Thread: What is a Terrorist?

Probably going to end up playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, here, so just roll with it...

So, I was at work yesterday, and some of the girls were messing with this one guy, saying that he looked "like one of those Arabs," and "watch out, I think he put a bomb under your desk," and whatnot. He was having fun with it, though, and even when he was (jokingly) telling other people what they were saying, he was explaining it somewhat like "They're saying I look like a terrorist!" It was all really funny, but it got me to thinking...

Has the war on terror really gotten a large part of the population equating 'Muslim' with 'Terrorist?' I always had the suspicion, but I'm starting to wonder if there is more truth to it than I really paid attention to.

And what exactly is a Terrorist? Do you feel that they inherently evil? Aren't there terrorists of all nationalities/ethnicities/religions? What about their actions, from their perspectives? If your home/family/community is being purged/desecrated/oppressed/etc. by a force that was 1000x more powerful than your own, to what extent would you go to make sure your rights were respected, your land was unoccupied by the oppressors, your ideals were not trampled upon, and your people were left to their own ways of life? If you knew that attacking (in this case) the outsiders' military, alone, was futile, and would do nothing but get you killed, what would you do to insure your own freedom? What about when the U.S. or Israel bombs a civilian-heavy place 'to kill the terrorists among them.' Is that justified, or is that - much like the 'terrorists' - doing all that 'must' be done to keep our/their people from these oppressive/terrorist acts? Is there truly much difference?

I'm sure you all know what I'm getting at, here. All I ever see/hear is the "evil terrorist" rhetoric flying around (hell, that's all our country has been about, for the past few years), but is all of the hate-speech really substantial, or are we ignoring the evils of our own government, and focusing only on the all-or-nothing retaliation from desperate people? If the latter, are we really throwing the Muslim religion down a spiral into infamy, because we (the majority of the American people) are - more and more - falsely equating it with terrorism?

I dunno. Just a few thoughts popping off. What do you all think?

Depends on who you ask.

To Most people: a terrorist is someone who uses violence against non-combatants to force a view on them.

To Bush followers: a person who does not follow Bush

To people who know the definition of irony: the united states, who claims to fight terror, but uses terroristic tactics and war crimes to push their beliefs.

A terrorist is somebody who targets and kills civilians for political reasons illegally.

What is extra special about Islamofascist terrorists is that they do it irrationally. It's just, "I'm mad. Me kill THEM because they got same nationality. Grrrrrrrr!!!!!" Fuck that scum.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Depends on who you ask.

Exactly my point. It seems that the word has been thrown around so much, and attributed to so many arbitrary definitions, that it appears to have lost its true meaning.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A terrorist is somebody who targets and kills civilians for political reasons illegally.

This is actually a case in point. By who's(whose?) definition is that the meaning of a terrorist? A terrorist, as I understand, doesn't even have to kill anyone to be a terrorist. Also, the word implies the method they use to influence, not whether or not the method is legal. Someone can be on a deserted island, with 30 other people and no rule of law, and be a terrorist. On the flip side, if someone targets and kills civilians, "legally," does that make them better than a terrorist?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What is extra special about Islamofascist terrorists is that they do it irrationally. It's just, "I'm mad. Me kill THEM because they got same nationality. Grrrrrrrr!!!!!" Fuck that scum.

If you would, please respond to some of the other questions in my OP, particularly:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What about their actions, from their perspectives? If your home/family/community is being purged/desecrated/oppressed/etc. by a force that was 1000x more powerful than your own, to what extent would you go to make sure your rights were respected, your land was unoccupied by the oppressors, your ideals were not trampled upon, and your people were left to their own ways of life? If you knew that attacking (in this case) the outsiders' military, alone, was futile, and would do nothing but get you killed, what would you do to insure your own freedom?

Or, in another scenario: If the Native Americans used terrorist acts on the white man - after they came in and pretty much usurped their way of life - and no other method proved capable of stopping the flexing of the white man's "superiority," would they be doing it irrationally?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A terrorist is somebody who targets and kills civilians for political reasons illegally.

What is extra special about Islamofascist terrorists is that they do it irrationally. It's just, "I'm mad. Me kill THEM because they got same nationality. Grrrrrrrr!!!!!" Fuck that scum.

As long as we say its legal first, its not terrorism? How do you know, exactly that the so called 'islamofascists' are irrational? Have you spoken with them? Where have you gotten your information?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is actually a case in point. By who's(whose?) definition is that the meaning of a terrorist? A terrorist, as I understand, doesn't even have to kill anyone to be a terrorist. Also, the word implies the method they use to influence, not whether or not the method is legal. Someone can be on a deserted island, with 30 other people and no rule of law, and be a terrorist. On the flip side, if someone targets and kills civilians, "legally," does that make them better than a terrorist?

The legality factor is part of the general definition, but you asked a good question about "by whose defintion". The best answer I can give is, "according to the general laws of nations". If it is legal in Iran to blow up cafes in Israel for no other purpose than to GET THEM and please Allah, they are out of synch with the general laws. However, invading Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities may not be the general method countries use, but it is also not generally illegal. It is also not irrational, though it may not be the best way to handle the situation according to some people.

What would I do to fight occupiers? If I were Iraqi, I would write them thank you letters every single day, possibly every hour, and offer to paint their houses and do work in their gardens. If I were a Frenchman in the months before D-Day, I would help kill every Nazi I saw. If the Nazis stayed for a hundred years and the great great grandchildren of the invaders were living there, I would understand that the great great grandchildren are not invaders themselves and would let the dead invaders just be dead. What I would NEVER do is target the innocent just because I am pissed at people I associate them with based on race, religion, or nationality. There is no excuse whatsoever for that irrational shit.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If you would, please respond to some of the other questions in my OP, particularly:



Or, in another scenario: If the Native Americans used terrorist acts on the white man - after they came in and pretty much usurped their way of life - and no other method proved capable of stopping the flexing of the white man's "superiority," would they be doing it irrationally?

It all depends on the rationality of the act, or how effective it will most likely be in the attempt to bring about a rational result. If targetting white populations with women, children, and so forth really does have a high likelihood of stopping the stealing of land on a major level, it is not terrorism. It is an act of war. If the mentality behind it is, "I hate white people! Kill!!!!" then it is an irrational act, but the legality issue is hard to give a definite answer on in that situation.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As long as we say its legal first, its not terrorism? How do you know, exactly that the so called 'islamofascists' are irrational? Have you spoken with them? Where have you gotten your information?

The illegality factor is part of the definition. That does get hard to define specifically enough, but it is still part of the definition.

I have watched their interviews, read their declarations, and studied their philosophies. Have you read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation"?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The legality factor is part of the general definition, but you asked a good question about "by whose defintion". The best answer I can give is, "according to the general laws of nations". If it is legal in Iran to blow up cafes in Israel for no other purpose than to GET THEM and please Allah, they are out of synch with the general laws. However, invading Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities may not be the general method countries use, but it is also not generally illegal. It is also not irrational, though it may not be the best way to handle the situation according to some people.

I still don't agree the legality factor plays any part in the general definition. According to the general definition, a person in the stone age that used the threat of violence to get his way would be a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Universal

What I would NEVER do is target the innocent just because I am pissed at people I associate them with based on race, religion, or nationality.

I believe this is a stark minimization of the fundamental motives of the extremists. How far back does their beef with the U.S. government go? What was the actual beginning to all of this? When did we first go over there and begin to occupy their land and for what reason? You always seem to highlight the parts of the extremists' texts that (over decades of bad blood) have, yes, become as trivial as chastising us for simply our way of life and how we are somewhat "spoiled rotten" with our freedoms...however I don't think I've ever seen you even so much as mention anything beyond that. Do you really believe that that is the basis for the conflict - that we are not like them and they hate us for it? Of all the cultures in all the countries in all the world, that don't act or think like the Islamic extremists, do you think it's just a bad game of "duck, duck, goose" that made them choose us?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It all depends on the rationality of the act, or how effective it will most likely be in the attempt to bring about a rational result. If targetting white populations with women, children, and so forth really does have a high likelihood of stopping the stealing of land on a major level, it is not terrorism. It is an act of war. If the mentality behind it is, "I hate white people! Kill!!!!" then it is an irrational act, but the legality issue is hard to give a definite answer on in that situation.

Do you believe that it's irrational to think that - if someone's oppressing you and (inadvertently or otherwise) killing the women and children of your nation - they might actually care about their own women and children that your retaliation, in turn, might get them to stop what they're doing?

I don't know about you, but if I knew that, by my killing someone's daughter, they are definitely going to devote their life to killing my daughter...I'm probably not going to kill their daughter.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

The word "terroist" is really in the eye of the beholder.

One example.

In WW2, the Danish resistance killed, assasinated, sabotaged, and blew up bombs against the Nazi occupation.

In Denmark they were celebreted, because they were freedom fighters, but the nazis (and the Danish government) called them terroists.

From Wiki:

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents.

And

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

According to most of the definitions, Israel is doing terror against the Palastinian people, I hear no world leaders saying that.

When a state or governemnt think the word "terroism" is "appropriate" for their own gain, it's used.

Great post. This is exactly what I'm trying to highlight.

The word "terroist" is really in the eye of the beholder.

One example.

In WW2, the Danish resistance killed, assasinated, sabotaged, and blew up bombs against the Nazi occupation.

In Denmark they were celebreted, because they were freedom fighters, but the nazis (and the Danish government) called them terroists.

From Wiki:

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents.

And

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

According to most of the definitions, Israel is doing terror against the Palastinian people, I hear no world leaders saying that.

When a state or governemnt think the word "terroism" is "appropriate" for their own gain, it's used.

The general definition of terrorism involves the "legality" factor, but personally, I use the word to label irrational acts against innocent populations. If it is rational, I won't call it terrorism. If it is clearly irrational, I will call it terrorism even though it is somewhat out of synch with the general definition. When Bill Clinton blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan as a symbolic gesture, I called it terrorism.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And what exactly is a Terrorist? Do you feel that they inherently evil? Aren't there terrorists of all nationalities/ethnicities/religions?

A terrorist, by my own deffinition, is "One who willfully invokes terror in others in such a way as to procure the fulfilment of personal/group-oriented goals or desires." That means that one must have the intent or knowledge beforehand that what they are doing is going to cause some kind of psychological trauma that will lead directly to whatever it is they wish to achieve. This is to prevent associating "those who's actions may inadvertantly invoke terror as a consequence of their primary actions" with terrorists. That means that my definition can apply to the abusive husband who intentionally causes harm to his wife/children so as to invoke a sense of fear, and as a result, submission.

On the less extreme end, consider a person who might play an air-raid siren out their bedroom window, just because they think it's funny that other people will react fearfully towards it's sound. They are causing fear in order to fulfill their desires. Terrorism is more commonly used on the global scale with consideration to national militaries, governments, political groups, activist groups, etc. There is somewhat of a line that can be drawn though. If tactics that employ terrorism are used in defense of opposing terrorist tactics, the word loses it's power. This is because it carries a heavy negative connotation, and those who use strategies similar to the oppositions strategies for the sake of defending themselves are usually justified. Those who employ terrorism first, however, are more rightfully identified as the terrorists than those who use it afterwards in order to defend themselves. This 'correct' identification is usually made by the whoever's being oppressed.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Or, in another scenario: If the Native Americans used terrorist acts on the white man - after they came in and pretty much usurped their way of life - and no other method proved capable of stopping the flexing of the white man's "superiority," would they be doing it irrationally?

Certainly not. The Natives would be acting in self defense to overwhelming odds (technology and numbers) in an uneven playing field. They were defending their very existence, not just their land.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If it is legal in Iran to blow up cafes in Israel for no other purpose than to GET THEM and please Allah,

Iran hasn't made any militaristic moves against Israel. And you can't mean HAMAS either, since they have coherent reasons that go beyond the concept of just "get them", or for the sake of "pleasing Allah"... So you might want to be more clear as to who you're reffering to.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

According to most of the definitions, Israel is doing terror against the Palastinian people, I hear no world leaders saying that.

Considering that even the American news (NBC, at least, suprise) acknowledged that out of all of the Palestinian civilians that Israeli troops have killed, over a third of them were children. They've killed some 1,100 civilians just in the timespan of the recent Gaza conflict alone. So yes, Specialis, you'd be correct.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hating our way of life is a major part of why the Islamofascists hate us

No. Maybe what our way of life depends on. Maybe. Selling weapons to both sides, using military force to procure resources in other defensless countries, destroying every piece of land we can lay our hands on in the name of capital interest.. Those words came out of the mouth of an ex-special forces member who served in the US Army, by the way. I guess it's easier to get sick of corruption when you actually take part in it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

but our protection of Israel and our presence in the... (Twilight Zone music playing) "holy land"... have a great deal to do with it also.

