Terorism

[behlu-gahlu]

I knwo Ismal can be put saide from terroism, but how do you feel about terrorsim and reasons for terror?

why do people fight thease wars and bomb themselves?

[Woodrow]

Oppresed people get driven to desperate measures. Nearly every nation has resorted to suicide squads as an act of desperation when they have faced overwhelming odds.

At the moment the main example I can think of is Japan in WW2. I believe the Native Americans also resorted to suicide attacks in the 1800s as they were driven from their last lands. I am quite certain it has happened many times and among all people.

[Keltoi]

Oppresed people get driven to desperate measures. Nearly every nation has resorted to suicide squads as an act of desperation when they have faced overwhelming odds.

At the moment the main example I can think of is Japan in WW2. I believe the Native Americans also resorted to suicide attacks in the 1800s as they were driven from their last lands. I am quite certain it has happened many times and among all people.

Japan wasn't faced with overwhelming odds, they lost a war they started. Also, Native Americans did not resort to suicide attacks, that was against their sense of humanity. The point was to be alive and free, not dead and free. You also have to look at the way in which this practice has manifested itself among modern terrorists. They kill innocent people along with themselves in the vast majority of cases. Comparing that to Japanese suicide attacks on U.S. naval battleships is a little misguided in my opinion.

I believe this problem is one of both religious and political origins. Many groups who have a political agenda use religion to brainwash and justify their mindless acts of carnage. This isn't about Islam as a whole, but an issue of radical groups with extremist ideologies who use religion for their own ends. Sadly, I believe many Muslims buy into this. Any attack on these groups is an "attack on Islam", a "war on Islam". Which is of course exactly what these groups want their "fellow" Muslims to believe. As evidenced by many posts made in this forum, that strategy is working beautifully.

[behlu-gahlu]

Iam sorry for tehase and trhe dead.

manyn amlh

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[behlu-gahlu]

I see how now tehre is brainwashing, it comes from peoples ideas wanting to spread and being spread.

through sounds lights, movements words,
other human inventions.

imyanina

[Woodrow]

Japan wasn't faced with overwhelming odds, they lost a war they started. Also, Native Americans did not resort to suicide attacks, that was against their sense of humanity. The point was to be alive and free, not dead and free. You also have to look at the way in which this practice has manifested itself among modern terrorists. They kill innocent people along with themselves in the vast majority of cases. Comparing that to Japanese suicide attacks on U.S. naval battleships is a little misguided in my opinion.

I believe this problem is one of both religious and political origins. Many groups who have a political agenda use religion to brainwash and justify their mindless acts of carnage. This isn't about Islam as a whole, but an issue of radical groups with extremist ideologies who use religion for their own ends. Sadly, I believe many Muslims buy into this. Any attack on these groups is an "attack on Islam", a "war on Islam". Which is of course exactly what these groups want their "fellow" Muslims to believe. As evidenced by many posts made in this forum, that strategy is working beautifully.

Japan wasn't faced with overwhelming odds,

In 1944 when Japan was running out of material and the allied advances began making serious advances into the Pacific. Japan was faced with either defeat or desperate measures. So the idea of the Kamikaze pilot was born.

The reasons for the feeling of desperations will differ among people. But, the feeling is the same no matter what the cause and the result is desperate means as what is seen to be a final chance.

[KAding]

Well, the tactic of terrorism is getting a bit out of hand. Initially the primary target were the "zionist-crusaders", which meant few Muslims dared to protest against it. But now that suicide bombings and car bombs have become the primary competence of the Muhajedeen it is increasingly being used to target fellow Muslims/munafiq and not just kaffirs. I think this is a troubling evolution for the Muslim world.

[Warthog]

I believe this problem is one of both religious and political origins. Many groups who have a political agenda use religion to brainwash and justify their mindless acts of carnage. This isn't about Islam as a whole, but an issue of radical groups with extremist ideologies who use religion for their own ends. Sadly, I believe many Muslims buy into this. Any attack on these groups is an "attack on Islam", a "war on Islam". Which is of course exactly what these groups want their "fellow" Muslims to believe. As evidenced by many posts made in this forum, that strategy is working beautifully.

Yes, I am sure we will see more evidence of that strategy.

[sudais1]

its simply wrong, fighters of palestine and Iraq and so on cant be called terrorists they simplu fight with what they have

[Warthog]

its simply wrong, fighters of palestine and Iraq and so on cant be called terrorists they simplu fight with what they have

Why does a terrorist with a car bomb in Iraq feel the need to fight against worshippers leaving a mosque, or women shopping in a market?

