babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » [B]What is terrorism? Definitions[/B]

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: [B]What is terrorism? Definitions[/B]
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 18 September 2001 08:25 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When Bush says there is a "War on Terrorism" and I think he`s just changed the def since his talk with Chirac - what does he mean exactly.

How does Jean, Stockwell, Gilles, Alexa and Joe define terrorism? Were the actions of the RCMP during APEC and Quebec City terrorism? Is bombing abortion clinics terrorism? Are Mike Harris`s policies terrorism? No one has yet given a precise definition concerning what terrorism is and isn`t except to say that crashing a plane into the World Trade Building and the Pentagon fit the category. What are the parameters of this concept?


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 18 September 2001 10:21 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I certainly hope it will be more successful than the War on (some) Drugs - which it may well be given that a lot fewer people find terrorism enjoyable. Anyway, I'd define terrorism as the use of violence by non-state actors (the use of violence by states being warfare) to acheive political ends.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 18 September 2001 11:07 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was going to put a link to The School of the Americas Watch website. I was just there last night and now the link is dead. There was also another website called Islam Radio which has also been dead in the past week.

School of the Americas Here is another link. I wonder how much longer it will last.

Here is a story of what I would call terrorists living in California. Cambodian US-based rebels vow attack, deny arrests.
I have that sneaking feeling that there will be a very fuzzy definition of who is and who isn't a terrorist.

It appears that the worlds recipiants of military aid also have the highest humanrights abuses. Can you say Colombia?

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 September 2001 11:26 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clearly, terrorists are freedom fighters that have not won their struggle and got to the point where they can write the official history.

I would not even dignify the perpetrators of the World Trade Center mass murder with the term "terrorist."

The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear that politics and religion are but a means not and end.

These people just want to kill for the sake of it.

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 18 September 2001 11:29 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
vaudree, I salute your question. It is exactly where we have to start. What is terrorism? It is a purposeful action (physical, mental, emotional, etc) of one or more human beings to cause terror in one or more human beings and thus influence their behaviour in a desirable (by the terrorists) way (my definition).

It is irrelevent whether the terrorists are independent individuals or an organized group of them (mafia, family, clan, tribe, government) the definition applies equally.

Once we accept this definition, it is much easier to solve the problem - historical facts show us that terrorism (whether individual or state-controlled) always results in some form of anti-terrorism. Action-reaction.

It is like a resonant feedback, observed when a structure like abridge for example (by positive feedback) oscillates farther and farther out of its state of equilibrium and eventually collapses.

The only solution is negative or dampening feedback. Like doing the unexpected: eliminating the cause that started the cycle instead of adding to it.

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 18 September 2001 11:49 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bravo Zatamon!
"The War on Terrorism" is a contradiction in terms. War in itself is terrorizing. The governments want to fight one form or terror with another. Sounds like a self fulfilling prophecey to me. It is every military general's wet dream come true.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 September 2001 11:55 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think today on CNN it's being called "The New War."

......do try to keep up......

I'm thinking maybe "New and Improved War" in those big red white and blue Tommy Hilfiger background, maybe with an Eddie Bauer signature on it somewhere.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 19 September 2001 12:03 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
from the way they display it so prominently, like they were bragging about it, I would call it: "America's New Toy"

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 19 September 2001 12:15 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

They didn't like the term terrorism? I guess it implies a specific type of violence and by keeping the word war it leaves the door open to all sorts of wonderful things that can be done in the name of self preservation. They can continue with the status quo but with a little more gusto. A war on Peace. Funding various warring factions, mega military government contracts funded by you and me. Remember what Mike Harris says "There is only one taxpayer".

Here is a quote from, Peter Leuprecht, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special representative for human rights in Cambodia, said the country was troubled by "four fundamental evils" poverty, violence, corruption and lawlessness.

I would go along with that. It sounds wayyy more productive and safer than a miliary campaign.


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 September 2001 12:27 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I've mentioned before, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Back in the 1770s I'm sure the Brits considered the Americans who were fighting for more autonomy (with weapons as opposed to just nonpayment of taxes) to be terrorists.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 19 September 2001 12:40 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've never found that "terrorist" was a useful word because it is invariably applied, as my favourite felinoid suggests, inconsistently. Those on our side are never terrorists. I've struggled to find an alternative given the recent bombing, because it's so rhetorically loaded it functions as an incitement to further violence. However there is no really satisfactory alternative, the others, except for "hijacker", carrying too many positive overtones. I wouldn't mind "terrorist" if I could use it across the board for everyone I think it applies to.

