Terrorism (3 Viewers)

[Zlatan]

Yep, thats right, after Abortion, Religion etc, it's time to talk about terorrism.

First of all, let me ask you this: are the terrorists winning? I mean, in todays world you cant have a car accident without thinking of terrorism involvment, the western world lives in fear of when and where, not if, the next attack will happen. Terrorists have managed to force entire nations to play into their hands. Spain's withdrawal from Iraq, the Phillipine's withdrawal, etc, and it seems they're able to create national policies. They have done what they want, drawn attention to themselves and installed fear into people, and yet the world cant stop them. Are they, in fact, winning?

Also, and this should cause some controversy, can terrorism be justified? I believe it can. And you know what I'm talking about, Palestine. In that case, IMO, terrorism is just a form of guerilla warfare and is fair play. The Izraeli's have taken their land, used walls to trap them like animals in cages, constantly deprived them of all human dignity, killed their men, women and children. How can you fight against of of the worlds strongest military powers but by terrorism? If in the same position, every one of us could be a terrorist.

Your thoughts?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Art^]

For one person its terrorism, for another person its a freedomfight.

 

[Zlatan]

Exactly

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

you can say whatever you want and argue however you want but the moment somebody kills the innocent they are terrorists.

 

[gray]

But don't terrorists/freedom fighters have a different definition of 'innocent'?

 

[swag]

Killing of innocents has happened since the beginning of mankind.

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[kurvengeflüster]

where is the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters when they kill people? they are murderers, aren't they?

which kind of freedom is that if you have to spill blood in order to achieve it? are you superior defending your freedom or do you (ab)use the same means your tomentors did? and how long will last the hard-won freedom?

will affiliated accept your freedom if you killed there relatives?
what gives you the right to steal someone's life if you've never seen this person before?

is the believe in a god apology enough to terrorise others? even you can't avoid to harm people who believe in the same god you worship. and how will you explain your religion those "misconducts"? Can you avoid to blaspheme?

Just some thoughts ...

 

[mikhail]

When Ireland won its independance after WWI, it did so with an Old IRA guerilla campaign which targeted senior British administrators, intelligence personell and police/military. I don't have any problme calling Collins and his organisation "freedom fighters".

When the 'Real' IRA exploded that bomb in Omagh, they killed women and children, people out doing their shopping. Those people are terrorists.

That's the difference in my view. As for how you view killing, even 'legitimate' targets, well I don't know if I could. But then, I've never lived under foreign rule, or repression. I've never seen genocide, or just organised terror - don't foger, you don't have to be a guerilla to be a terrorist.

 

[dpforever]

Nelson Mandela was jailed for 'terrorist acts' of bombing when defending his country from outsiders and racism. Is Mandela really a terrorist?

 

[Zlatan]

No.

 

[Dragon]

Can terrorism be justified in countries like Colombia and Spain? where groups like the FARC (Colombian guerrilla) and ETA are separatist groups and dont support the current government. Why do normal people that have nothing to do with the government have to be scared when they board a train, or they cant go out to the outskirts of Bogota (in Colombia), or even travel by land because the chances the guerrilla will rape you and never return you back are very high? Can terrorism really be justified there? the FARC is screwing up Colombia big time, theyre economically/socially and politically destroying the country and no solution is nowhere near to be found yet they still keep doing those terror acts and refuse to talk with the government to find a solution

 

[The Arif]

++ [ originally posted by dpforever ] ++
Nelson Mandela was jailed for 'terrorist acts' of bombing when defending his country from outsiders and racism. Is Mandela really a terrorist?

No, he isn't.

 

[Zlatan]

Isnt the FARC drug oriented? Dont they supply most of the US drug market?

Anyways, like I said, I justify terrorism only when it's so called "freedom fighting", like in Palestine.

 

[Dragon]

The FARC sells drugs so they can get money for guns, etc.


Well the Palestine-Israeli conflict is something more complicated, but what if everyone in the World who opposed to something did freedom fighting that way? I have nothing to do with arabs, muslims, palestines and israeli and I know nothing wont happen when Im living here, but what if I want to travel to Israel, the USA... and Im a victim of terrorism? that isnt justified

 

[Zlatan]

Freedom fighting isnt fighting because you're opposed to something. It's fighting for your country, for your freedom, human rights, lives, etc.

 

[Zlatan]

Besically, it's fighting the oppressor.

 

[The Arif]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
Anyways, like I said, I justify terrorism only when it's so called "freedom fighting", like in Palestine.

yeah. like in bosnia and kosova too

 

[Art^]

I know i might be pushing the limit here. But...

Here is an eksampel of a terrorist/freedom fighter: President Bush!

In amerika he is consideret (and want to be consideret) as a freedom fighter, he is only in iraq to catch terrorist and "catch Saddam and rebuild the country". But its only the blind mans theory.

Because in the rest of the world he is known as the biggest terrorist out there. He went in to Iraq for financial reasons, and on a NON-valid reason. He said that Iraq had massdestruction weapons, wich they didnt. And now when Saddam is cought, Bush would like to have something in exchange. Iraq is a poor country, they dont have any money, and dont WANT to give any money to USA, because they didnt invite USA.
To make a long story short. Bush is only in Iraq to get the oil.

Bush is running a so-called cowboy policy: "Give me your money, or else i shoot"

I know many is going to disagree with me, but trust me, im not the only one who is telling this.
If you want rest of the story, you should watch Farhenheit 9/11.

 

[Dragon]

About Bush, Iraq and 9.11 Ive discussed this subject thousands of times before and its very complicated to make an objective opinion. We all know the USA shouldnt have attacked Iraq mostly because theyre not the kings of the World and can attack who they want, whenever they want. The UN didnt give them permission, but the UN neither found an answer to the problem, which proves that the UN everyday more is a fake organization that cant handle huge problems that need a solution fast. A solution couldnt be found and France kept vetoing every resolution that was released, and that wasnt because the french started to care about third world countries, or little kids, or anything that prevented them from giving the USA a yes to take part in Iraq's situation. Obviously France didnt want to let America take over Iraq because they had priorities in Iraq's oil and they didnt want to lose that. So the guilt that America has in attacking Iraq because of the oil is the same that France has for not letting the USA do it.
I dont think Bush wanted to attack Iraq only because of the oil, something I (as a foreigner) have always percieved of the americans is that they have a quality of always trying to help, and I think Bush wanted to help Iraq, and he wanted to detrhone Hussein maybe to give his country some kind of security that he would not let any other 9.11 or acts of terrorism happen in America/to americans. Why Bush wanted to attack Iraq is something very personal and we wont know for sure, because everyone has different opinions.
The USA attacked Iraq in a very wrong way because of what I said in the beginning, but maybe people in Iraq are better now that Saddam is gone. We never know what really is going on in a country if we arent there, and the media wont always bring us whats really happening there. Of course there still are groups that support Saddam, but maybe it isnt the whole population like he claims and after all this transition Im sure they'll be better than they were with Saddam

 

[The Pado]

Art, as much as I am against the Bush man, and as much I like Michael Moore and Farhenheit 9/11, you must keep in mind that the film was carefully pieced together to present Bush in the worst possible light. Moore's agenda is to do everything he can to have Bush defeated in the next election. Just because we see something in the film does not make it fact.

Anyway, to answer Zlatan's original question - yes, I can see the terrorists winning. I say that because I see such change in the USA. This used to be a country that stood for all things right and proper, defended the weak and all that. Now, just darkness. The country is divided with much hatred, and Bush is what divides this country. The prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan makes the USA look like the evil doers. We have lost our moral center, and that probably makes a terrorist very happy.