not neccessary the act. Mendela overcame aparthied. Maybe Bin Laden will one day be viewed as the man who overcame globalisation and dominance in the Arab world (he is viewed that way now by millions accross the globe).
Another point id just like to make is in respsonse to what Tony Blair said about an hour ago - 'we must work against radicalisation'. Radicalisation is the act of radicalising someones against another thing through poliitcal action. If Tony Blair is saying we need to stop this, he is basically saying that no one can politically oppose us. If he bans legitimate groups he is only going to contribute to terrorism.
To prevent Islamic terrorism we need to rethink our foreign policy in the ME. Curbing human rights and bringing about new anti-terror legislation after every single incident does nothing to prevent recuitment. If anything it contributes to it. We were attacked on 7/7 for the support we have given the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Spain was attacked on 3/11 because it gave support to the US. The US was attacked on 9/11 for giving support to the likes of the Saudis, Israelis and Egyptions. The Egyptions banned the Muslim brotherhood, the Saudis have clamped down on intenal Islamism and the Israelis have oppressed the Palestinians. Reform the ME, remove troops and spread democracy and that will help solve the problem. We were not attacked simply because we are 'infidels', christians, because of immigration or because the Muslim community has failed to integrate. If you are willing to believe that you may as well believe that Flintoff is responsible for under-age drinking as some people have already claimed. Complicated issues can not be solved with simple solutions.
robbiew, I have to admitt I have provoked the odd discussion here or there. But after talkling about nothing but football and the weather at work all day its nice to have a political argument. Im not trying to wind people up though.
Its about the fact that some people dont take it lightly like you do.
people with strong beliefs get insulted and very irratated by the things some people say.
There is a whole lot more to talk about other than religion race and beliefs, i dont just go around talking about football and weather-do you honestly believe that thats all there is besides polotics? anyway im not actually talking about that sort of polotics(spelling?) im on about beliefs and race.
Im actually offended by what people do say about mandela and other things because i know that it has deeply affected the way my life has been.
i do understand what your saying but there are certain things which need to be left out
all im saying to everyone is just try and spare a thought whats the point in insulting someone you dont know or know anything about
p.s obvously its ok to wind up someone who deserves it
people with strong beliefs get insulted and very irratated by the things some people say.
There is a whole lot more to talk about other than religion race and beliefs, i dont just go around talking about football and weather-do you honestly believe that thats all there is besides polotics? anyway im not actually talking about that sort of polotics(spelling?) im on about beliefs and race.
Im actually offended by what people do say about mandela and other things because i know that it has deeply affected the way my life has been.
i do understand what your saying but there are certain things which need to be left out
all im saying to everyone is just try and spare a thought whats the point in insulting someone you dont know or know anything about
p.s obvously its ok to wind up someone who deserves it
Last edited by robbiew on Thu 15 Sep, 2005 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
themattmeister
- Member
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Mon 21 Mar, 2005 11:19 am
- Location: Bristol, U.K
Polotics? What's this a cross between Polo's and Tic Tacs, the ultimate mint, 2 hours of Polo freshness in just 2 calories. Now that would be worth talking about. 
Sorry Robbie I'm just being childish. I expect extreme points of view wouldn't be tolerated here, I don't see anything wrong with controversial views as long as there backed up with sensible evidence and observations.
I think if people are going to get worked up about it that's their problem they should probably consider maybe relaxing a bit, people who use this site all have the common interest in the military so that should be enough to tolerate difference of opinion regarding politics or religion.[/quote]
Sorry Robbie I'm just being childish. I expect extreme points of view wouldn't be tolerated here, I don't see anything wrong with controversial views as long as there backed up with sensible evidence and observations.
I think if people are going to get worked up about it that's their problem they should probably consider maybe relaxing a bit, people who use this site all have the common interest in the military so that should be enough to tolerate difference of opinion regarding politics or religion.[/quote]
ok i guess i agree with you,
There thats kind of what i was on about maybe i should have made myself clearer, but youve still got to see that though i do respect other peoples views,(im from a extreme multi cultural family) people have also got to respect the fact that you cant say certain things becase you cant go crapping all over someones beliefs because they felt like saying it.