In the popular mind, however, I believe that "terrorist" has a few connotations. First, terrorism is anonymous. Second, its aim is the creation of terror and the disruption of civil life. Third, its aim is to cause a police and military crackdown that makes accusations of oppression seem true (and strengthens the position of hardliners on both sides). Fourth, it generally chooses civilian targets, as these more effectively achieve the other aims. Certain tactics are historically associated with the epithet "terrorism", like bombing and hijacking. But other incidents include spraying people with gunfire and so on (Vienna/Rome 1985).


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 19 September 2001 12:41 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If it is a war, and if bin Laden is captured, would he then be a Prisoner of War?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 19 September 2001 02:38 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alternative terms are freedom-fighters (Italian charbonieri c. 1844 are heroes, long enough dead that we needn't worry about whom they faught or why) resistance movement (French resistance c. 1945 was a glorious embarrassment to the Allies) partisan (Greek partisan c 1942 is good, so long as one can control him) guerillas (in Africa, always a good thing; in the Carribean, not usually; they tend to have a red streak) underground (a good thing to get hold of anywhere, any time: it can be used, sold, traded, blackmailed or blown up, as political convenience dictates).
Definitions often have two sides. I'm frank; you're rude. My friends are avant-garde; yours are just crazy. My political allies attack an oppressor by any poor means at their disposal; yours commit random acts of senseless violence.
Oh well.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 19 September 2001 10:24 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about, war waged by parties who conceal their identities.

In a "real" war, there is an understanding of who the enemy is. Preferably, there is a formal declaration of war, but even if there wasn't, it's clear who's fighting who.

If the US fires a missle at a civilian population, it isn't terrorism (though it might be considered a war crime) because you know who did it. If the US hires guerilla bombers to blow up a market square in secret, that would be terrorism.

In "terrorism", the combatants strike in secret, and hide their identities. That's what makes it so insidious. How can you defend yourself when you don't know who's attacking you? "Honourable" warriors do not conceal their identities. It's like the difference between a samurai and a ninja.

At least, that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 19 September 2001 10:36 AM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Simpler than that:

Terrorists are those who participated in or aided and abetted in the following acts, etc. It is not necessary to define a future act as it has not happened yet, but when and if it happens, it is added to the list.

Now it is up to the UN to argue what was a terrorist act, e.g.
The bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 where 91 people were killed, including women and children.
Numerous airline hijackings by various Palestinian groups
Munich 1968
World Trade Center 1993
World Trade Center 2001
Then we (as a world) can say that the perps were bad and Nuremburg'em.


From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 19 September 2001 12:07 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In some sense, I agree with Hibachi. Looking historically, the word "terrorist" has been applied in an ad hoc fashion, therefore there is no reason to expect a consistent definition.

Mediaboy, it's true, as I said that anonymity is one of the associations of the word. But as this is usually a function of a gross imbalance in power, and is a modern-warfare extension, albeit not an honourable one, of guerilla warfare tactics, I don't see the need to sanitize US killing of civilians while demonizing others', which is exactly the effect that such a differential usage has. They should all be revealed as equally loathsome in the language we use.

[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 September 2001 04:58 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There can be little doubt that the word "terrorism", applied historically, has simply been a general term of abuse against enemies who did not control a state. But we should try to create a real definition, and hold both sides to it.

Specifically, I believe terrorists target the civilian population at large, as opposed to soldiers (who present a threat),
and government officials (who may be responsible for official acts of oppression).

Therefore, I do not think it qualifies as terrorism that army outposts are attacked, no matter whether the attackers identify themselves or not. An attack on an official may or may not be terrorism, depending upon the role and authority of the official.

However, it is ALWAYS terrorism when the population is attacked with no realistic military objective being involved.

This is not a purely theoretical topic; the Government of Canada has announced that they will be making it a crime punishable by 14 years in jail to collect money for "terrorist
organizations". They do not plan to define the word "terrorist", at least in the initial draft of the Bill.

Canadians should be allowed to support revolutionaries who conform to the rules of war; many just causes have been temporarily out of power in their homelands.

