Topic: living With Terrorism (Read 4845 times)

The GreatPeople.Me site is the official entrance by Kroger where Kroger and Kroger subsidiaries representatives can login and discover data. Kroger Inc came up with a refreshing idea of a creating greatpeople.me kroger portal for their employees that would help people of the company communicate.

We can define any word in any way we wish, so long as we understood the meaning.  I'm going with the consensus on terrorism:


We can also go with dictionaries...


Here's another one:


Organized group = government;
Unlawful use of force = ignoring constitution;
Coercing societies = politics;

It seems the more "official" definitions of terrorism include government, or at least don't imply terrorism cannot be committed by states.  So if we're referring to the "majority", we must be referring to the individual interpretations of terrorism, which, if implying terrorism couldn't be performed by non-state actors, would be adopted by our favorite officials on word definitions.  Whoever these people are that believe governments are incapable of terrorism don't appear to make up the majority of definitions.



Now this one above flat out points the finger at government.


This is the only one which might exclude government; since all that government does is legal (and if it isn't, it will be), they can potentially authorize any form of violence.  If a government official was legally allowed to spy on and torture citizens at random, just to teach the rest "a lesson", it could not be a form of terrorism by this definition, for it would be authorized, and therefore be legit.  But again, we might say, ignoring the constitution is always unlawful, so...I'll give this one 1/2.

It would seem we all agree, then, based on the majority of popular definition; terrorism can be committed by government, including American government.

So, then, knowing this, do we know whether America has committed acts of terrorism?  Based on these definitions, does threatening and subsequently going to war with another nation over what currency their oil can be sold in count as furthering a political agenda through violence?

Correct.  What we often downplay, or downright ignore in this whole farce of 'THE WAR ON TERROR' is who are the evil ones behind the terror orchestrating it. 

The media love to focus on the latest suicide bomber individual who has wrecked havoc and murdered innocent lives, (they are indeed evoking terror and are the scum of the earth) but we very very rarely get a glimpse at the most dangerous and evil terrorism of all - STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM. 

State sponsored terrorism is far far worse than individual acts of terror.  Sadly they dont quite get the same coverage and critical analysis.

Definitions don't contain arbitrary exceptions. The correct word for such a construct is "hypocrisy".

Well yeah, living with terrorism is. Even if it is mostly Uncle Sam and friends.

Well, this is getting rather depressing isn't it.

Let's compare then...

Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century - Milton Leitenberg

http://www.clingendael.nl/publication/deaths-wars-and-conflicts-20th-century

Mostly the western nations? Actually, Japan and the PR China take the award for most people butchered. Japan killed between 30-40 million people (mostly Chinese) in the Sino-Japanese War and WWII. The Chinese government killed millions due to starvation since the civil war after/during WWII. The Soviet Union lost a good 20 million people against their former ally in a war they helped start.

The west is not innocent, but we can't even compare to some of the countries in Asia.

 You are right

The most dangerous terrorism I know is financial terrorism. It destroys the existence of millions of people and families all over the world.

Absolutely. The whole "War on Terror" and anti-terrorism policy agendas in the West are a massive over-reaction. It is a symptom of the cradle-to-grave nanny-state ethos where government knows best and must "protect" the lives of citizens at all costs. The fundamental flaw here is that the cost of doing the impossible means a turn-key Stalinist state is built which rolls back many years of hard won civil rights and principles of the rule of law. Freedom is being destroyed in the West in a misguided bid to save it.

I'm not sure what the true stats are but I'd wager that more people die on the roads in western countries in one year than died in all the "terror" related incidents of the last five decades against those same western countries.    It's also certainly true that of the 160 million or so people that died in conflicts in the last 100 years or so, a very small proportion were military personnel and the aggressors directly or indirectly behind that slaughter were for the most part the western nations, with a particular emphasis on Britain and the USA, although Japan, China, Russia and Australia also have the blood of millions on their hands.

And let's not forget occasions where the US attacks itself. Anyone remember the attack on the USS Liberty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc7sOb7IsPY

  It would be enough if the people of the middle east got to elect their own governments- they would vote against Israel and would unify to choke oil supply to the US which would be political disaster for whoever is in power in the US. Plus, providing military aid to dictators helps create jobs in the arms industry. Islam has to be fought because it places strong emphasis on peace, justice, and equality, all of which are bad for weapon manufacturing.

 Terrorism is a convenient story to make sure that people don't ask questions about why their sons and daughters aren't coming home or why they have to pay a third of their income in taxes and schools are still getting downsized.

  It's true that far more people have died from toasters than from terrorist attacks.

Generally the slightly inane members of our society. There is no threat from extremist Islam "taking over" the world.

Terrorist from the Middle East didn't like the freedoms people in the West had, but neither did the governments of the West; and it turns out the governments were way more efficient at fighting against those freedoms...

About 3 weeks ago those same people that are scaring Americans into voting for more government dropped a bomb about 100 yards from where I am sitting right now.

About the only reaction it got from me was to go outside 5 minutes later after I was finished with what I was doing to see if I could see any indication of where it hit.

That is on a military base in the Middle East on a 5 mile by 5 mile area.

How big is the US? Why are people so worried about this?

I do not worry one bit knowing the statistics of getting hit by a bomb are tiny.

Do you worry every time you get on the road that you will die? Because it is very likely that you will, compared to getting killed by terrorists.

Wake up people. You are being played.

Now that is the sickest, twisted bunch of bull I have seen in a while.  You've managed to mangle every sentence, dude.

1.  If the capabilities were available in the 1940's, rest assured the US would have absolutely utilized these tools. 

Your opinion, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable.

2. As far as current affairs are concerned, I'm not arguing the fact that the NSA's spying capabilities come in conflict with the constitution

CAPABILITIES are not in conflict with the constitution.  ACTIONS are.

3.  I am merely stating that the NSA is above reproach, with security clearances above that of the President's.  This is definitely cause for concern, but there's really nothing congress or anyone can do about it. 

Wrong, the NSA is not above reproach.  Reproach is not determined by security clearance.

4.  As long as Ibrahim al-Asiri (Saudi elite bombmaker residing in Yemen) and Ayman al-Zawahri (al-Qaida #1) are at large, don't expect the status quo to change.

What they said "As along as OBL is at large" but you can move the sliding timescale forward to make anything true you want? 

So 2 ragheads in a camel-dung colored tent can continue forcing a government to utterly abuse the relationship between itself and 300+ million citizens. A relationship steeped in 200-year old principles of individual freedom, privacy and the rule of the law - but now turned into a caricature of itself.

Next time these jihadists write on their websites that they have acheived victory, they can be reasonably considered to be no longer lying.

Quite an experience to live in fear isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

If the capabilities were available in the 1940's, rest assured the US would have absolutely utilized these tools.  

As far as current affairs are concerned, I'm not arguing the fact that the NSA's spying capabilities come in conflict with the constitution, rather I am merely stating that the NSA is above reproach, with security clearances above that of the President's.  This is definitely cause for concern, but there's really nothing congress or anyone can do about it.  As long as Ibrahim al-Asiri (Saudi elite bombmaker residing in Yemen) and Ayman al-Zawahri (al-Qaida #1) are at large, don't expect the status quo to change.