Is there good terrorism and bad terrorism?

[Anthem]

No, I wouldn't agree. You might be a rebel or a revolutionary, but not necessarily a terrorist. Especially if you led an ARMY as opposed to sending out civilians and your targets were intentioally other military. A rebellion or uprising is not a terrorism when it is conducted against the GOVERNMENT.

Che Guevara is to this day looked @ by the American Gov't as a terrorist -

and he was only a revolutionary.

I mean come on - Terrorists right now, as washington would have you believe, are trying to overthrow our Nation as a whole - which includes our government....


not to mention, the history that you read is so convoluted (sp?)

Terrorism isn't all bombs and boxcutters.

it's just radical ideals.

that's it - it's taking your religion to an EXTREME.

the crusades - that was an orcestrated terror attack on the muslim world.

And Jipsah, capitalism was terrorized, the East India Tea Company was terrorized.


let me come ransack your house dressed as a mohawk indian and you tell me there wasn't terrorism.


and of COURSE a coup is terroristic in nature.

I'm not saying our founding fathers are ACTUALLY TERRORISTS

I'm saying that by today's political climate, and the new and very loose definition of terrorism, they certainly were.

We used Guerilla warfare to overthrow a powerful empire militarily, socially and politically --


you send a bunch of dudes wearing burlap and mud with a mission to replace the entire senate by ANY MEANS NECESSARY and tell me they won't be labeled as terrorists.

I can see it now on CNN


Jane: "Jipsah from CF.com said they're not terrorists, just revolutionaries!"
Dick: "great Jane, welcome them with open arms!!! Reporting live from the Aggressively revolutionary overthrow of the government on Capitol Hill, this is Dick Harwick. Back to you Melissa"

good call buddy.

 

[HeartFullaLove]

Che Guevara is to this day looked @ by the American Gov't as a terrorist -

and he was only a revolutionary.

I don't know how old you are but I was around when Che was active. He targeted civilians and terrorized civilian villages into helping him. The term "terrorist" wasn't common currency at the time. Murderer was.

I mean come on - Terrorists right now, as washington would have you believe, are trying to overthrow our Nation as a whole - which includes our government....


not to mention, the history that you read is so convoluted (sp?)

1. I don't care who is trying to redefine terms, terrorism is the use of terror against populations (not government agents) to impose your political will.

2. Please tell me which histories I am reading and where and how it is "convoluted."

Terrorism isn't all bombs and boxcutters.

Never sait it was. The USSR was a terrorist state even within it's own borders. One does not have to be on the lower end to engage in terrorism.

it's just radical ideals.

Jesus' ideas are radical. Is He a terrorist?

that's it - it's taking your religion to an EXTREME.

Jesus took His religion to an extreme. Was Jesus a terrorist?

the crusades - that was an orcestrated terror attack on the muslim world.

Without justifying the crusades, they were an attempt to RECOVER lands violently taken from the Christian nations (Remember, the Christian nations shared control of that part of the world and protected pilgrims going there.) by the Muslims. That was generally military-to-military so it was not terrorism. Stupid, wrong, YES, but not terrorism.

I'm not saying our founding fathers are ACTUALLY TERRORISTS

Actually, you did.

I'm saying that by today's political climate, and the new and very loose definition of terrorism, they certainly were.

This is different from your previous statements.

We used Guerilla warfare to overthrow a powerful empire militarily, socially and politically --

Guerilla warfare against government targets is not terrorism.

you send a bunch of dudes wearing burlap and mud with a mission to replace the entire senate by ANY MEANS NECESSARY and tell me they won't be labeled as terrorists.

I can see it now on CNN

Maybe so, but that is still not the definition of terrorism.

 

[TheReasoner]

Che Guevara is to this day looked @ by the American Gov't as a terrorist -

and he was only a revolutionary.

ElChe was a hero. He had a problem with the injustice they had in Cuba, and indeed the South American continent. Or rathr, the entire world. That civilians were targeted is not a surprise. You cannot have a revolution without doing that. The French lopped off a lot of heads to ensure their new government would stand, and noone in the old one would reinstate the throne to it's absolute position.

You Americans only don't see him as a hero but as a murderer because of propaganda and unreasonable fear of communism and socialism.

I mean come on - Terrorists right now, as washington would have you believe, are trying to overthrow our Nation as a whole - which includes our government....

not to mention, the history that you read is so convoluted (sp?)

