What is terrorism?

Remove all ads!

Which provokes the interesting question who's more dangerous or least scrupulous - the establishment or their violent opposition?

The establishment, in democratic countries usually backed by the majority - in repressive countries by power only, has the power to make laws - if laws rule out legitimate forms of protest - what's left to express an opinion or to achieve change? Then people have to break the law to express an opinion or demand participation or change.

 

@ Ragusa,

Sorry maybe I didn't make my self clear enough. I know many terrorists arn't against the US, I never said that. But most of the terrorists attacks in resent years the US havn't liked.
The IRA terrorist attacks would have to be one of the few exceptions.
The Palistin attacks against Israel, as you said the USA supports Isreal so therefore they name these attacks terrorist. But of course Isreals "counter attacks" arn't terrorist attacks or course, are they?

 

From the Pub which indoctrinates me while drinking. About the infallibility of secret service agencies.

 

Wow, some of you almost sound like you support terrorism. Good thing you don't live in the US or I'd call my good friend Johnny Ashcroft, and with the help of the Patriot act he'd throw you in prison indefinitely!

 

Oh, god save me from the big, big nanny of goverment, which knows everything I do, gives a dam for private property and hasn't to care about the rest of individual rights.

Leviathan.

Police normally has problem to solve any case. And that's the way it is. If finding criminals would be easy, the whole justice-system wouldn't be necessary, wouldn't it. How comes that the nearly the same personel should not have problems with finding terrorists ? A miracle ?

(by the way, that isn't about the British justice-system in particular, it's about finding scapegoats, when the real criminals aren't easy to find, on the other hand, there is a demand, that the criminals are found better yesterday than today and punished harsh as harsh as quickly as possible)

[ June 22, 2003, 20:27: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I think I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but it was a long time ago -- anyone who worked against the Soviet Union about, oh, 15 years ago was a "Freedom Fighter" according to the US / Western way of thinking -- we gave them $, weapons and training. One of those trained was -- wait for it! -- Osama Bin Laden!

Now that the USSR is gone and Russia is back, they are our friends, and people like the Chechyns(sp) who were poor, oppressed people yesterday are now dirty terrorists with no regard for human life.

Now, I dislike any group that deliberately targets civilians, and I'm not so much of a relativist that I believe it's all in what you call someone, but it's clear there's some relativity involved with terrorists / freedom fighters.

But wrong is wrong -- just because some people say the guys who blew up the Trade Centre are freedom fighters doesn't make what they did right by any stretch of the imagination.

 

On the other hand, killing in the name of the war against terror, isn't, even when justified, that much better.

The russians as well as the americans share the - selective - disregard for life with the terrorist. A rats ass for those who aren't russian or american. No body count for the iraqi victims? Well, why? It can only spoil the victory - and frankly - who really cares? Without loosers the victory would only be half as great In this point israelis, russians and the american gvt aren't that far apart. But still, the US at least try to aim properly ... not much comfort for those who die anyway.

Those who ask for the victims are giving comfort to the enemy, just like a senator who dared to ask the president if he had a plan* when he wanted a few more billion dollars for the military. Aren't terrorists coward killers? Don't they deserve to be shot on the spot? And when you question that, you give them aid and comfort So simple

The declaration of others as terrorist makes them worthy targets, the own cause just and it justifies about every measure taken: Starting with "funnies" like the avoidance of giving POW rights by enjailing people in "white spots" on the legal map and many things worse. Law? We follow it by letters. And anyway: Fu** it! They are terrorist? Forgot?

* And this commentator is even friendly with him, no match for rabid, foaming Rush Limbaugh, one of the fair and ballanced US media stars of the Bush era

 

Another definition of the terrorism may be this one. When one person is facing hell as a social situation or life situation and can't do anything but watch at one point he tries to find the person or reason or state who is responsible for his situation and try to get even maybe the wrong way but his frustration and anger has reached a level that prevent him from rational thoughts.
He may have the right reasons to do something but he is doing the wrong thing. And one day he may understand that he was acting in a wrong way but it's too late to change that and so he keeps on because the other side has left him with no choice other than the continuous fight against the system using bombs and weapons against innocent or not so innocent victims

 

But that again arises the question who's weapon terrorism actually is.

Why is terror used? Because it works. So simple. You want attantion? Blow up a plane and randomly kill civilians. Want to influence the outcome of an election and hinder the doves to come to power? Start a suicide bus bombing campaign. That worked in israel and it would work again in another country. Want to break the combat will of an occupation force? Start needle sting attacks. It just works.
But terror, used on purpose, does serve a purpose.

So, the next question: Who uses terror?

 

I have one answer for this question although some may not like it.
Terror and in general opposition is helping the goverments around the world to keep their citizens at bay meaning that by letting the bad example to do his stuff you force the innocent ones to try to find a safe haven even if this is means sacrification of other things.
So guess who is actually using terror

 

Every one uses terrorsism to a certain extent. The Germanys in WW1 and 2 used it. The Americans in the late Iraqie war used it. The IRB used it in Ireland, the Zionists (sp?) movements in Palistine used it. And most if not all of the times it has been affective. Even USA when it's not at war uses terror in a way, by raising the... ummm... the defence security level thing, it strikes terror into its citizens.

If you are talking just about terror and not terrorism then the United States of America would have to be one of the most guilty countries of all time. They are consistantly attacking anyone who beilives they are wrong or has a different belief. This frightens (or terrorfies (sp?)) the world into agreeing with USA on everything, well everything important.