This would be reason number One. Stepping right into the heart of the Middle East to steal a sovereign (and globally reckognized) nation with the intent of imprisoning it's people (internment camps) and killing unarmed civilians (women and children being the majority), you'd think that would have been the obvious answer. Not because they "hate our way of life". Oneironaught was on the right course with this when he suggested that their reasons were the result of another conflict largely unbeknownst to us.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Targetting civilians is always awful but not always irrational.

Violating laws of war that were agreed to and established by the other powerful nations of the world is not exactly what I'd call rational. It's old news that killing civilians does nothing but strengthen the conviction of your enemy to burry you, and it makes you look like the bad guy to your allies and everyone else in the world. The only circumstance I can think of under which killing civilians could ever be justified is when the enemy intentionally kills your civilians first, and even then it's still shaky ground.

[quote=Universal Mind]
There was an extremely high likelihood that nuking the two Japanese cities would end World War II.
[quote]

Did you get that probability from somewhere or did you just make it up? Nuking cities with the intent of killing civilians could just have likely turned the rest of the world against us. Do you not agree?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hey, if there is something rational about the other perspective, I am dying to know what it is. I have never been able to get anybody to tell me what is rational about it.

It's quite simple really. The difference between the oppressors and the oppressed is that only the oppressed call out for freedom. The Palestinian's are calling for freedom, they want their country back. They are being occupied, and their civilian's are being killed by soldiers who's equipment seriously outperforms that of their own 'soldiers'. There's a big difference between living in Jerusalem as a Jew (big deal) and then taking part in the Israeli expansion into lands that never belonged to them. Who do you think started the conflict? It was called PALESTINE before all of this happened.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Considering that even the American news (NBC, at least, suprise) acknowledged that out of all of the Palestinian civilians that Israeli troops have killed, over a third of them were children. They've killed some 1,100 civilians just in the timespan of the recent Gaza conflict alone. So yes, Specialis, you'd be correct.

I would just hope for some more reaction from the western world, especially USA.

We just hear condemnetions of this obvious (allow me to say) massacre.

"The United Nations Security Council issued a statement on December 28, 2008 calling, "for an immediate halt to all violence", the Arab League, and the European Union made similar calls, as did Argentina, Brazil, China, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philipines, South Korea, and Vietnam. Libya pushed to issue a Security Council Resolution urging for a cease-fire, an effort which the US blocked, citing the failure of the statement made December 28.

On January 9, 2009, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a full Israeli withdrawal by 14 votes to one abstention (the United States), even though US diplomats had been involved in its drafting. Israel and Hamas both ignored calls for a ceasefire."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...3Gaza_conflict

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Of course it was "legal". The US government did it. That's not a valid argument at all. For example, if Kim Jong Il declares it legal to kill South Korean children on sight, is that now somehow an argument for why it's not terrorism? I also don't see why effectiveness comes into it. Are you saying that an act of violence is moral if it's effective? The Nazis effectively killed millions of Jews. Does this make it morally correct to do so?

Correct. That is not "terrorism". It is still immoral. The Nazis did not commit "terrorism". They committed genocide and unjustifiable take over.

You are confusing the definition issue with the morality issue. They are separate.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

And your comment about Germany killing the most civilians is quite dubious. Not even including the nukes, the Allied carpet bombing campaigns were MASSIVELY larger in scale than the German campaigns. In fact, I think the Final Solution is the only factor that even makes it conceivable that the Germans killed more civilians.

I was talking about what single country did, but the Axis Powers killed more civilians than the Allies, I think. Don't forget about how the Germans took over one country after another and used bombs to do it. They would pull air raids and wipe out entire towns at a time, definitely not for the greater good.

Originally Posted by Kiloisalb

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Yes, the terrorists we are talking about are fighting specifically against freedom. So, yeah, they fight freedom. But at least they blow up restaurants full of kids so they can say, "Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!" It accomplishes a great deal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the terrorists we are talking about are fighting specifically against freedom.

Is this seriously what is perpetuating this thread?

