Thread: What is a Terrorist?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you agree?

...I honestly don't know.

I mean, look at it this way: The extremists honestly believe that they will continue on fighting forever. Their children will take up the fight. Their children's children will take up the fight. The logic may be that Israel (maybe with pressure from the Israeli people) will weigh the cost of the occupation against the un-ending bloodshed of its civilians - with no way to completely stamp out the opposition - and eventually (however long it takes) pull out of the "Holy Land."

Desperate? Yes. Wrong? Probably. But I really don't know if I could call it irrational.


[Edit]

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This Wikipedia entry will help with the definition of terrorism. Notice the U.N.'s definition.

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

I'll take that into consideration. However, I still believe that the most basic definition is one that supercedes whether or not there is an "established law" that is being broken. Using terror to force a point is what is requisite of terrorism, regardless of whether the act is "criminal" or not. As we all know, the idea of whether something is "criminal" or not can be either altered or completely hidden from public opinion, by those with enough influence.
[/Edit]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The logic may be that Israel (maybe with pressure from the Israeli people) will weigh the cost of the occupation against the un-ending bloodshed of its civilians - with no way to completely stamp out the opposition - and eventually (however long it takes) pull out of the "Holy Land."

The Israelis are way too passionate to ever all or even mostly leave Israel, for religious reasons and because of the love of democracy. I think the terrorists know that. I think the terrorists are just racist shit-head mother fuckers (Pardon the French, but this subject makes my blood boil.) who kill out of anger and so they can screw virgins. I don't think there is the first thing rational about it.

I have talked to a lot of supporters of Palestinian terrorism. They speak in very general terms and with almost pure emotion. It is on the level of the KKK. It is completely crazy and absurd. I mean, the terrorism supporters very often actually say that two year olds in Israel deserve to be killed because "THEY" invaded the "holy land" at a time that even precedes the births of my parents. It is so ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Israelis are way too passionate to ever all or even mostly leave Israel, for religious reasons and because of the love of democracy. I think the terrorists know that.

I do agree with that, but do you think the extremists - who are just as passionate - should/would stop just because the occupiers are too proud to leave? Or do you believe that just fuels the fire?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think the terrorists are just racist shit-head mother fuckers (Pardon the French, but this subject makes my blood boil.) who kill out of anger and so they can screw virgins. I don't think there is the first thing rational about it.

I know how much the subject makes your blood boil - and rightfully so. It's a very serious matter, and one that people feel passionately about. However, I do think your high level of emotion for the subject does, sometimes, prevent you from seeing the matter from any other perspective.

Originally Posted by Universal

I have talked to a lot of supporters of Palestinian terrorism. They speak in very general terms and with almost pure emotion. It is on the level of the KKK. It is completely crazy and absurd. I mean, the terrorism supporters very often actually say that two year olds in Israel deserve to be killed because "THEY" invaded the "holy land" at a time that even precedes the births of my parents. It is so ridiculous.

I have never, personally, heard it said in that way. I've heard more along the lines of them being "fair game," because of the reasons we've been talking about (which is horrible, in itself, don't get me wrong). I'm not saying that it hasn't been said with the exact wording that you put it, but that would change the reasoning, completely.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I do agree with that, but do you think the extremists - who are just as passionate - should/would stop just because the occupiers are too proud to leave? Or do you believe that just fuels the fire?

It definitely fuels the fire, but that does not mean the fire is not irrational. I also don't agree that Israelis at this point in time are "occupiers" any more than you are an "occupier" of Florida.

I should mention here that the 1948 land steal should have never happened, but that does not mean people born three or four generations later are invaders themselves. The Israeli government pisses me off by giving Judaism too much of a place in the government. That definitely fuels the fire. If they would be secular, they would have a lot more support and make the terrorists look far worse.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I know how much the subject makes your blood boil - and rightfully so. It's a very serious matter, and one that people feel passionately about. However, I do think your high level of emotion for the subject does, sometimes, prevent you from seeing the matter from any other perspective.

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. All I ever get is racism/creedism and the fallacies involved in it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I have never, personally, heard it said in that way. I've heard more along the lines of them being "fair game," because of the reasons we've been talking about (which is horrible, in itself, don't get me wrong). I'm not saying that it hasn't been said with the exact wording that you put it, but that would change the reasoning, completely.

Did you ever read my conversations with Dragon Overlord or Nina in this forum? They both preached the mentality I am talking about. They said that all Israelis deserve to die because they are "they", children included. When Nonviolence.org had a discussion board, I came across lots of people who said that stuff.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The US's definition of terrorist is far to broad.