But it is too cynical to say the word terrorist has no meaning, and it lets the authorities off the hook. If anyone initiates a policy which targets the civilian population of a country, whether by highjacked airliners or conventional bombing, they should be called terrorists.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 19 September 2001 05:06 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeff, I can agree with that.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 September 2001 07:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It will be interesting to see that law challenged by someone or another on the basis that "terrorist" is undefined (and arguably, undefinable legally for all the freedom fighter vs. terrorist arguments seen here). You could argue that the government has the right to define which organizations are "terrorist", but unless they do so BEFORE someone financially supports or volunteers for an organization that financially supports one of these groups, then that's just entrapment. You can't say, "No supporting terrorist organizations, and we'll let you know whether the one you're supporting is terrorist after we charge you and define them into existence as what we mean by terrorist."

Many of the organizations that are considered "terrorist" seem quite reasonable from their "front" propaganda and literature. I again refer to the Iranian Mujahedin-e-khalq - one that is commonly referred to as a terrorist organization. But look at their web site - by reading it, you might think this is a legitimate political organization that actually has similar goals to those of countries like the US - a truly democratic and free government in Iran, human rights for all, justice, etc. (Well, except that the US actually probably WOULDN'T want Iran to be completely democratic and free, because then the people might get too uppity and demand that their region get paid properly for their work and their resources the way Americans do, and we can't be having that.) Nowhere does it say in their literature that they bomb or assassinate anyone to achieve their political goals (or if they do say it, I haven't noticed).

So what if I, as an ordinary Canadian citizen with some Iranian ties, not blood, but familial nevertheless, decide that this is a worthwhile organization, and I decide to support them by donating money (not realizing that they sometimes use violence to reach their goal)? I should research a group before I support them? True. But I remember one time in Toronto, my husband and I were walking past a display on a street with several Persian businesses nearby and stopped to talk to the men behind the table. Perfectly reasonable, friendly men, who told me about some of the injustices they were against in Iran. They were selling paraphernalia (like Iranian flags with the lion instead of the revolutionary symbol) in order to raise money. My husband agreed with their goals and wished them luck, but then kept moving without buying anything, and before softy Michelle had a chance to buy something, or be put on a mailing list, or be put on a volunteering list, or to nudge him and suggest that he buy something or volunteer to help with such worthy goals.

I caught up with him and asked him why he didn't support them more substantially, with money or support, and then he told me that he thought it was likely for the Mujahedin, and while he supports their goals of freedom and justice, he didn't want to get mixed up with them because of their tactics.

Okay, so I had someone with me who knew. But the point is, I would never have known. There may even be Iranians who don't know what their tactics are, but have a much deeper sense of anguish over the situation in Iran, and are duped into supporting this organization, even to the tune of writing their name down on a list for future mailings, or even to man the table the next time. Who knows? So let's take that hypothetical person, who thinks they're supporting a relief group, or doesn't know the funds are going to be funnelled to the Mujahedin? We'll arrest them and give them 14 years for collecting money for this group if they're even involved on the periphery like that?

Because unless these kinds of situations are defined, there's no way that law is going to stand up. We'll be lumping in citizens with good intentions with suicide bombers and assassins. After all, look at that politician in west Toronto who attended an event with some of the Tamils in his riding (can't remember exactly who or when, but Toronto folks will likely remember this since it was in the news for days). He went to a dinner that he thought was a cultural celebration and perhaps a fundraiser for relief efforts in Sri Lanka, but it was charged later that the local association putting on the event actually funnels money to the Tamil Tigers. And some people were out for this politician's hide, calling him a supporter of terrorists, even though he had no idea. Well-meaning citizens shouldn't be subject to entrapment, and that's all this law will do.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 September 2001 09:08 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, Michelle, I think that both Paul Martin and Sheila Copps (? I'm less sure of her) have been in this situation. I'm not sure how much anyone has substantiated any of the charges against the group involved.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 September 2001 05:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought it was Paul Martin who was actually the politician I was talking about at that Tamil gathering, but since I wasn't sure I didn't want to link his name to it. I'm still not sure. I remember that it was an elected MP though.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 07:55 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As I've mentioned before, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I know not of one government or anyone on these threads who has recognized these specific terrorists as freedom fighters.

I also agree with Jeff House. Well stated

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 08:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I also agree with Jeff House.

I agree, also.
but with that said, it is fair to say that historically, in war, civilian populations have always been targetted. Which would make soldiers and commanders and political leadership terrorists. The definition gets better the more I think about it.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 08:53 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The U.S. has done a great deal more to ensure that civillians arent targetted in military action than any other country in the history of the world.

As a superpower they may be far from perfect, their just superior to all the alternatives.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 September 2001 09:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The U.S. has done a great deal more to ensure that civillians arent targetted in military action than any other country in the history of the world.

