How do you define terrorism?

kwew · Post by **kwew** » Mon 03 Nov, 2003 1:26 pm

I think we're all forgetting, a terrorist is, whoever the man with the biggest gun says is a terrorist. Not right but true.

harry hackedoff · Post by **harry hackedoff** » Mon 03 Nov, 2003 3:24 pm

Really? Thanks for your insight.
I consider the Israeli Government to be State Terrorists. They would consider themselves to be peacemakers. I consider the Syrian Govt to be State sponsors of terrorism, as are the Saudis. The Indonesian Govt turns a blind eye and is often complicit. Don’t know if you saw the recent PMs statement on his retirement, but it filled me with concern. Democracy is not perfect by any means.
It does afford certain rights to an individual, which Terrorism would seek to remove. It ain`t the perfect system, but it’s the best we have.
Thanks for the phot of Violette, Sticks. That was a girl with bollocks. There`s a quote about freedom having a taste which those who have never fought for it etc. Seems particularly appropriate in her case.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon 03 Nov, 2003 3:56 pm

Harry

I endorse your feelings , the PM that I read and saw was the Malaysian PM, what the hell, they are all out of the same pot.

As for the Issy's well who sponsors that little lot! ????????

kwew · Post by **kwew** » Mon 03 Nov, 2003 10:21 pm

I think we're all forgetting, a terrorist is, whoever the man with the biggest gun says is a terrorist. Not right but true.

Its true, notice how the izzy's arent terrorists and the arabs are, its the yanks (man with the biggest gun) they decide.
So harry theres no need for the sarcastic really??? thanks for the input.

Whitey · Post by **Whitey** » Mon 03 Nov, 2003 11:02 pm

Izzy's control the IMF, they aren't anything less than perfect in world opinion. The fact is look at why they were expelled from England and why Oliver brought them back. Money, they got the world economy sowed up. Look how well off people are who support them, look at the British Empire when it failed to give the Izzy's what they demanded in the 40's and 50's then look at the rise of the US once they pledged to help the Izzies. Say what you want, but those people got some kind of power, and I ain't talking military.

Interresting how since 9/11 the US has been fighting their enemies. Systematically taking them out one by one. Saddam didn't have ties to Al Queda, but he did fund Hamas, Afgahnistan was also a Hamas training ground. Now the US is talking tough to Syria and Iran. Wonder why?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu 06 Nov, 2003 9:56 pm

[quote]
If it was then it was still a terrorist attack: the attackers were not in military uniform, gave no decloration of war, gave no warning etc
[quote]
The French Resistance didnt do any of that either^ You going to call them terrorists as well? nah dont think so.

kwew · Post by **kwew** » Fri 07 Nov, 2003 12:10 pm

I do not believe the french were terrorist as the nazis were occupying there country which was internationally defined and legal and the germans broke that.
You may say the same for the palestinians but they are not the issue here, the french are and i personally beliveve your wrong, but each to there own.

BenChug · Post by **BenChug** » Sat 08 Nov, 2003 9:08 am

kwew wrote:I do not believe the french were terrorist as the nazis were occupying there country which was internationally defined and legal and the germans broke that.

Then what would you say about Iraq? Iraq was internationally defined, it existed, was even helped propped up by the US. The US and UK didn't have the support of the UN, which is seen as a legal mitigating body.

So would the Iraqi Army that still fights be terrorists or sabateurs?
What about the al Quada members that now fight along side them?

ash2003 · Post by **ash2003** » Sat 08 Nov, 2003 12:01 pm

There is no real definition for terrorism and as Sticky mentioned it depends where you are sat in the equation. As for GW2 I do not believe it was right or wrong. As to the point made about us killing more civilians than military, when does a civilian wielding a weapon willing to use his life to kill US or British soldiers not become a target. But from the other side they may see the US and British as invaders of their country therefore fighting for their pride.

I do believe however that the minds of many muslims are corrupted by their religion. Not so long ago I got into a conversation with one I worked with. He believed that Christians and Jews were corrupt, Atheists were just as bad, and one day we would all pay. He did not think this was a kind of 'prophecy' but it existed in terms of violence. We might be 'winning' now with GW2 but one day we will pay badly. Some of the things he came out with made me realise how corrupt the religion has become in some places of worship and how easy it is for younger believers to be pulled into terrorist activity.

I have strayed off the point but like I said before the definition of terrorism depends on the whole situation and point of view.

Ash

kwew · Post by **kwew** » Sat 08 Nov, 2003 2:48 pm

What about the al Quada members that now fight along side them?

They are terrorists, it isnt there country so they arent freedom fighters, they are just after a fight against white's/christians.
the UK and US were getting rid of an evil man who deserved it. However the UK and US troops have no plans to stay in the long term and occupy, when the country is rebuilt they will leave, you cant say the same about the nazis can you?

druadan · Post by **druadan** » Sun 09 Nov, 2003 12:47 am

Simple really:

Freedom fighters are people fighting for something that the developed world believe to be just, honest and right; generally using mostly honest methods. Terrorists are people fighting for generally fanatical (read: extreme) beliefs that the developed world does not believe in, and/or that fight using dishonourable methods (hitting honest civilian targets etc).

Basically, you could argue the case either way, but it is the first world, ie. NATO or the the UN that decides what is terrorism and what is not. Agree with it or not, that's the way it is; nothing to do with race, sexuality or creed (there's both on both sides). Sorry.

Tab · Post by **Tab** » Sun 09 Nov, 2003 5:47 pm

I think the easiest way to look at this is as follows;
If you fight out of uniform and lose you are a terrorist,
If you fight out of uniform and win then you are a Freedom Fighter.

:drinking:

Deniable_Operative · Post by **Deniable_Operative** » Tue 18 Nov, 2003 7:38 pm

I agree with that...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

also, it's to do with morality. both sides think they are 'the good guys', but there are no moral situations, only a moral INTERPRETATION of situations.

The problem here is human nature.

Deniable_Operative · Post by **Deniable_Operative** » Tue 18 Nov, 2003 7:40 pm

Also, it's not Democracy that's not perfect, neither is any politcal system on paper.

It's not the system, it's the people operating it.

Home | About Us | Articles | Forums | Shop | Reviews | Search | Contact Us | Advertise With Us

Our Journey Comes to an End! Please read our latest Announcement: https://www.militaryforums.co.uk/military-forums-closure.php

Share This Page: