Define a terrorist.

Del Boy:Do you mean like Israel 's experience? Or USA 9/11? Or the invasion and occupation of the UK?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I dont understand your question.

You have to know that a human life has a value. You have to do everything you can to protect it. If you start killing people without a good reason, you are just a comon murderer.

You need a good reason to kill someone. The 9/11 attack is a source of a huge emotion. But we dont kill people following an emotion. We have to follow a logic, we must use our heads.

By following the emotion of the 9/11 attacks, we went to war following a lie and here we are wasting human lives and billions of dollars in Irak.

I would even add that the war in Afghanistan is a mistake too. Definetely not worth the cost. And what an insult we did to democracy by accepting this Hamid Karzai who is just another puppet to give us the image of tyrants...

anyway...
 
LeMask said:
Sorry, but I dont understand your question.
Click to expand...


You suggested that the excuse for conflict was when you had a rifle pointed at your head.

I pointed out three examples of just that; therefore my question. Those who point the rifles should not expect impotency from their chosen victims.

Reminds me of a story : There is a man buried up to his neck in the gladiators ring; the lion is released, the crowd roar with delight. The lion charges and leaps at the head; the head leans aside and the lion passes over the top harmlessly; the lion pounces again with the same result; the crowd goes wild with delight; the lion rushes and leaps again, the head leans back, and this time, as the beast passes over, reaches up with his teeth and bites the lion's balls off; The crowd falls silent and then erupts in fury - "BOO - PLAY FAIR!!"
 
Del Boy, E.G. Means "exemple given"... It was just an exemple. If I see you killing some man who was threatening with a knife, I wont ask you if he was pointing a rifle on you...

And that's a funny story. You should sell it.

We just cant afford to start killing each others without a good reason.
And the only one I see is self-defence.

And my problem, is that often these "terrorists" were people in distress in the past. I know that Ayman Zawhari was tortured in Egypt (his homeland) because of his political positions.

So I think that society pushed many of these people toward terrorism. If we see it as the weapon of the poor/weak.

For years we left the strong beat up the weak. But now, the weak started to punch under the belt to defend himself.

who are we to call him names after that?
 
Nice post Le Mask; I am sympathetic to your principles but I do not line up with your take on terrorism today . I see it as a tool wielded in order to ensure that one's own demands are met by those who, in power, would never accept opposition of any sort. Look around and see them.

Do you suggest that those suffering under Mugabe should start blowing masses of their compatriots to pieces in their efforts to remove him?

Should those under threat of annihilation roll over and wait for Domesday?
 
Last edited:
You know Del Boy, I dont think that the terrorists can blow themselves up at anything that moves.
I think that there is a minimum of targeting. I've never heard about a terrorist attacking his own family...

I just keep in mind that they are poor and weak. I try to not let my emotions (fear, hate Etc...) take control of my judgement.

If they want to conquer the world, I know that they cant. Not in a century.

So I think that we should rather train/fund the people who want democracy in these countries. I wont risk my life for someone else. But if this someone else wants to fight to be free? I'm ready to help him.
 
Cut and dry, def of a terrorist.

Any person who uses terror or fright to obtail a desired result.

(hence why my kids call me a holy terror :) )
 
LeMask said:
You know Del Boy, I dont think that the terrorists can blow themselves up at anything that moves.
I think that there is a minimum of targeting. I've never heard about a terrorist attacking his own family...
Click to expand...

There is a maximisation of targetting - striking at the most densely populated areas possible. I don't understand your 'own family' comment, you lost me there.
------------------------------------------------------------

LeMask said:
I just keep in mind that they are poor and weak. I try to not let my emotions (fear, hate Etc...) take control of my judgement.
Click to expand...

Their activities represent the greatest threat to the weak and the poor, but terrorists themselves are not necessarily so.

I leave fear and hate to those who trade in it - terrorists. And terrorists do not rely only on suicide missions, far from it. They intend imposing fear upon others because they themselves are full of hate.
---------------------------------------------------------
LeMask said:
So I think that we should rather train/fund the people who want democracy in these countries. I wont risk my life for someone else. But if this someone else wants to fight to be free? I'm ready to help him.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what is happening Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Iraq is now free
of the grip of their tyrant; Afghanis are being freed from the oppression of the Taliban; all with the help from the West, who are indeed risking their own lives for the cause.

Those countries left without democracy are mostly helpless in the grip of oppression.
 
Last edited:
Actually although I believe there are people in Iraq who need help (a lot in fact) I don't think the case is true for Afghanistan. That place will be a hole no matter what we do. But if the West cuts and runs from Iraq... we're going to be betraying a lot of people and sending them straight to slaughter.
Not to mention, the next time America says "We'll back you up," no one will believe them.
 
Del Boy:
There is a maximisation of targetting - striking at the most densely populated areas possible. I don't understand your 'own family' comment, you lost me there.
Click to expand...
I just want to say that these people attack civilians because they dont have the means to win a conventional war. So they try to attack where they can attack.
But the targeting doesnt stop here. If they are just attacking the civilians and aiming at maximum damage, they wont blow themselves in their family home or something of this kind.
I was in Morroco when there was terrorist attacks.
And you know where they blew themselves up? They went to a restaurant called "casa espagnole"... A place where rich folks had their habits. And not far from it, in a hotel (forgot the name)...

They targeted the rich folks and forgot about the poor neighborhoods? are they that stupid? there is much more people in a popular neighborhood than in an area where you only find restaurants and hotels too expensive for 99% of the population.

These people were desperate kids with no future. Full of hatred and frustration. They attacked a system full of social injustice. And they went for the people who enforce and enjoy the fruits of the system.

They attacked an elite...

The political message for me is very clear here. I'm deeply socialist in my heart. I believe that it's our duty to help the weak/poor. So I'm disapointed and very sad to see this kind of things happening. I accuse misery, lack of professional opportunities, corruption in Muslim countries, lack of human rights, democracy...

If you were a poor kid of 21 years old, with no education, no future, no home. All you have to define yourself is humiliation. Living in a home made of scrap metal with the sewers running between a row of houses and another. You spend hours and hours everyday at the mosque waiting to see some faithful man giving you a job like cleaning his car/delivering vegetables... You spent days and days watching other young people going to the beach wearing nice clothes and driving nice cars and laughing with beautiful girls...
How can you not fall? It's just a matter of time. Your family sold its lands to go to the big city to make money.

I cant go to war against such poor people. I think that they are in a dangerous path, and that they need help. My answer to terrorism is to build schools and to reform governments. Once they will have something to lose on earth, they will stop looking at heaven.
Who wants 72 virgins when you have a beautiful nagging wife in your bed... I sure dont want 72 virgins... they would nag my ears off... And I'm not yet married :cheers:

Their activities represent the greatest threat to the weak and the poor, but terrorists themselves are not necessarily so.
Click to expand...
Classic. These rich terrorists are dangerous too. But they are an elite in a mass of desperate poor people. They are the leaders.
It's not Ben Laden and his money who defeated the Russians. It was the mass of desperate Muslims who wanted to do their duty to god by throwing themselves under the fire of the enemy...
The problem is that there is a HUGE pool for recruiting people with nothing to lose.

That is precisely what is happening Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Iraq is now free of the grip of their tyrant; Afghanis are being freed from the oppression of the Taliban; all with the help from the West, who are indeed risking their own lives for the cause.
Click to expand...
I really doubt that. The situation is very dangerous. The Talibans are composed of the biggest tribe in the region. Their tribal instinct is stronger than anything else...

Those countries left without democracy are mostly helpless in the grip of oppression.
Click to expand...
so why we support these governments? Why we want to attack stable governments?
Like Iran? why we want to attack Iran.
Iran will never attack Israel. There is no such thing as a terrorist country with a suicidal agenda. They wont attack Israel because it would cause havoc on them. And yet, it's a very stable country.
 
LeMask said:
I just want to say that these people attack civilians because they dont have the means to win a conventional war. So they try to attack where they can attack.
But the targeting doesnt stop here. If they are just attacking the civilians and aiming at maximum damage, they wont blow themselves in their family home or something of this kind.
I was in Morroco when there was terrorist attacks.
And you know where they blew themselves up? They went to a restaurant called "casa espagnole"... A place where rich folks had their habits. And not far from it, in a hotel (forgot the name)...

They targeted the rich folks and forgot about the poor neighborhoods? are they that stupid? there is much more people in a popular neighborhood than in an area where you only find restaurants and hotels too expensive for 99% of the population.

These people were desperate kids with no future. Full of hatred and frustration. They attacked a system full of social injustice. And they went for the people who enforce and enjoy the fruits of the system.

They attacked an elite...

The political message for me is very clear here. I'm deeply socialist in my heart. I believe that it's our duty to help the weak/poor. So I'm disapointed and very sad to see this kind of things happening. I accuse misery, lack of professional opportunities, corruption in Muslim countries, lack of human rights, democracy...

If you were a poor kid of 21 years old, with no education, no future, no home. All you have to define yourself is humiliation. Living in a home made of scrap metal with the sewers running between a row of houses and another. You spend hours and hours everyday at the mosque waiting to see some faithful man giving you a job like cleaning his car/delivering vegetables... You spent days and days watching other young people going to the beach wearing nice clothes and driving nice cars and laughing with beautiful girls...
How can you not fall? It's just a matter of time. Your family sold its lands to go to the big city to make money.

I cant go to war against such poor people. I think that they are in a dangerous path, and that they need help. My answer to terrorism is to build schools and to reform governments. Once they will have something to lose on earth, they will stop looking at heaven.
Who wants 72 virgins when you have a beautiful nagging wife in your bed... I sure dont want 72 virgins... they would nag my ears off... And I'm not yet married :cheers:


Classic. These rich terrorists are dangerous too. But they are an elite in a mass of desperate poor people. They are the leaders.
It's not Ben Laden and his money who defeated the Russians. It was the mass of desperate Muslims who wanted to do their duty to god by throwing themselves under the fire of the enemy...
The problem is that there is a HUGE pool for recruiting people with nothing to lose.


I really doubt that. The situation is very dangerous. The Talibans are composed of the biggest tribe in the region. Their tribal instinct is stronger than anything else...


so why we support these governments? Why we want to attack stable governments?
Like Iran? why we want to attack Iran.
Iran will never attack Israel. There is no such thing as a terrorist country with a suicidal agenda. They wont attack Israel because it would cause havoc on them. And yet, it's a very stable country.
Click to expand...


OK LeMark - because that is a good post and because I do not reject the principles which guide your understanding of these situations I will not pursue this matter further here, even though my country is under dire threat from these terrorists, who are given shelter and money here, are no poorer than most of us, wealthier than many, but wish to change our foreign policy with their violence and hatred. They could choose, of course, to live elsewhere, to live in home countries, or in the Moslem regimes and cultures they wish to impose upon us.

The US and their allies will leave Iraq and Afghanistan at some point, but without their intervention Moslem countries will never be able to escape from under the boot of their own kind who oppress them so, and appear only too determined to bring destruction down on their people.
 
Last edited:
Yes Del Boy, we should return to the definition of terrorist ^^ sorry, I cant always stay ontopic... I like to wonder a little.
But if we look carefully, I didnt go that far. I tried to talk about how we turn into a terrorist.

But I have to be clear on some point, I dont want to defend terrorism. Being weak/poor isnt an excuse to turn into a terrorist. I just want to say that we can prevent terrorism... At least in some cases.
 
Well...
A terrorist in it's modern meaning as I see it:
A person intentionaly commiting acts of violence against civilians and civilian targets(of non-stratigic nature) in order to further a political or ideological agenda.

This includes diffrent militias wearing uniform, its not the cloths that make the terrorist its the actions.
 
Would that include fire bombing Dresden as an act of terrorism?

Terrorism is a form of economic warfare, among other things, it forces the the government being terrorized into a reactionary mode and to spend a lot of money on what might happen like say forming an entire new Cabnet level department. A cheap terrorist attack can force a country to spend millions to prevent it from happening again.

Governments have gone broke fighting terrorists because one little attack will force the Government to spend a pile of money on security systems look at airports for example. The TSA screeners will be paid for years to come.
 
Sherman, why you added "non strategic nature"? ... We can put anything we want inside such label.

You can open fire on a crowd of protester and call it a "strategic action to cut the support for the enemy."

Non-combattant shouldnt be targets whatever the situation.

We have to believe in our own message... If we are the good guys, we have to let people choose us.
 
LeMask, those kids who blow themselves up at the rich people's towns are also pawns of those who depend on the rich existing as the enemy for their own power gains.
The systems in those countries does suck, the chances for social mobility minimal. But at the end of the day if they attack the rich in that sort of manner, they're only attacking people who are creating their jobs. It's an impulse that is taken advantage of. Life might be bad with the whole rich/poor gap, but it's even worse with no one to provide jobs for them.
So what's the only thing that can help the poor? A leader who is capable of making the country wealthier with enough vision and heart to make sure the lower classes also get a share of the wealth. Blowing up a hotel just throws them deeper and deeper into poverty. But there are those who benefit from it.
Everyone is a bit of a socialist at heart. If they have a heart. But eventually the system is the system and if you care enough, then you will know enough to earn money and resources and then use them to help these people you care about.
 
TopMaul

Every time - the fire bombing of Dresden. It has become a cliche. London was firebombed every night for long periods; a deliberate strategy to weaken our resolve. In those days in London we shook our fists at the sky. We lived with the black clouds of Lutwaffe. Retrospect is a fine advantage to hold ; war is war, and never was there was there a war more worth fighting with the last ounce of strength. Dresden - put it where it belongs - down to Hitler. He tried to bomb us to Kingdom -come. He gave instructions that Warsaw should be razed to the ground, so much that it should never rise again. He asked 'Is Paris burning?'.

He measured little kids to decide whether to gas or shoot them.

We rid the world of that scum, and I am fed up with our efforts to stop them being carped about, even more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
Sherman, why you added "non strategic nature"? ... We can put anything we want inside such label.

You can open fire on a crowd of protester and call it a "strategic action to cut the support for the enemy."

Non-combattant shouldnt be targets whatever the situation.
Click to expand...

My intention was to exclude attacks on power stations, bridges, government facilities etc. These are civilian targets but hitting them is a fair move in my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top