Do you think you could convince the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange, carpet bombing, Cambodia, and the mothers of 500,000 Iraqi children of that? Not to mention the millions of deaths caused by U.S. backed dictatorships.

quote:
As a superpower they may be far from perfect, their just superior to all the alternatives.

There is an alternative. No superpower.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 09:31 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
it is fair to say that historically, in war, civilian populations have always been targetted.

I'm not sure about that. I think we get a very distorted view of the history of warfare from the history of the 20th century, when it's certain that civilians were targetted.

In the 20th century it's estimated that about 100 million people died in or as an immediate result of war, about 60 million of them civilians (my source on this is Lewis Lapham of Harper's, who admittedly doesn't always get it quite right).

But though I don't know the historical figures, I've heard it said by people like Gwyn Dyer that in previous centuries military casualties far outweighed civilian.

I think this was less due to any sense of honour or chivalry on the part of armies, than it was due to technical limitations and simple lack of need to slaughter non-combatants.

Of course civilians always suffered if they were unfortunate enough to be in the way, and of course retreating armies could always burn fields, granaries and the like, Russian "scorched-earth" style, to deny them to the aggressors.

But before things like the levee en masse in revolutionary France, it could truly be said that most armies didn't benefit from the logistical support of all or most of the population, so there was little point trying to remove that support by removing the population, even supposing you had the means.

All changed, changed utterly, with industrial society and mechanized warfare, as we know to our sorrow.

Come to think of it, modern nationalism has a good deal to answer for, as well. With the advent of things like resistance movements and guerilla warfare (the word was coined during Napoleon's attempt to occupy Spain, incidentally), conquerors started regarding civilians as potential threats, rather than as peasants who talked funny, but were otherwise as sullen and ragged as those at home.

Thus sabotage, assassinations, reprisals...

quote:
There is an alternative. No superpower.

Quite right. The world of two superpowers, and then one, was not designed to serve some higher purpose, and is not the best of all possible worlds (to say the least). It's a historical anomaly, resulting like much else from a series of historical accidents, and it too shall pass.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 20 September 2001 09:41 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But before things like the levee en masse in revolutionary France, it could truly be said that most armies didn't benefit from the logistical support of all or most of the population, so there was little point trying to remove that support by targetting that population, even supposing you had the means.


What created nationalism in the first place? Was it better communication where even villages far removed from the conflict felt a part of it? Was it slavery? When was it that people started identifying themselves with the country in which they live?


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 09:47 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you think you could convince the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange, carpet bombing, Cambodia, and the mothers of 500,000 Iraqi children of that? Not to mention the millions of deaths caused by U.S. backed dictatorships.

The Iraqi children died as a result of their leaders building palaces while they starved.

Your right though In the past civilians were allways targeted in military action. The U.S. and NATO are the only countries that have worked to end this. Thats all I'm saying.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 September 2001 09:52 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michael Walzer, in his book "Just and Unjust Wars" argues that a pre-existing feudal ethic
exempted civilians, peasants, and other lower groups from many of the consequences of fighting wars. Soldiers tried to kill soldiers and found it repellent to have to kill others.

According to Walzer, this ethic began to decompose about 150 years ago. Yet the international law of war is still based on it, and it is the reason that Lieutenant Calley was prosecuted (to some extent) for My Lai.

The ability to drop bombs from airplanes created, I think, a huge hole in that ethic.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 10:28 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The ability to drop bombs from airplanes created, I think, a huge hole in that ethic.

Until those bombs became laser guided which restored that ethic


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 20 September 2001 10:42 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dispite the technological advances in warefare the incidence of terror has reached a point which requires no more box cutters and exacto knives to execute humans in an insane drive to fulfill a death wish.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 10:49 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It also requires those who resist implementing reasonable security measures.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 10:54 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dispite the technological advances in warefare the incidence of terror has reached a point which requires no more box cutters and exacto knives to execute humans in an insane drive to fulfill a death wish.

OK, but they used those knives to take over jet airliners, which are just about as high-tech as they come.

quote:
Until those bombs became laser guided which restored that ethic

Ridiculous. In Iraq, something like 7% of all the bombs that were dropped were the high-tech "laser-guided" kind. And most of those didn't work. Don't be misled by the pretty pictures Norman Schwarzkopf showed on TV.

The rest of those bombs were the good old-fashioned "gravity" kind. They worked all too well, as around 100,000 Iraqis could have told you, if they'd managed to survive your laser-guided, ethical war.

quote:
It also requires those who resist implementing reasonable security measures.

