I'm looking for more than urban. "Urban" is ludicrous. Not all muslims are bad, likewise thee are non-whites that love America and freedom just as much as you and I.
I am looking for official definitions. I have asked the US Dept. of Justice, and they have actually refused to comment. Gets me to wonder if that's an indirect confession to their own acts of terrorism.
You mean a more reliable President of the US? Uhhh, if you're not America then what the hell do you care? He's ours, whether we like him or not. We voted for him, you didn't. We pay the taxes he gives to countries like yours (so you really should be either thanking Americans every chance you get or pay it back). Most importantly, while countries are getting those same tax payer dollars that hard-working Americans GIVE we have to listen to the same third world cesspools scream "die yankee die". So until your country pays us back, you guys can start showing some gratitude.Its just, can you guys get a GOOD guy in government soon?
And in 20 years they'll be blaming us again, saying we trained him, we had him wrapped around our finger, and how he was another yankee puppet.There is no accepted official definition of Terrorism. It is naturally hard to define, in the west, Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. In the Middle-east, he is a religious freedom-fighter.
That's why I'm looking for definitions. Different definitions work for different people in different scenarios.Thats why some people use different words for Terrorism [I prefer 'Complex Irregular Warfare', but its too long.]
Well, Bush is gone and now we have an imposter filling his shows. Frying pan....fire.....you get the picture. As for who he has or had wrapped around his finger isn't for me to decide.
I would think that if your country can take care of it self just fine without our aid, then Rudd would not have become an ass-slave....
So what has this actually got to do with defining terrorism?
There are lots of politicians that I dislike but the list would go on forever. That said politicians are the ones that make defence / war and aid decisions, so they are a necessary evil.
But what about terrorism? Here's a wordy paragraph which is up for debate, it is my thought and by no means definitive, nor original:
"An irregular war, fought by opposing idealogies, normally a non state organisation against a state. The intention is to impose change, through the use of coercion, threats of violence and actual violence against the state and the perceived opposition of the terror group. It is characterised by small scale skirmish, attacks against "soft" targets and an unswerving devotion to delivering the message of the terror group by whatever means necessary and available. It generally will not involve larger scale conflict, as the state tends to have the financial (therefore technological and materiel edge)."
As my old English master said - discuss.
Australia CAN take care of its self. Its a big, large island [The largest], all types of terrain [Mainly desert]. Why shouldnt it be able to survive without American aid? Australia is just naturally a country that needs your guns, tanks, aircraft etc.
As you said before, Partisan [But on another thread], the media has its big index finger on the word 'Terrorism'. For example, the old, racist South African government absolutely loathed Nelson Mandela. They labeled him a 'Terrorist'. Thus all the SA media then kept saying 'Mandela is a enemy of the nation, he is a terrorist!'. Id like to see if anybody here thinks Nelson Mandela is a terrorist NOW??
The word 'Terrorism' depends on your location in this world. When your in America, you are going to say 'Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist'. If you go to Serbia, they will say 'Albanians are terrorists'. See? Depends on where you are FROM, where you LIVE, and what your RELIGION and/or IDEOLOGIES are.
I guess the issue is that I don't understand the logic behind the defining of terrorism.
What one country defines as terrorist, another may not. One may see the insurgent strikes in Iraq & Afghanistan as terrorist. And they may be. If the strikes are done against the occupying military, then no. It's then guerrila warfare. But when it's a strike against a school or mosque in the name of freedom, then yes it is terrorism. It's doing nothing to the military occupying the country, instead it's punishing the innocent.
In this, I try to imagine who the insurgents really are. If they are not "freedom fighters", then they are....? What? And I am quite confident that freedom fighters would not kill their own people enmasse for freedom. That is going against the very same idea of what freedom is.
As for Balkan Mig, he's just a kid. There is so much he simply doesn't understand about what he said. I for one do not believe that Rudd is wrapped around anyone's finger. I firmly beleive that Australia is self-supporting.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.