Is there really someone out there who says, "I hate freedom! Kill it!" cause I really want to see that quote. Someone of this mentality ought to at least be pretending that freedom is what their "goal" is. I'm looking at you, Mahmoud Ahmadinejaad.

~

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Stopping Japanese aggression was rational, but stopping Israeli is not ?!?!

Exactly. If the terrorists would leave Israel the fuck alone or act like decent people and become decent citizens, this shit would not be happening. I believe in individuality. Israel should be a nation where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain. If American Indians, my close relatives by the way, started blowing up restaurants and talking a bunch of "Us them we they ours theirs" shit, I would call those idiotic individuals irrational too. Would you?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

According to you, extreme action is alright if it is rational, it was okay to nuclear bomb Japan because it would end a war.

This example would go with any war!

Do you think rationality picks a site?

Israel is in conflict with Palestine, THEREFOR it would be RATIONAL for Palestine to deal with Israel in extreme manner, like nuking.

No, it is not rational to pull the us and them holy land shit against Israel. It is fucking retarded. If Palestinians were Christians, I bet you would say the same thing.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Try to view things with a Universal perspective

Did you come up with that yourself?

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Iran hasn't made any militaristic moves against Israel. And you can't mean HAMAS either, since they have coherent reasons that go beyond the concept of just "get them", or for the sake of "pleasing Allah"... So you might want to be more clear as to who you're reffering to.

My point about Iran was based on a hypothetical, and I would love for you to tell me about the brilliant and effective strategies of the wacky religious cuckoo burgers in Hamas. Don't forget about the large numbers of terrorists, yes terrorists, who act alone and blow up buildings in Israel and get nowhere with it but dead and in the middle of mindless tragedy they created. By the way, do you have a problem with it?

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Considering that even the American news (NBC, at least, suprise) acknowledged that out of all of the Palestinian civilians that Israeli troops have killed, over a third of them were children. They've killed some 1,100 civilians just in the timespan of the recent Gaza conflict alone. So yes, Specialis, you'd be correct.

I need to study the recent conflict more. What was the goal, and what was accomplished? If the answer is nothing more than grrrrrrr and roar and me scare THEM, then it was definitely a terrorist act.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

No. Maybe what our way of life depends on. Maybe. Selling weapons to both sides, using military force to procure resources in other defensless countries, destroying every piece of land we can lay our hands on in the name of capital interest.. Those words came out of the mouth of an ex-special forces member who served in the US Army, by the way. I guess it's easier to get sick of corruption when you actually take part in it.

Have you read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation"? Please do. You will believe me then. Seriously. Read it. You will get the picture of why Islamofascists hate me and YOU.

Our interests in the Middle East go far beyond economic interests, and the Middle East presence that got Bin Laden so pissed in the first place is our consentual presence in Saudi Arabia. Our presences in Iraq and Afghanistan are allowed by the new governments. It's just too bad the wonderful people in the Taliban and the Hussein regime didn't like it.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

This would be reason number One. Stepping right into the heart of the Middle East to steal a sovereign (and globally reckognized) nation with the intent of imprisoning it's people (internment camps) and killing unarmed civilians (women and children being the majority), you'd think that would have been the obvious answer. Not because they "hate our way of life". Oneironaught was on the right course with this when he suggested that their reasons were the result of another conflict largely unbeknownst to us.

Steal? No, Iraq and Afghanistan do not belong to us. They are not going to be stars on the American flag. When the insurgents stop their irrational bull shit, we will call off our combat activities and the citizens will have the land to themselves.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Violating laws of war that were agreed to and established by the other powerful nations of the world is not exactly what I'd call rational. It's old news that killing civilians does nothing but strengthen the conviction of your enemy to burry you, and it makes you look like the bad guy to your allies and everyone else in the world. The only circumstance I can think of under which killing civilians could ever be justified is when the enemy intentionally kills your civilians first, and even then it's still shaky ground.

Killing civilians has made a lot of great changes for the world, as horrible as that method is. It ended WWII, for example.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Did you get that probability from somewhere or did you just make it up? Nuking cities with the intent of killing civilians could just have likely turned the rest of the world against us. Do you not agree?

Yeah, I made it up. It is such a coincidence that it worked. How strange. Who would have thought?

Originally Posted by invader_tech

It's quite simple really. The difference between the oppressors and the oppressed is that only the oppressed call out for freedom. The Palestinian's are calling for freedom, they want their country back. They are being occupied, and their civilian's are being killed by soldiers who's equipment seriously outperforms that of their own 'soldiers'. There's a big difference between living in Jerusalem as a Jew (big deal) and then taking part in the Israeli expansion into lands that never belonged to them. Who do you think started the conflict? It was called PALESTINE before all of this happened.

The Iraqi insurgents are not calling out for freedom. They are calling out against it. That is a fact. The Palestinians and the Israelis need to live together in a secular democracy of equality. Everything else is bull shit. I don't believe in the "us and them" superorganism bull shit. Every person is an individual. Right?

The 1948 action was wrong. Very wrong. But this is 2009. Very few of the actual invaders are still alive. What we have now is a nation of people who were born there and grew up there. Kicking two year olds out now makes as much sense as kicking American Indians out of the U.S. today because the cave people were there first.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exactly. If the terrorists would leave Israel the fuck alone or act like decent people and become decent citizens, this shit would not be happening. I believe in individuality. Israel should be a nation where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain. If American Indians, my close relatives by the way, started blowing up restaurants and talking a bunch of "Us them we they ours theirs" shit, I would call those idiotic individuals irrational too. Would you?

No, it is not rational to pull the us and them holy land shit against Israel. It is fucking retarded. If Palestinians were Christians, I bet you would say the same thing.

Oh, "if the terroists would leave Israel alone this would not be happening.."

You do not see the long chain of events, starting from decades ago! Do you think that it's that simple!?

Individualism.. yeah..

Why did you not write:

"Israel and Palestine should be nations where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain."

Can you please rephrase the last paragraph?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Why did you not write:

"Israel and Palestine should be nations where individual rights are respected and not where races and religions are treated like superorganisms with one body and one brain."

Edit: Oh, I missed the "and Palestine". However, I do very much agree with it. The us and them stuff that is based on race, religion, heritage, and nationality is shallow, dangerous, and irrational. Nobody is guilty of evil because of where or how they were born.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What? I did write that, or at least something to that effect. Do you disagree with it?

You were emphasizing Israel.

Do you agree with ALL people should have equal rights?

Do you agree with the Palestinian people having equally right to a national state?

Yes, Israel has this right too, but not in this way.

Right now Israel has no respect for NON-isreali soil, the settlements etc.

I think this picture is pretty illustrative.



(Notice all the settlements)

everyone gets angry and does things for their own reasons. the victims just happen to label the action "terrorism." or maybe they're doing it out of greed, but usually, it's some kind of revenge.

it would be no surprise if the American invasion of the middle east was considered "terrorism" to them.

the whole stereotyping middle eastern looking people to be terrorism is natural, it just comes with the terrority. after all, they have been the type to do such actions against America lately. you can't expect everybody to be free of stereotypical prejudice.

Originally Posted by AirRick101

the whole stereotyping middle eastern looking people to be terrorism is natural, it just comes with the terrority. after all, they have been the type to do such actions against America lately. you can't expect everybody to be free of stereotypical prejudice.

Actually, the second largest terrorist attack against Americans ever was done by two white guys.

White guys...the most inconspicuous terrorists of all time.

Terrorist, culturally speaking, is the Communist of the 2000's.

honestly, everyone is making it too complicated. what is so hard about a terrorists is simply someone who plans to or carries out killing innocent people. I dont give a shit whos side you are on or what you are fighting for, if you intentionally target civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict, you are a terrorist.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

honestly, everyone is making it too complicated. what is so hard about a terrorists is simply someone who plans to or carries out killing innocent people. I dont give a shit whos side you are on or what you are fighting for, if you intentionally target civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict, you are a terrorist.

Then the US government is the biggest group of terrorists of all. They nuked not one, but TWO cities full of civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Then the US government is the biggest group of terrorists of all. They nuked not one, but TWO cities full of civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

It was legal, rational, calcutated, and effective. That is why I don't consider it "terrorism" although it was very, very horrible. Fortunately, it was a few hundred thousand people, compared to 52 million who had already been killed in the war. The nukes ended the most awful war of all time. Nazi Germany takes the cake when it comes to targetting civilians in that war.