So truculent civilians, who value everything about an "open, democratic" society from convenience and prosperity to civil liberties, bear some responsibility for this? Fascinating. Truly fascinating.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 10:58 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That would be mainly the Iraqi military. The U.S. did not target civillians in their bombings. The proportion of civillian deaths to the amount of bombs dropped was less than any other military action ever in the world.
Thats all I'm saying, no more no less

Remember it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait. They have evidence he also intended to go after Saudi Arabia next. Again you would stand by.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 11:03 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait. They have evidence he also intended to go after Saudi Arabia next. Again you would stand by.

Ah, yes, I forgot. Saddam Hussein was the Hitler of the early 90s. They come and go so often I can't keep track.

Well, roll my umbrella and call me Chamberlain, I guess.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 September 2001 11:12 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
. They come and go so often I can't keep track.

What are you trying to imply. Do you think the U.S. is making out the taliban to be worse than they are. Why don't you try a trusted source like Amnesty international.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2001 11:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What are you trying to imply. Do you think the U.S. is making out the taliban to be worse than they are. Why don't you try a trusted source like Amnesty international.

I'm trying to imply that crying "NAZI" every time it's the turn of some new repressive regime to incur the wrath of the "West" is a species of demagoguery.

I know quite enough about the Taliban, thanks. As for Amnesty, I'm a member, so of course I trust their information.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 21 September 2001 04:17 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can I digress a bit? Talking about terrorism and the U.S., is there not an even bigger picture here? Most “terrorism” isn’t conveyed through a 767 by using some of the definitions posted here. And only targeting terrorism with a “global reach” seems like, uh, missing the forest for the tree. God forbid Bush actually help out the rest of the world, because small arms are a big component of the terrorist trade. According to the State Department:
quote:
The United States is a global leader in efforts to mitigate the illicit trafficking and destabilizing accumulation of SA/LW through multilateral diplomacy and bilateral assistance to countries in need. Specifically, the United States has directed its policies at building and enhancing enforcement and legal capacities, controlling proliferation to areas of conflict, providing training on export controls and customs practices, discouraging irresponsible and indiscriminate exports, strengthening sanctions against violators of embargoes, and enhancing stockpile security and destroying excess weapons. The U.S. approach focuses on practical, effective measures to address the problem of illicit SA/LW trafficking in conflict regions where it is most urgent, while acknowledging the legitimacy of legal trade, manufacture, and ownership of arms.

Sounds nice, right?
Then read the practice of this policy from our “global leader.”
quote:
The United States has said it will oppose any UN plan to curb the illegal trade in small arms that interferes with the right of individuals to carry guns.

But that is not all:
quote:
U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999. The costs to the families and communities afflicted by this violence is immeasurable. But to most arms dealers, the profit accumulated outweighs the lives lost. In the 1990's, over 65% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors.

Is this not terrorism too?

[ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 10:17 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm trying to imply that crying "NAZI" every time it's the turn of some new repressive regime to incur the wrath of the "West" is a species of demagoguery.

Not crying Nazi everytime. Never said it about any other repressive regime. With the Taleban, however, the shoe fits pretty damn good.

What differences other than actually body counts do you see? They would wipe any other religion and culture from all islam territory. They would have all islam countries practise their beliefs. They kill innocent men women and children.

They're probably not quite as bad a Nazi's but their the next closest thing this world has ever seen.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 21 September 2001 10:24 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Godwin's Law invoked. End thread now.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 10:33 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah but its relevant because Bush's comparison to the N word should be discussed.

Who would you compare the Taleban to?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 September 2001 11:02 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Godwin's Law invoked. End thread now.

Thanks, MediaBoy. I was wondering if someone would bring that up.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 21 September 2001 11:12 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So that means that we should also end the thread regarding Bush's speach.

Maybe he invoked the N word so that no one would be able to discuss it.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 September 2001 11:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From a quick word search on the page, it seems to me that the first person to use the word "nazi" was 'lance, not Markbo... Oh well, dem's de breaks - the side I'm on loses.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 21 September 2001 11:34 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
From a quick word search on the page, it seems to me that the first person to use the word "nazi" was 'lance, not Markbo... Oh well, dem's de breaks - the side I'm on loses.

Busted! I was (over-)reacting to some absurd comment about how "they" had evidence Saddam Hussein was going to go after Saudi Arabia after Kuwait.

We heard lots of such stuff back then -- then it was going to be Israel, Iran, etc. & so forth. I think it was Bush the First who compared Hussein to Hitler first, or anyway most famously.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca