Define a terrorist.

I call it a bad case of The Trojan Horse, and it sure ain't warfare, and it sure won't work here, once we shift the arses of our current political clowns from Westminster.
 
00033215pm1.jpg

terrorist_cat.gif
 
A terrorist is someone who uses fear in order to pursue a political agenda. This fear can be violence, the fear of violence to others or self, or some other medium.

Terrorists can be individuals, groups, and even entire governments.
 
mmarsh said:
A terrorist is someone who uses fear in order to pursue a political agenda. This fear can be violence, the fear of violence to others or self, or some other medium.

Terrorists can be individuals, groups, and even entire governments.
Click to expand...
I fully agree.
 
mmarsh said:
A terrorist is someone who uses fear in order to pursue a political agenda. This fear can be violence, the fear of violence to others or self, or some other medium.

Terrorists can be individuals, groups, and even entire governments.
Click to expand...

But as Topmaul said there is still the perspective of who's side you support, so as an example Israel see Hezbollah as terrorists but the Palestinians see them as "freedom fighter"

Lunatik said:
The Egyptians were evil. :smil:
Click to expand...

And Egyptians were cool, some of the most innovative gods ever dreamed up.
 
Last edited:
I have been in the company of many international terrorists. ETA (Basques); IRA, UVF, Arab and various east European murderers. Most of them were psychopathic killers
Click to expand...
I see psychopathes as sick people who need help. they are like crazy people. something isnt working right in their mind... society have to be merciful with them and put them in psychatric hospitals and such to treat them.
I wont judge a sane man like I would with a crazy man. my education gave me such principles.

However, there are those who hide, feed and help terrorists and we generally call them sympathisers.
Click to expand...
what can we do to these people? having an opinion isnt a crime. we must tolerate opposing opinions, even the extreem ones if we want to promote freethinking.

Should we call them terrorist sympathisers?
Click to expand...
I would call them "morons". in the strict definition of this word. low intelligence part of population. they are in prison, it's a proof that they arent very smart.

I am concerned about the number of people I see entering my country who look just like the ones who danced with joy.
Click to expand...
I'm shocked by this sentence. honestly, I dont judge people on their looks. I dont care about the ethnicity. there is people who joined Al-Quaeda from all over the world, the US, France, Africa... you name it...
I had big trouble with black people, Jewish people, white people... and I have wonderful friends in these same groups... it's life man. you must forget about ethnicity and religion.

but I have a huge problem with nationalists... I dont understand nationalism. I see myself as a citizen of the world. I dont love my country more than another's country... I didnt choose it. I wont support it against another country. I believe in justice and equality, and I dont care about the rest...

I know they are not terrorists, but I also know that in their eyes I am the infidel because I am British.
Click to expand...
who you are talking about? these people you talk about are a very small minority. you shouldnt even care about them.

it's hard to give answers to such complex questions...

I heard somewhere that a terrorist was just a failed revolutionnary. that if you succeed, you are a revolutionnary, but if you fail, you turn into a vulgar terrorist.
I dont fully disagree with this statement... it must be true to some extent.

a terrorist is a scary person... someone who brings terror.
and when I'm watching the news... I see fear in the eyes of the Iraqi families who get their doors blown off at night by US patrols... and in such situation, even an US soldier can be seen as a terrorist. as he is scaring these poor women and children who just want to be safe in their homes.

so, I look for a better definition... I think that a terrorist is someone using unlawful force...

but I know from experience that laws can be stupid... and that laws cant be enforced in the battlefield... I heard about stories of executions and rapes and such war crimes...

so finally, I think that terrorism in the use of unfair force. and I dont mean unfair like using a tank to fight a peasant with a rifle...
but anyone using force without a good reason.
and I mean by a good reason, I reason that must be universally accepted...

My faith tells me that when you die, you face god. and that he is the ultimate judge. who already knows the truth. that he will ask you about every action you did in your life time.
I define a good reason as a reason god will accept as correct.
 
I was wondering, is there any tangible difference between "asymmetric" and "unconventional" in terms of general warfare?
 
I was wondering, is there any tangible difference between "asymmetric" and "unconventional" in terms of general warfare?
Click to expand...
they dont make a lot of sense to me.