Yes, there are irrational assholes who kill people to instill fear and get their messages across.


But then there are people in occupied countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan who are sick of being occupied needlessly and are fighting back. Those people, in my opinion, are completely justified.

To them, the US is the terrorist and they are an improvised milita.

Yes, there are irrational assholes who kill people to instill fear and get their messages across.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Maybe it's just a campaign to keep our minds off of what's happening in our own backyard?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My answer had nothing to do with that. Even if the U.S. government nuked 100 of their cities just for kicks, killing innocent Americans now with no rational calculation involving necessary results is irrational, period.

----

Are you sure you read all of my post? See what I said about stealing Indian land. I agree with you. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II. It was rational. Targetting civilians is always awful but not always irrational.

----

It is a matter of probability. There was an extremely high likelihood that nuking the two Japanese cities would end World War II. But blowing up cafes in Jerusalem has about a 0% chance of making all of the Jews move out of Israel. The insurgent terrorism in Iraq is exactly what is keeping us there. That scum is irrational. Do you agree?

Wow, so you are saying that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was rational, because it would end WW2.

You are saying that it would be not be rational to blow up cafes in Jerusalem, but dropping a nuke would be!

A nuke in Jerusalem will probably move the jews out of the city, and end the war. Hell, why not 2 or 3 nukes, just to be sure.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The US's definition of terrorist is far to broad.


Yes, there are irrational assholes who kill people to instill fear and get their messages across.


But then there are people in occupied countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan who are sick of being occupied needlessly and are fighting back. Those people, in my opinion, are completely justified.

To them, the US is the terrorist and they are an improvised milita.

The only way the Iraqi insurgents are "freedom fighters" is from the perspective that the term means "people who fight AGAINST freedom". They are blatantly against freedom and are glad to admit it. They would kill you at the drop of a hat if they found out you are gay. They hate your guts any way, but our soldiers are putting their lives on the line for you. Think about that. The insurgents are not doing what will drive us out. Their terrorism is what is keeping us there. They are acting out of religious insanity. They are also acting against the forces that gave their nation the right to vote and all kinds of other new rights that American liberals claim to cherish.

If they were killing in the name of Jesus instead of Allah, would you have a different perspective?

It seems that the Americans who scream the loudest for American rights are the same people who scream the loudest that giving rights to other nations is an imposition. Can you explain the difference? Was the gaining of American independence an imposition on Americans? Is the Bill of Rights an imposition? Is the legalization of gay marriage an imposition? If I blow up churches and restaurants because I am pissed about the legalization of gay marriage in certain states, am I a "freedom fighter"?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Wow, so you are saying that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was rational, because it would end WW2.

You are saying that it would be not be rational to blow up cafes in Jerusalem, but dropping a nuke would be!

A nuke in Jerusalem will probably move the jews out of the city, and end the war. Hell, why not 2 or 3 nukes, just to be sure.

Because driving Jews out of Israel is racist/creedist and irrational while stopping Japanese aggression was rational.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'll take that into consideration. However, I still believe that the most basic definition is one that supercedes whether or not there is an "established law" that is being broken. Using terror to force a point is what is requisite of terrorism, regardless of whether the act is "criminal" or not. As we all know, the idea of whether something is "criminal" or not can be either altered or completely hidden from public opinion, by those with enough influence.
[/Edit]

If that's the case, then every side in every war that has ever been fought has been "terrorist". I think the definition is supposed to be more specific than that.

Kleenex : tissue paper
Jell-O : gelatin

(Terrorist) : (terrorist)

Ok, I'll elaborate. "Terrorist" itself does have a dictionary definition. However, I believe over the years we have (or rather, certain governments) have been able to brand the word to a specific type (or stereotype) of people.

So, when we really SHOULD be saying "a palestinian terrorist, an islamic terrorist, a muslim terrorist", we have been conditioned to simply use: Terrorist. It's marketing 101 - on a global scale. I often wonder, do people in the middle-east refer to us as terrorist? Does Al-Jazira (or whatever network) report our 'counter attacks' as terrorism?

SIDE NOTE: Not to go a little off topic, but I was watching this show on PBS of this film crew that went to Iran to tour and shoot... eh, film. I couldn't believe how the people there are so pro-american. Well, sure, we are fighting the Iraqi's, but still, our past with them is not so clean. BUT, my point: the guy had someone explain the differences between the Sunni and Shiite factions. I was suprized to learn that the difference was VERY LITTLE! People kill each other over the smallest thing. While the guy explained it was more to do with land, still, the same could be said of the Christian and Protestants (and probably others).