Europe and "Those People"

[axi]

At least the greek "racists" have tried to send a C130 full of medical staff plus a special earthquake rescue team (EMAK) to Jenin, to look for survivors inside the ruins, but the Israeli "humanists" have stopped them. Not even for the sake of finding and burying the dead wouldn't they let us go and withness the results of the massacre.

Please, terrorism is a political strategy.

Exactly like war: a continuatiion of politics by other means...

But if it is a political strategy, why is this recent anti-terrorist frenzy?

Perhaps is would be more correct to say that state-terrorism and the global antiterrorist witchhunt is a political strategy. And a very devious one too.

[Natan]

Because most people consider it a despicable political strategy. Not that they can agree on a definition for "it" though.

[Saint Marcus]

yeah, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Now, Ashcroft labeled kidnapping an act of terrorism. There used to be a time when blowing up military outposts was consider guerilla warfare, when kidnapping was simply a crime and when building WMD was simply "building WMD". Now, it's all "terrorism". The Colombian rebels are terrorists. As are the Palestinians. And the Chechnyans. And the Falun Gung. And Sadam Hussein. And the North Koreans. And the UCK. And the Molukkers. And the Kashmeri rebels. And the Nepalese Maoists. etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Basically, anyone not on your side is a terrorist. And to them, you are a terrorist as well. If you kidnap someone you are a terrorist. If you developed a nuke you are a terrorist, unless you are pro-west, or Chinese. If you opose the governement of your country, you are are a terrorist as well.

Total and complete bull****. The whole war on terrorism is complete bull****. The whole axis of evil rethoric is bull****. Hell, this entire planet is made up of bull****.

[axi]

Amen brother!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
yeah, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

In other words, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter?

Bull$hit.

A basic definition of a terrorist would be a non-govermental person or organization that takes action against a civilian for political motives.

By this definition, persons taking action against military targets would not be terrorists but could be considered freedom fighters or guerrilas.

[axi]

By this definition, persons taking action against military targets would not be terrorists but could be considered freedom fighters or guerrilas.

So the freedom fighters that hit the Pentagon have nothing to do with the terrorists that hit the twin towers?

And what about the terrorists who were carpet-bombing North Vietnam and were blowing up busses full of people in Yugoslavia?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Hell, this entire planet is made up of bull****.

Rings true.

You are right that the word terrorist can be thrown about too liberally. Some people used to use 'Commie' the same way. Some others use 'rich' or 'Fascist' to label anything they are against.

What I am utterly opposed to is anyone who focuses on civilians as targets. Period. Full stop. When it comes to people who hide among other civilians and creep out from under their rocks to murder people indiscriminately... Well. I've said what I think about them before.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by axi

So the freedom fighters that hit the Pentagon have nothing to do with the terrorists that hit the twin towers?

IMO, if they had attacked the pentagon without blowing up a plane load of innocent people they would not be terrorists, no.

And what about the terrorists who were carpet-bombing North Vietnam and were blowing up busses full of people in Yugoslavia?

If they're wearing a uniform and acting on behalf of a government they're called soldiers. Its called war.

[axi]

Some others use 'rich' or 'Fascist' to label anything they are against.

The correct term is "bourgeois". Have you ever heard of bourgeois ethics? Of bourgeois art? They existed as characterisations in the Soviet Union. Being related to anything characterised as "bourgeois" was a ticket straight to the gulag sometimes.

If they're wearing a uniform and acting on behalf of a government they're called soldiers. Its called war.

And it has rules, which are broken by people in uniform who are targetting civilians. How anbout the Geneva convention?

Anyway, who said that because something is war, it is justified? War on terrorism isn't justified, fe...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by axi
And it has rules, which are broken by people in uniform who are targetting civilians. How anbout the Geneva convention?

Anyway, who said that because something is war, it is justified? War on terrorism isn't justified, fe...

The Geneva Conventions may not apply in all cases. They have limits. They were not written with an eye to hand-cuff nations who are involved in hostilities with other nations who do not recognize those Conventions.

Your earlier allusion to Vietnam is an interesting one. It is probably the last time the United States will use area bombing in the belief that it will win a war. It demonstrably will not.

At the same time, the United States was involved in a conflict with a government which did not recognize, or certainly did not abide by, the Conventions. In such a case, the Conventions do not apply to their nationals in their territory.

At any rate, yes. The area bombing of German and Japanese cities during the second world war were not pleasant things. Neither was the area bombing of North Vietnam. I think most Western countries today would go out of there way to avoid such actions because in none of the cases did it lead to an end of hostilities. Except for the case of Japan, but then the Japanese were threatened with total and complete nuclear destruction (they didn't know there were no more bombs at the time).

'War on terrorism isn't justified'? How so? When a state sponsors hostile acts against another state, that is an act of war according to international law.

[DinoDoc]

Will this do for a start?

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
yeah, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Guerrilas (freedom fighters, if you are feeling poetic) are not terrorists. They are irregular soldiers who wage war on regular military forces, secret police agencies, and governmental counter-insurgency police units. Guerrilas do not prefer civilian targets. They do not conciously select civilian victims.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to you . I consider Hamas, PKK, ETA, IRA, guerrila groups.

I'd consider the people that tarred and feathered British tax collectors to be freedom fighters... though the Brits at that time (and even now) would called them terrorists. And some Irish consider the IRA as freedom fighters.

Depends on your point of view.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to you . I consider Hamas, PKK, ETA, IRA, guerrila groups.

Hamas, PKK, & ETA are terrorist groups, Imran. Stop being obtuse in your avowed zeal to cheer on the murder of women and children.

The IRA was a guerrila group early in its history but that time has long passed.

[notyoueither]

It seems that if the United States decides you are a terrorist, you just might have a problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hamas, PKK, & ETA are terrorist groups, Imran.

And guerrila groups. The US seemed to think that the UCK (in Kosovo) were guerrilas, and we do the same about the Chechens.

It seems that if the United States decides you are a terrorist, you just might have a problem.

Good point.