Asymmetric warfare originally referred to war between two or more belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly.
Click to expand...
the war against terrorism is in this case then... professional armies fighting peasants with rifles and hand made explosives...

and is there really conventions in war? I see the laws in warfare as rules set by the victors to make their domination easier.
I see most of these conventions as big jokes. illegal weapons? limited missile range? no proliferation of nuclear weapons? what a joke.

it's like if the world was a big village. and a villagers makes a rifle, and use it to push the people to keep fighting with swords and knives so he stays the most dangerous person in the village.

but I dont know about terrorism... I mean real terrorism, when they start to kill innocent people, and I mean unarmed civilians... this is so wrong.

I understand when they attack military forces with unconventional methods (suicide bombing and such)... I would even call them brave for that.
they are professional soldiers, equiped and trained for warfare. sucks to be you if you have to fight a modern army...

but where is the honor in doing that in the middle of old men, women and children in a market trying to make a living...
it's so stupid...
 
LeMask said:
but where is the honor in doing that in the middle of old men, women and children in a market trying to make a living...
it's so stupid...
Click to expand...

In what respect would the bombing of innocent civilians from the air differ from this, to take an example Harris's campaign to bomb the will out of German civilians?

I would say there is directly none . However, one can look at the wider consequences of that bombing and ask, 1) to what extent does it acheive the overall war aim, and 2) would it make the world better for human society in general?

I'm not too sure what 'honor' in war really means except the perception of fairness and duty, but this requires considerable thought. It may be more justified to kill an unarmed civilian who is responsible for genocide than an incompetent armed conscript who doesn't even agree with what he is doing.
 
I guess this question was bound to attract some woolly answers but perhaps I can help here with a serious answer.

Can you see that guy, can you hear that guy, who is threatening to blow you and yours together with any those who disagree with him and anyone else he happens not to like, to everlasting kingdom-come?

Well, my friends, that is a terrorist. He is deliberately inciting fear and dread among civil populations for political advantage. A terrorist.

The definition may become clear as your rear end hurtles skywards, and no-one could complain that he didn't do his utmost to keep his promises.

A very simple question really, hardly a matter of opinion.
 
Last edited:
In what respect would the bombing of innocent civilians from the air differ from this, to take an example Harris's campaign to bomb the will out of German civilians?
Click to expand...
Harris isnt god. If he was sending little boys into war, does it make it right for us to do so?
come on. Bombing civilians is wrong. I heard that Ben Laden and his buddies wanted to kill all US citizen, just because of their nationality... was he right to do so? because a huge part of the US population would support the war effort against terrorism.
The campaign to bomb civilian areas was terrorism. You dont have the right to bomb people without a good reason. and the good reason is "direct threat" (e.g. pointing a rifle at your head)

I would say there is directly none . However, one can look at the wider consequences of that bombing and ask, 1) to what extent does it acheive the overall war aim, and 2) would it make the world better for human society in general?
Click to expand...
Mankind lears from itself. when you start killing innocent civilians because it's good for you. Mankind will learn that "killing innocents is an answer we can choose"... you teach a new dirty trick to this big monkey we call mankind.

I'm not too sure what 'honor' in war really means except the perception of fairness and duty, but this requires considerable thought. It may be more justified to kill an unarmed civilian who is responsible for genocide than an incompetent armed conscript who doesn't even agree with what he is doing.
Click to expand...
men are born free. men are responsible for their actions.
If someone gives you orders you dont want to follow, it's your duty to fight this person.
I dont know if I would dare to shoot someone. but I would take the conscript with a rifle anytime...
call me a coward, but if someone asks me why... My answer is simple "he had a freaking rifle...:crybaby:"

I definetely dont have the hero complex... I dont want to save mankind... I just want to save myself in a long term basis. If I have to save the others to save myself, so be it... but it will be tough.

and you need a fair trial to judge the unarmed civilian who may be a criminal... it's the law.
 
I agree with Del Boy. These days waiting for an enemy to take action is waiting too long. If someone comes right out with it and declares his intent is to destroy your society you should shoot him in the head before he has a chance to pull something. Right and wrong and other nebulous concepts are irrelevant; it's basic self-preservation.

Anyways, my definition of a terrorist is someone who intentionally attacks civilians to achieve a political goal. Going after the foreign troops occupying your country doesn't make you a terrorist. Blowing up a car in a crowded marketplace most certainly does.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top