Terrorism isn't all bombs and boxcutters.

it's just radical ideals.

that's it - it's taking your religion to an EXTREME.

the crusades - that was an orcestrated terror attack on the muslim world.

Which came largely as a response to the ottoman invasion which was even crueller and much more successful. Islam is a warrior religion. It was started by Mohammed, who was initially a merchant, but ended up perfoming genocide and cruel wars. The man killed all the men in tribes who refused to follow Islam. This continued, and Islam spread through war. Thank God they did not manage to gain lasting control over all of Europe when they tried.

And Jipsah, capitalism was terrorized, the East India Tea Company was terrorized.

The East Indian Trading Company which I believe you are refferring to, or the OOV were indeed extremely cruel. The company had it's own army - and it was used to commit mass murders, torture and more. Yes, capitalism can indeed be terror if it is put to work in it's pure form. Capitalism is in some ways just like satanism; It encourages and facilitates for greed and profit at the expens of the poor. Stalinism is not exactly beneficial either ofcourse. Before you bash me for saying that capitalism has traits similar or equal to satanism, I encourage you to read up on both.

let me come ransack your house dressed as a mohawk indian and you tell me there wasn't terrorism.


and of COURSE a coup is terroristic in nature.

I'm not saying our founding fathers are ACTUALLY TERRORISTS

What is a terrorist though??

I'm saying that by today's political climate, and the new and very loose definition of terrorism, they certainly were.

We used Guerilla warfare to overthrow a powerful empire militarily, socially and politically --

Which is indeed terror... And by the way; It is not the only time your government has done that. Nicaragua is a prime example. Afghanistan back in the days of the Mujahedeen is another. And there are many many other examples of when you have attempted this. Mostly you have succeeded as well. In Cuba you didn't though.

you send a bunch of dudes wearing burlap and mud with a mission to replace the entire senate by ANY MEANS NECESSARY and tell me they won't be labeled as terrorists.

Heeh, good one
Anyone thinking of a certain tea party and revolution apart from me? Hehe

 

[Anthem]

ElChe was a hero. He had a problem with the injustice they had in Cuba, and indeed the South American continent. Or rathr, the entire world. That civilians were targeted is not a surprise. You cannot have a revolution without doing that. The French lopped off a lot of heads to ensure their new government would stand, and noone in the old one would reinstate the throne to it's absolute position.

You Americans only don't see him as a hero but as a murderer because of propaganda and unreasonable fear of communism and socialism.

HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS - THAT'S MY POINT!

She just said the USSR was terrorist in nature .


That's just this socio-political propaganda that communism is wrong, or unholy, or woouldn't work -

when in CHE's CASE, in south America --

IT IS AND WAS UNDENIABLY THE BEST SYSTEM.

I am NOT old enough to remember Che personally, but i have read the de-classified documents concerning hunting him down with mercernaries and killing him.

I have read of all the work he did on leper colonies (without pay)

I have read his social philosophy and as an intellectual can only agree that the south american community would be an economic superpower today had communism taken hold there.

the ONLY reason cuba isn't a tiny-giant economically is because of America's stupid, very dated embargo.

I heart Ernesto Che Guevara.

a "hero" is an understatement.

How many people in RECENT history can we honestly say died for his ideals?

 

[baltimoredsmguy]

Webster's: terrorism-the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

given this deff. i would have to say that George Washington was indeed a terrorist.

 

[baltimoredsmguy]

The sad thing is that with our current "War on Terror", US citizens by in large would tend to define terrorists as young middle eastern men. It is stereotyping gone wild.

 

[charvel]

Terror. The word in there strikes me as a given for the answer you ask.

 

[cavymom]

The only good terror is the terror that God Almighty uses to instill fear into people in order for them to repent of thier sin and cry out to the Lord for Salvation!!

Ezekiel 30-1 The Lord spoke to me again. 2 "Mortal man," he said, "prophesy and announce what I, the Sovereign Lord, am saying. You are to shout these words: A day of terror is coming! 3 The day is near, the day when the Lord will act, A day of clouds and trouble for the nations

terrorism n. < 'têr&"riz&m > : 1. The systematic use of violence, usually directed at civilians, as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments. 2. Attacks by an individual or a group directed at civilians, often randomly; meant to inspire fear in the populace.

.

 

[Jipsah]

The sad thing is that with our current "War on Terror", US citizens by in large would tend to define terrorists as young middle eastern men. It is stereotyping gone wild.