[brenton]

I'm not sure it is helpful to call everything "terrorism."
People in Palestine are fighting inhumane conditions against an oppressive regime (one which I have a lot of sympathy for). There is civil war in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is making a good effort for a final putsch this winter or spring, meanwhile local thugs are representing "Taliban" in a lot of areas. And Al Qaeda continues, with supporters continuing to arm wrestle in various countries.

I think "terrorism" should be defined in a certain way. Is Bush's "shock & awe" terrorism because "terror" was its primary means of changing things? Or is "terror" just rhetoric for people who do desperate things? Is there a difference between 9/11 and a Palestinian suicide bomber or an Indonesian club bomber?

[Woodrow]

It all comes to be a matter of perception. People see their own actions as Legitimate acts of war. The actions of others are acts of terrorism.

If it happens to you it is terrorism. If you do it to them it is war.

There is no well defined definition of terrorism. It is defined as what you perceive it to be.

[brenton]

That's hardly helpful, is it?

But all terms are relative. "Extreme" is a centrist view; "fundamentalist" a judgment (what are the fundamentals?); liberal and concervative and centrist and moderate.

But is there a way of assessing "terrorism" without getting lost in the game of rhetoric and semantics?

[Woodrow]

That's hardly helpful, is it?

But all terms are relative. "Extreme" is a centrist view; "fundamentalist" a judgment (what are the fundamentals?); liberal and concervative and centrist and moderate.

But is there a way of assessing "terrorism" without getting lost in the game of rhetoric and semantics?

No, because we are all humans and language is a very limited means of communication. The reality is that no matter what a text book definition of any word may be, we all personaly define it in terms of our own connontations.

[brenton]

I think it makes a difference if a world leader decides your husband is a terrorist, and not a beaurocrat or farmer or merchant.
There must be some definition, since there is a "war on terror."

[Woodrow]

I think it makes a difference if a world leader decides your husband is a terrorist, and not a beaurocrat or farmer or merchant.
There must be some definition, since there is a "war on terror."

Is a water container a bottle, botas, carafe, pitcher, vessel, or jar?

The definition will become what serves the needs of who is doing the talking. I believe GW's definition of a terrorist would be anybody who
has the ability or reason to unexpectadly attack somebody who is seen as an American Allie.

[Keltoi]

Terrorism is the intentional attack on a civilian population intended to produce the most carnage and the most "terror" in the name of some political or religious cause. This definition might seem muddy in the context of world conflicts and the bias associated with who is an "enemy", but I think most would agree that groups like the IRA, the Basque groups in Spain, the fundamentalist Christian groups who bombed abortion clinics and targeted doctors and patients, etc. These are classic examples of terrorism in action. Obviously many groups associated with extremist Muslim ideologies share these traits. The idea of a "War on Terror" is too broad and too easily confused with other political realities, but in a general sense these groups aren't hard to define.

[Skillganon]

Terrorism is the intentional attack on a civilian population intended to produce the most carnage and the most "terror" in the name of some political or religious cause. This definition might seem muddy in the context of world conflicts and the bias associated with who is an "enemy", but I think most would agree that groups like the IRA, the Basque groups in Spain, the fundamentalist Christian groups who bombed abortion clinics and targeted doctors and patients, etc. These are classic examples of terrorism in action. Obviously many groups associated with extremist Muslim ideologies share these traits. The idea of a "War on Terror" is too broad and too easily confused with other political realities, but in a general sense these groups aren't hard to define.

Terrorism extends to state's aswell eventhough it might be pumped with flowery language.
As far as I am concerned most western countries are in my list of terrorist.

I think we had this kind of thread so many times.

It's also a common tactic of the enemy to instigate further violence/devisions between groups of people be it poltical reason or the hatred of the in general by attacking civilian and blowing up bombs. Call it covert missions.

[Warthog]

Terrorism extends to state's aswell eventhough it might be pumped with flowery language.
As far as I am concerned most western countries are in my list of terrorist.

I think we had this kind of thread so many times.

It's also a common tactic of the enemy to instigate further violence/devisions between groups of people be it poltical reason or the hatred of the in general by attacking civilian and blowing up bombs. Call it covert missions.

Oh yawn, whatever. Silly conspiracy theory garbage regurgitated over, and over, and over again. Let us all guess who we are talking about now, covert missions, hah! I call it regurgitated bologna.

[Chechen]

Well I don't know about other countries but Russia used terrorism as an excuse to attack Chechnya. The Russians blew up 3 buildings early in the morning when everyone was sleeping and killed 300 people. Obviously afterwards they accused the Chechens and the Russian population was in a rage and ready to go back to war to Chechnya. That's how Russia uses terrorism as an excuse. I mean if Putin says: Hey guys let's go attack Chechnya and take their oil everyone is going to say no cause they don't want to die for oil but if Putin just blows something up, kills a few people and says: Look those Chechens are terrorists and savages if we don't stop them now they will continue doing this then obviously everyone will go out to war for revenge. For me, personally, terrorism doesn't exist it's just an excuse to blame someone else and start a war on them.

[SilentObserver]

Well I don't know about other countries but Russia used terrorism as an excuse to attack Chechnya. The Russians blew up 3 buildings early in the morning when everyone was sleeping and killed 300 people. Obviously afterwards they accused the Chechens and the Russian population was in a rage and ready to go back to war to Chechnya. That's how Russia uses terrorism as an excuse. I mean if Putin says: Hey guys let's go attack Chechnya and take their oil everyone is going to say no cause they don't want to die for oil but if Putin just blows something up, kills a few people and says: Look those Chechens are terrorists and savages if we don't stop them now they will continue doing this then obviously everyone will go out to war for revenge. For me, personally, terrorism doesn't exist it's just an excuse to blame someone else and start a war on them.

Unless you post a source, others will only view this as an anti-russian propaganda lie. Proof of the russians blowing up three of their own buildings and blaming chechens.

[Chechen]

Unless you post a source, others will only view this as an anti-russian propaganda lie. Proof of the russians blowing up three of their own buildings and blaming chechens.

Well there's a book called : Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within. It was written by Alexander Litvinenko an ex FSB agent who was poisoned not long ago. In that book he talks about how Putin and the FSB are responsible for the explosions of the 3 buildings.

[Keltoi]

Well there's a book called : Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within. It was written by Alexander Litvinenko an ex FSB agent who was poisoned not long ago. In that book he talks about how Putin and the FSB are responsible for the explosions of the 3 buildings.

Litvinenko also suggested he had a videotape of Putin having sex with a man. While I don't know whether his claims are true or not, citing his book as evidence is hardly enough for a claim that dramatic.

[Chechen]

Litvinenko also suggested he had a videotape of Putin having sex with a man. While I don't know whether his claims are true or not, citing his book as evidence is hardly enough for a claim that dramatic.

Uh well I think Litvinenko would know better than anyone because he actually worked in the FSB and had access to that sort of information and once he left the FSB he started giving out information about everything that happened in the FSB. That's why Putin decided to get rid of him. But you don't have to believe it. No one ever asked you to. You can just continue believing that evil Chechen terrorists, extremists, islamists, racists, rapists etc had nothing better to do on a Friday night so they just decided to blow up 3 Russian buildings to start another war in their country cause the first one only had just finished.

[Keltoi]

Uh well I think Litvinenko would know better than anyone because he actually worked in the FSB and had access to that sort of information and once he left the FSB he started giving out information about everything that happened in the FSB. That's why Putin decided to get rid of him. But you don't have to believe it. No one ever asked you to. You can just continue believing that evil Chechen terrorists, extremists, islamists, racists, rapists etc had nothing better to do on a Friday night so they just decided to blow up 3 Russian buildings to start another war in their country cause the first one only had just finished.

I can believe that Litvinenko isn't the most reliable source for info and still believe that Russia has made many mistakes and committed many atrocities in Chechnya. They aren't mutually exclusive. However, when these conspiracy theories about a country blowing up its own infrastructure to start a war begin to circulate, I tend to take it with a grain of salt until given reliable evidence to the contrary, and Litvenenko isn't reliable in my view.

[Chechnya]

I can believe that Litvinenko isn't the most reliable source for info and still believe that Russia has made many mistakes and committed many atrocities in Chechnya. They aren't mutually exclusive. However, when these conspiracy theories about a country blowing up its own infrastructure to start a war begin to circulate, I tend to take it with a grain of salt until given reliable evidence to the contrary, and Litvenenko isn't reliable in my view

.

how about the fact that russian fsb agents were caught by local police planting bombs in another apartment?

this not seem slightly dodgy to you? look for news coverage at the time and you will find this story covered by most media orgs - fsb agents were actually caught by local police in the act.

im not normally a fan of conspiracy theories but the apartment bombings arent a conspiracy any more - none of the russian story makes sense.

[Warthog]

.

how about the fact that russian fsb agents were caught by local police planting bombs in another apartment?

this not seem slightly dodgy to you? look for news coverage at the time and you will find this story covered by most media orgs - fsb agents were actually caught by local police in the act.

im not normally a fan of conspiracy theories but the apartment bombings arent a conspiracy any more - none of the russian story makes sense.

Each time you make one of these claims, you need to post your source. Or as someone said earlier, it won't be taken seriously. You can't expect us to take your word as a reliable source for world affairs.

look for news coverage at the time

No, you see the way it works is that you make the statement, you provide the source.