You argue but up to a point, youve got to be open minded, and there has got to be a large element of respect for people with different views to you.
Thats how a gentleman does it and how we should be, and im not taking the pi$$ either im no upper class doorknob im from poor backgrounds in a council estate, so im not acting like im above anyone else-and im not a johnny no mates either ive just got respect, not saying you lot dont although there are a few who dont seem too.
There thats kind of what i was on about maybe i should have made myself clearer, but youve still got to see that though i do respect other peoples views,(im from a extreme multi cultural family) people have also got to respect the fact that you cant say certain things becase you cant go crapping all over someones beliefs because they felt like saying it.
You argue but up to a point, youve got to be open minded, and there has got to be a large element of respect for people with different views to you.
Thats how a gentleman does it and how we should be, and im not taking the pi$$ either im no upper class doorknob im from poor backgrounds in a council estate, so im not acting like im above anyone else-and im not a johnny no mates either ive just got respect, not saying you lot dont although there are a few who dont seem too.
Last edited by robbiew on Thu 15 Sep, 2005 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
markthestab
- Member
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sun 29 May, 2005 7:03 pm
- Location: Nottingham
ok im going low brow now cos this crap is p!ssing me off
a proper bloke doesnt intentionally kill women and children, anyone who intentionally does is a c*nt end of
and that includes the crew of the enola gay for me too
for britain during WW2 and the bombing of dresden is totally different as you well know, those bombs being dropped were in the context of a world war and as an answer to equal actions by the germans, the were meant to weaken the germans as a war machine
the contrast is c*nts like the chechens and the other terrorist throughout the world is that they seem to revel in the suffering of the people they kill, they do it to inspire fear, they STARTED the whole god damn thing with a pre-emtive strike on the U.S and they would quite happily kill you and your familyt tommorow if they thought it would make the papers,hamas included
i know you know the difference between our RAF fighting a world war and hate filled nutters killing for the sake of it, your just trying to muddy the waters to get your political point across, but this is a step too far witch reall f**ked me off
goodnight
a proper bloke doesnt intentionally kill women and children, anyone who intentionally does is a c*nt end of
and that includes the crew of the enola gay for me too
for britain during WW2 and the bombing of dresden is totally different as you well know, those bombs being dropped were in the context of a world war and as an answer to equal actions by the germans, the were meant to weaken the germans as a war machine
the contrast is c*nts like the chechens and the other terrorist throughout the world is that they seem to revel in the suffering of the people they kill, they do it to inspire fear, they STARTED the whole god damn thing with a pre-emtive strike on the U.S and they would quite happily kill you and your familyt tommorow if they thought it would make the papers,hamas included
i know you know the difference between our RAF fighting a world war and hate filled nutters killing for the sake of it, your just trying to muddy the waters to get your political point across, but this is a step too far witch reall f**ked me off
goodnight
did you even read any of what i said i wasnt even talking about those situations, about a bloke killing other blokes etc. and who the hell are you biting?
as i was saying earlier these subjects are very touchy and markthestab just proved my point. I dont know if he was biting me or the others that were talking about terrorism as in chechens and crap.
But if you were biting me then read it and realise im not saying that certain views are right or wrong, im saying STAY OFF THE FRIGGIN SUBJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
By the way there is a polotics section on this site and this is starting to pi$$ me of because youre being a bit very daft
as i was saying earlier these subjects are very touchy and markthestab just proved my point. I dont know if he was biting me or the others that were talking about terrorism as in chechens and crap.
But if you were biting me then read it and realise im not saying that certain views are right or wrong, im saying STAY OFF THE FRIGGIN SUBJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
By the way there is a polotics section on this site and this is starting to pi$$ me of because youre being a bit very daft
Last edited by robbiew on Thu 15 Sep, 2005 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