It could have something to do with the fact that most terrorists are young middle eastern men.

 

[Jipsah]

Webster's: terrorism-the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. given this deff. i would have to say that George Washington was indeed a terrorist.

Who'd he terrorize?

 

[baltimoredsmguy]

The British, Christmas night actually.

 

[cavymom]

It could have something to do with the fact that most terrorists are young middle eastern men.

LOL : you must be making a joke...

But some of the alleged domestic terrorists who have been arrested had ambitious plans. The people and groups range from white supremacists, anti-government types and militia members to eco-terrorists and people who hate corporations. They include violent anti-abortionists and black and brown nationalists who envision a separate state for blacks and Latinos. And they have been busy.
"Not a lot of attention is being paid to this, because everybody is concerned about the guy in a turban. But there are still plenty of angry, Midwestern white guys out there," says U.S. Marshals Service chief inspector Geoff Shank. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-14-domestic-terrorism_x.htm

 

[TheReasoner]

It could have something to do with the fact that most terrorists are young middle eastern men.

nope. The terrorists who receive the most news coverage are middle eastern. But that does not mean most terrorists are middle eastern.
The IRA is not middle eastern. Nor is the Ku Klux Klan. Or what about the gangs in most major cities terrorizing for profit or territory. What about mafia and their protection money. That is terror too.
Issue is, terrorists in the middle east are the ones who get coverage the most. I believe the reason is their method; They are suicidal. Kill themselves in the process of killing others. This is very alien to our way of thought. So, we pay them more attention.

 

[Jipsah]

The British, Christmas night actually.

That was warfare, armies aganist armies.

 

[Jipsah]

LOL : you must be making a joke...

Yeah, I reckon all those accounts of suicide bombings and assassinations and explosives on subways and airliners blown up and buildings flown into and machine gunners in airports and hijacked cruise ships and all that kind of good stuff being pulled off by young middle eastern men are all part of a massive conspiracy. Those things are actually being done by redneck white boys or old black grandmothers or Mexican construction workers or Asian schoolgirls. All the stuff about terrorist acts being committed by young middle eastern men are just myths; in fact, no terrorist acts have ever been committed by young middle eastern men. Ever.

And I'm Czar of all the Russias.

 

[neek07]

hmmm

 

[TheReasoner]

Yeah, I reckon all those accounts of suicide bombings and assassinations and explosives on subways and airliners blown up and buildings flown into and machine gunners in airports and hijacked cruise ships and all that kind of good stuff being pulled off by young middle eastern men are all part of a massive conspiracy. Those things are actually being done by redneck white boys or old black grandmothers or Mexican construction workers or Asian schoolgirls. All the stuff about terrorist acts being committed by young middle eastern men are just myths; in fact, no terrorist acts have ever been committed by young middle eastern men. Ever.

And I'm Czar of all the Russias.

I do not think she did not acknowledge the existence of them, possibly even that they currently represent the largest terrorist source on an internationl basis. But; Terrorism is not, and has not been an exclusively middle eastern thing. Terrorism has always been around, and has been employed by your government and mine and basically any and all governments at some point. As I posted, there are plenty of terrorists all over the world who are not middle eastern. And don´t forget that plenty of them - including Osama - were trained and funded by the USA. Plenty probably still are.

 

[Anderlecht]

That was warfare,

Terrorism = war(fare).

armies aganist armies.

Terrosrists = Armies

In case you have conveniently failed to notice, it is always the "target" group that is available to use the "terrorist" pretext. Hardly any terrorist has ever called himself a terrorist but almost all of them are definitely calling themselvs an army or army-clone names like corps, legion, militia, (minute)men...

The word "terror" is practically non-existant in the perpertrator's own vocabulary... except on rare "freudian" occasions: check one of my signiture quotes below --->

 

[Jipsah]

Terrorism = war(fare).
Terrosrists = Armies

Oh, secuse me. I thought we were all speaking English here. But as long as we're making up stuff as we go, I'd nominate Physics teachers as terrorists, just ahead of dentists and IRS agents.

 

[Anderlecht]

Oh, secuse me. I thought we were all speaking English here. But as long as we're making up stuff as we go...

Which part of my english did you not understand? Go ahead, Explain in your superior english when IRA became "made up stuff".

And while you're at it, don't forget to update me which person or group has ever commited a terrorist-act and subsiquently declared his act a terrorist-act and called himself a terrorist...

And make sure you verify all that.