PDA

View Full Version : Terrorism



SicN Twisted
10-31-2004, 11:54 AM
“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

This is the official defintion of terrorism in the US. Code. According to this definition, the United States of America is the world's leading terrorist organization. Even by its own definition the hypocrite U.S. government is guilty of terrorism — on a massive, international scale. And for over 100 years! For over 100 years, and continuing today, the US has broken international law and the geneva convention with brutal use of force and violence against civilians for political gain, awhile not in a state of declared war. Therefore, Americans need to understand that their vague, transparent "war on terror" has no meaning until we try our troops and political leaders for war crimes, and bomb Washington, D.C for funding and committing acts of terror. No citizen of the world's most brutal, internationally repressive terrorist regime has the right to point their finger at any organization in the world for anything, because at the moment, we have the #1 death toll.

Not Ozymandias
10-31-2004, 11:56 AM
Us leading the War on Terror is as logical as me leading a War on Internet Flaming or Good Charlotte leading a War on Shitty Mall Punk.

RXP
10-31-2004, 12:02 PM
Go America!

wheelchairman
10-31-2004, 12:16 PM
Ah tis like Lenin once said, All Wars are imperialist by nature.

aavikko
10-31-2004, 03:40 PM
The Usa uses "pacified by war" politic :mad:

Little_Miss_1565
11-01-2004, 11:36 PM
Wow. If that had been in place when I was a freshman in high school, I could have gone after the people who bullied the hell out of me under that definition of terrorism.

SicN Twisted
11-02-2004, 12:37 AM
Maybe if they were Arabs...

Mota Boy
11-02-2004, 12:51 AM
I have no rebuttal.


The only question is which is more ridiculous - the U.S. definition of terror or the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Faded Soul
11-02-2004, 07:34 AM
you know, I was just thinking about that myself. America is very hypocritical.

Fallen.
11-02-2004, 08:20 AM
agreed, deifinately.

but what would you expect after WTC? its bullshit, but what else were they going to do?

wheelchairman
11-02-2004, 08:54 AM
agreed, deifinately.

but what would you expect after WTC? its bullshit, but what else were they going to do?
Not invade Iraq?

Little_Miss_1565
11-02-2004, 10:56 AM
agreed, deifinately.

but what would you expect after WTC? its bullshit, but what else were they going to do?

I would hope 'not invade a country completely unrelated to the attack,' but that's just a hope.

Little_Miss_1565
11-02-2004, 11:05 AM
Not invade Iraq?

GOD DAMN IT, you beat me to it, WCM.

But in my defense...great minds think alike.

wheelchairman
11-02-2004, 11:18 AM
Flattery will get you everywhere. I was gonna comment on it, but then again, there are plenty of times where I don't read page two when I want to reply, so it's by pure dumb luck that I have not done the same thing.

Fallen.
11-03-2004, 05:35 AM
WTC or no WTC Iraq was in the crosshairs and had been for a long time.

it was just a coincidental convenience that the WTC attacks happened, it just sped it along.

Nina
11-03-2004, 07:46 AM
thats just what i wanted to say =o
i wish 9/11 had not happened. that way bush might
have attacked iraq and more people would have
gotten pissed.
just a thought.

Fallen.
11-03-2004, 08:45 AM
yeah it was totally like the Jews with Israel after WW2.

for some reason the US thought that "oh we've been attacked as a people so that means we have the right to do what we want cos we'll just point at the WTC when anyone complains".

Fallen.
11-03-2004, 08:46 AM
Note: nothing against Jews. i know they can get touchy. although, what Israel did to the Palestinians is disgusting.

wheelchairman
11-03-2004, 08:46 AM
Do not confuse Zionists with Jews.

Fallen.
11-03-2004, 08:53 AM
Fair point.

SicN Twisted
11-03-2004, 04:09 PM
What Israel continues to do to the Palestinians is disgusting, illegal state terrorism. The only way to make justice in Israel is to put Sharone in jail for war crimes and try is the Israeli Army as a terrorist organization.

The shadow
03-01-2010, 03:50 AM
I just saw a comment in a news page that defended terrorist acts as "rational decisions". I don't know why but it just made me feel so angry, I can't express myself in an intelligent enough way to feel satisfied with my own answer. I guess i'm just not insightful enough. But it made think about how some people think that understanding why terrorists hate the west and why they commit those acts transforms that understanding into a rational argument for mass, random killing.

I mean, does knowing why a murderer killed a person function as a defense for his acts? Should the "reasons" behind the crime modify the way we try and convict the criminals? Or should we just look at the crime itself and forget about what led the criminal up to that breaking point? I'm asking because no matter how much I hear about the injustices that the muslims and other peoples have supposedly suffered in the hands of the americans and the west, I can't feel empathy or sympathy for the way they react to it.

I haven't suffered what they have suffered, and I can't say for sure that I wouldn't react in exactly the same way, but even if I would, I can't see myself justifying my acts. In any way, I see it more as a crime of passion than as a rational decision, or a political movement, or even just as a rebellion. To me, it's a crazy, desperate and violent act that has nothing to do with reason.

Just bitching like a little girl because for some reason I couldn't sign up to that page to reply said comment.

T-6005
03-01-2010, 12:54 PM
Acts of terrorism are rational in that they are purposeful. The line between understanding that and excusing it as a morally sound choice is far larger than you make it seem. You can be rational without being morally right.

As for your second point, knowing why a murderer killed someone is a pretty poor analogy - knowing why militant organizations operate and attempting to address or at least understand the conditions that have led them to their actions is an extremely important priority. Catalysts for the actions of murderers run the gamut, but guerrilla and terrorist activities always have a purpose.

I only point this out because there's a difference between castigating an organization's actions and understanding their motivations. Perhaps the understanding could lead to a solution in which there are alternatives to annihilation.

chicapowerpunk
03-01-2010, 05:03 PM
“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”


It is correct,but is a thing politic:);)

rise_and_fall
03-01-2010, 05:49 PM
Acts of terrorism are rational in that they are purposeful.

Thats right, commit one so that you can introduce laws that give the authorities oppressive power over your citizens.

Just two questions, how many people are satisfied with the US government's explanation of the attack AND how many of you believe throwing a plane into a building would cause it to free fall 110 stories?

amandabenami
03-02-2010, 07:30 PM
I have no rebuttal.


The only question is which is more ridiculous - the U.S. definition of terror or the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

i'll go with the second option. Bush did lead us into a tyrannically-like country.

mario_spaghettio
03-22-2010, 10:49 PM
Thats right, commit one so that you can introduce laws that give the authorities oppressive power over your citizens.

Just two questions, how many people are satisfied with the US government's explanation of the attack AND how many of you believe throwing a plane into a building would cause it to free fall 110 stories?You clearly don't understand physics or chemistry.

mario_spaghettio
03-22-2010, 10:57 PM
Maybe if they were Arabs...Maybe,

..........

mario_spaghettio
03-22-2010, 10:59 PM
i'll go with the second option. Bush did lead us into a tyrannically-like country.Bush never proposed imprisoning US citizens for not buying into a bogus healthcare plan. Yeah Bush sucked, but the talking head we have now is no better.

ad8
03-23-2010, 02:11 PM
Let's hear it for triple post thread bumps!

Static_Martyr
03-23-2010, 09:46 PM
Bush never proposed imprisoning US citizens for not buying into a bogus healthcare plan. Yeah Bush sucked, but the talking head we have now is no better.

Of course that's a bit misleading....by that rationale, we're also being forced to pay politician's salaries under the threat of jail time. I mean, you *do* get imprisoned for not paying taxes....

[/boredom]