I imagine it goes further than simply wanting to terrorize people, I've seen a few documentaries where these people are brought up with the expectation of doing this stuff one day & risk having their whole family killed if they refuse.....gotta love the extremest whackos
Right, the suicide bomber who is told he has 2 hours to do the job or his family is killed. But there is no need to look at individual motive, to understand terrorism, because it is defined by it's effects on the target and target population.
Topic: Terrorism... (Read 2526 times)
I imagine it goes further than simply wanting to terrorize people, I've seen a few documentaries where these people are brought up with the expectation of doing this stuff one day & risk having their whole family killed if they refuse.....gotta love the extremest whackos
Right, the suicide bomber who is told he has 2 hours to do the job or his family is killed. But there is no need to look at individual motive, to understand terrorism, because it is defined by it's effects on the target and target population. Man, I love Trotsky...
Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
I don't see any difficulty in defining terrorism. None at all.Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
Things like suicide bombers walking into restraunts and blowing innocent people up.
Stalin said something to the effect "the more innocent they be, persecute them that much more". That's the essence of terrorism, coming from a Statist advocate of it's use.
I imagine it goes further than simply wanting to terrorize people, I've seen a few documentaries where these people are brought up with the expectation of doing this stuff one day & risk having their whole family killed if they refuse.....gotta love the extremest whackos
Man, I love Trotsky...
Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
I don't see any difficulty in defining terrorism. None at all.Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
Things like suicide bombers walking into restraunts and blowing innocent people up.
Man, I love Trotsky...
Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
I don't see any difficulty in defining terrorism. None at all.Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
Things like suicide bombers walking into restraunts and blowing innocent people up.
Man, I love Trotsky...
Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
Terrorism is no good, but armed (and certainly even unarmed) resistance is fairly effective, evident by almost ever US and Russian adventure in the Middle East and Asia. We erroneously conflate resistance with terrorism when there is not always any kind of "terrorism" (a completely abused word -- one who causes terror? Jeez, my daughter frequently commits acts of terrorism!).
Someone shooting a US soldier or contractor is not likely a terrorist, probably just a resistance member (which we now call "enemy combatants," which is generally implied synonymous with "terrorist" without seeming so as text). Shooting civilians is an act of terrorism, and while there are terrorists among enemies of the US government, US contractors (at least) have also committed acts of terror. Somehow, though, we don't have a massive brain attack and suddenly call the US government a terrorist organization just because of that (well, a few people do). Perhaps a double standard. There are both terrorists and resistance fighters in every nation the US government is currently occupying, as well as inside the United States.
(sorry to post something which seems really obvious... not sure that's even a contribution)
Terrorism related to Arabs is just something recent, the media coverage on anything negative about the Arabs is way overly inflated maybe it is due 9/11 effect? ....
Started with the 1984 Olympics, and the aircraft hijackings started about the same time.I think real terrorism is what is known as espionage today I think the modern version of terrorism is just an outcome of or the political espionage that has taken place forever.
The bomb one is the main excuse for that... all in all for your security (or not).
Terrorism related to Arabs is just something recent, the media coverage on anything negative about the Arabs is way overly inflated maybe it is due 9/11 effect? ....
Started with the 1984 Olympics, and the aircraft hijackings started about the same time.I think real terrorism is what is known as espionage today I think the modern version of terrorism is just an outcome of or the political espionage that has taken place forever.
Terrorism related to Arabs is just something recent, the media coverage on anything negative about the Arabs is way overly inflated maybe it is due 9/11 effect? ....
Started with the 1984 Olympics, and the aircraft hijackings started about the same time.What did start on 1984? Terrorism? The media takes on the matter?
....
No not really, terrorism/resistance (depending on context and perspective but some deeds are quite evil) existed in Arab world for a while, like in any other region for that matter,and despite the events in 1984 the media coverage wasn't anything like what it is right, the media description of things was quite different, and the most obvious example, would be Taliban as in the 80s and 90s they were described by American medias, as Heroes fighting for the liberation of their country against evil USRR and as resistants, but after 9/11 they've become the most evil terrorist group in the world and the propaganda was a way to justify Afghanistan war and shut down the anti-war people and sadly despite that war neither Taliban nor Alquaeda were shut down and they are still brainwashing more people to join them using the hatred that was born from the destruction and the loss of close people to them, those psychopaths
Terrorism related to Arabs is just something recent, the media coverage on anything negative about the Arabs is way overly inflated maybe it is due 9/11 effect? ....
Started with the 1984 Olympics, and the aircraft hijackings started about the same time.What did start on 1984? Terrorism? The media takes on the matter?
....
I don't think that we can say that Arabs invented terrorism.
Some kind of terrorism existed since ancient history.
Read historical reports from roman empire, German tribes, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Mongols, until recent dictators Stalin and Hitler, and many others.
All of them used terrorism as way to scare people, kill enemies and stay in power.
Why Arabs used terrorism now?
It's obvious, they are military weaker, can't fight directly with Israel (or USA) so they fight in only possible way for them, through individual terrorist acts.
Some kind of terrorism existed since ancient history.
Read historical reports from roman empire, German tribes, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Mongols, until recent dictators Stalin and Hitler, and many others.
All of them used terrorism as way to scare people, kill enemies and stay in power.
Why Arabs used terrorism now?
It's obvious, they are military weaker, can't fight directly with Israel (or USA) so they fight in only possible way for them, through individual terrorist acts.
Terrorism related to Arabs is just something recent, the media coverage on anything negative about the Arabs is way overly inflated maybe it is due 9/11 effect? ....
Started with the 1984 Olympics, and the aircraft hijackings started about the same time.What did start on 1984? Terrorism? The media takes on the matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
While I don't think that wikipedia is a reliable source and should be used as a reference, it resumes a lot of facts on the matter and for further reading you can uses the sources and the appendix
Terrorism related to Arabs is just something recent, the media coverage on anything negative about the Arabs is way overly inflated maybe it is due 9/11 effect? ....
Started with the 1984 Olympics, and the aircraft hijackings started about the same time.
Terrorism related to Arabs is just something recent, the media coverage on anything negative about the Arabs is way overly inflated and it is due 9/11 effect among other reasons of course and to prove this point we can take an example of recent events in the US, when a Terrorist attempt is made by an Arab or Muslim in the US, it is in the headline of all medias on the other hand a non arab/muslim terrorist from another religion (but that's not the point) was caught just before he blown his truck in a major mosque in the US during the friday prayer went silence.
I'm not saying here that everything in the Arab world is fine and there aren't Arab terrorist, that would be even stupid to claim, and those psychopaths needs to be jailed, I'm just putting things into perspective and it depends on which sides are you, you are either a terrorist denouced to the world, while on the other hand others that are doing the same thing, they are either not announced or not even considered a terrorist. And if by terrorist we mean someone that targets indiscriminately civilians and create terror withing a civilization, isn't this the same of what happening right now in Gaza ? Heck it's even worse because we are talking about stat terrorism.
I'm not saying here that everything in the Arab world is fine and there aren't Arab terrorist, that would be even stupid to claim, and those psychopaths needs to be jailed, I'm just putting things into perspective and it depends on which sides are you, you are either a terrorist denouced to the world, while on the other hand others that are doing the same thing, they are either not announced or not even considered a terrorist. And if by terrorist we mean someone that targets indiscriminately civilians and create terror withing a civilization, isn't this the same of what happening right now in Gaza ? Heck it's even worse because we are talking about stat terrorism.
Nobody added a single line to the Quran since VIII Century AD
Whatever you want to call them. Commentaries, extensions, whatever. You know what I'm talking about.Here 'ya go! From Wikipedia.
1) Kill them JOOOESS!
Sayyid Qutb was a staunch Anti-Semite.[56] In 1950 he published a book "Our Struggle against the Jews", which forms a central part of today's Islamist Antisemitism.[57]
2) Terrror!
The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard.[63] to fight jahiliyyah with a twofold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihad."
The vanguard movement would grow with preaching and jihad until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world, attaining leadership of humanity. While those who had been "defeated by the attacks of the treacherous Orientalists!" might define jihad "narrowly" as defensive, Islamically correct Jihad (according to Qutb) was in fact offensive, not defensive.[64]
Qutb emphasized that this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim.
Are we talking total complete Religious Nutcases? Yes we are. There's nothing like this in any Christian culture or religion.
[...]
Terrorism is probably the worse way of fighting ever. It had some limited effect on the past, around-WW2 mostly, but it's a senseless way to get anything at all and a great way to loose support. In fact if you are a terrorist you can get into a general knowledge TV show against an amoeba and a jellyfish and come out 3rd or 4th if one of the others could have a brain.
[...]
Terrorism is probably the worse way of fighting ever. It had some limited effect on the past, around-WW2 mostly, but it's a senseless way to get anything at all and a great way to loose support. In fact if you are a terrorist you can get into a general knowledge TV show against an amoeba and a jellyfish and come out 3rd or 4th if one of the others could have a brain.
[...]
As Ekaros mentioned, don't forget state sponsored terrorism is also a thing, and depending on how strong the state is, it can be very successful - just look at the way the US treated its native population; how it tortured, terrorized, murdered and occupied the Filipinos; the attacks on Cuba; war crimes on Korea and Vietnam; up to, and missing a lot along the way, the recent drone bombing of suspects (and anyone unlucky enough to be around) in several other countries. Then, to finish it off, since the media often goes along with this, any reporting you get to hear about it will be framed however it is convenient to the perpetrator.
Nobody added a single line to the Quran since VIII Century AD
Terrorism isn't an Arab exclusive, and Sayyd didn't invented it. You can read Trostky's articles praising terrorism as well, a communist so hardcore that communists killed him. And we are talking about retards from early/mid XX Century, being Sayyd one terrorist of decolonization.
Yeah, with terrorism you go with rage against a wall... the question is, war is all about strategy. What's the strategy behind it? What's there to wage with that? What achievement? The "I want to appear on TV", even if post mortem, wish?
Didn't Sayyd actually invent Muslim terrorism? The first acts of modern terrorism came after he wrote his 30 some additions to the Koran. Yeah, with terrorism you go with rage against a wall... the question is, war is all about strategy. What's the strategy behind it? What's there to wage with that? What achievement? The "I want to appear on TV", even if post mortem, wish?
Nonsense, terrorism is the best way to get a people to give up their freedoms for "security"
Jump to: