Nonsense. Even if you kill a banker that has blatantly been stealing from the populace, killing him is going to put his innocent family through hell. So what you mean to say is that this guys life and his familys suffering is less important than the justice required by the wrongs he's committed against the people. Fair enough, but that is what you should say.
Well I have little problem with bankers per-se, assassination politics was originally made to target government officials but the original poster did put a bit of a far left spin on it.
And to say the USA is the biggest terrorist force in the world is masochistic nonsense.
It is nonsense to say anything is a terrorist force since the word terrorism has no agreed upon definition. It is mostly just used for propaganda. Military call what you call terrorists violent non-state actors. The only distinction between violent non state actors and violent state actors is that state actors are bigger forces (if violent non state actors were big enough they would be states).
The USA has committed many war crimes, and many atrocities, and this much is plain, and I absolutely detest the US government, but terrorism is a real thing, committed by psychopathic religious fanatics that are living with a 7th century mindset, and isn't to be shrugged off as some conspiracy.
The people who know the most about what you call terrorism don't think that terrorism is a real thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Generation_Warfare
The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. Fourth generation warfare is normally characterized by a violent non-state actor (VNSA) fighting a state. This fighting can be physically done, such as by modern examples Hezbollah or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In this realm the VNSA uses all three levels of fourth generation warfare. These are the physical (actual combat; it is considered the least important), mental (the will to fight, belief in victory, etc.) and moral (the most important, this includes cultural norms, etc.) levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
If you cut to the core of the matter, terrorism is non state sanctioned violence. If a non state actor goes on a killing rampage against druggies because they think we are evil they are terrorists but if the chinese government kills its citizens for drug possession they are not terrorists simply because they are a state. The only core distinction between terrorists and government is one is big enough to be a state. There are superficial characteristics too, VNSAS are more likely to hijack a plane and fly it into a building than firebomb a city, but this stems from their size and resources: they have to use non-conventional tactics to have any chance of defeating the much larger forces they fight with. Asymmetric combatants is another good term for what you call terrorists
The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations.[40] These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.[41] Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism".[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
terrorism is certainly a propaganda word that the state uses to try to illegitimize the violence of non-state actors while implicitly legitimizing the violence that they regularly engage in
"Oh that's just because the West wronged them in the first place." Again, this is nonsense. Masochistic nonsense I might add, and only spewed by people who are totally ignorant of what Al Qaeda and jihadist extremism actually are.
Everybody wrongs everyone else in the games humans play. I see firebombing a city and flying a hijacked plane into a building as being equal, the government see the first as being legitimate and the second as being terrorism (well they don't really see it this way but they want you to).
One of the chief items in Al Qaedas manifesto detailing it's problems with the west was that i) The US had reversed course on an ongoing genocide in East Timor.
So basically, if you stop genocide occuring in East Timor, they will hate you, because you have "interevened in a muslim land". And this was in fact the reason they gave for blowing up the head offices of the UN and for blowing up Australian tourists in Bali.
I don't sympathize with islamic extremists in the slightest (although I can certainly sympathize with insurgents who fight off invading armies), I just don't make the distinction between islamic and jewish and christian and nationalist and etc extremism that you do. In the end it boils down to state actors and non state actors, and flying a flag and being part of the UN doesn't give you right to murder millions of innocent people with bombs and pretend to be morally better than someone who kills a few thousand innocent people with a hijacked airplane. The world is run by extremists and they all fuck over their enemies and they are all equally bad.
Not to mention the fact that Al Qaeda wants to kill all Hindus - people who have never wronged them at all! Also, that whole scandal with the cartoons of the PEDOPHILE mohammed that were drawn in a Danish newspaper. Denmark has no imperialist history with the west, has never wronged any Eastern country.. It is a multicultural society that accommodates all religions/races and does a lot of aid work in the Middle East - yet their embassies were burnt out and their citizens attacked because a single cartoonist dared to exercise his right to free speech.
And the US wants to lock up all the drug users because they consist largely of extremist christians, and they don't run into muslim lands strapped with bombs because they have enough money for remote control bomber planes etc. People in USA are routinely locked up for exercising their right to free speech, have you not heard of CP being illegal to view ? A significant culture makes you think that is okay, to lock up those people for looking at and even drawing things in some cases.....and a significant part of their culture thinks the same about people who draw cartoons of Mohammad. People everywhere are indoctrinated and do horribly evil things to each other, it doesn't mean the largest organized group of evil doers is somehow less evil due to their numbers.
So I won't have it said that these people are merely defending themselves, from the big bad USA. I would be the first to say that the US government is insane and is responsible for the untold suffering of millions, but it is to excuse these wicked, sick, religious nutcases who sincerely want to destroy all the precious gains of civilisation, by suggesting that they are merely acting in self defense, or that they were forced into it by imperialism.
The US is run by sick religious nutcases also and their sickness leads to just as real suffering and death
These are countries where you can't openly criticise the government without being killed/tortured, if you're a woman you are practically OWNED by your husband, who is legally allowed to rape and beat you - you can't criticise the religion without being killed.. if you're a woman and dare to not wear a veil, you can have acid thrown in your face, or be beaten and raped. Although there is one upside, if you're a virgin you can't be sentenced to death. But you can be raped in the prison by the guards.. and then you're not a virgin anymore, and they can kill you.
Compare that to the US where yes, it is still corrupt, and yes, there have been atrocities, but you can say almost whatever you like, you have a lot of rights, the freedom to do with your life what you want. You can be any religion, any race. You have the right to a fair trial, etc. Sure the banks and financial institutions abuse their power.. but these aren't pictures that can be squared.
and this makes no difference when the US government drop bombs and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and then they call people who kill a few thousand evil terrorists. They are both evil terrorists. But terrorism isn't real
.
There are significant, significant enough at least, amounts of people in the middle east who think that they have God on their side when they kill people, when they tell you what to do, what to wear, who to worship, what you can say.. To compare the US to these evil scumbags just isn't comparing like with like. Don't forget, that there is currently a war going on within Islam ITSELF. In fact, most of the deaths in Iraq are from this kind of violence. Muslims attacking other muslims because they have the "wrong" version of the faith.
You think many of the American soldiers killing muslims in these wars don't think they are fighting for God?
And by no means are all muslims extremists. But you come to the US, or the UK, or the EU, and you can be whatever religion you want, say almost anything you want (unless its inciting violence or racial hatred etc).. you can build a mosque if you have the money. Do you think the mullas in Saudi will offer you the same courtesy?
I think you extremely misinterpret what I say
anyway US has killed more innocent people and imprisoned more innocent people in the past 100 years than all of the iihadists have in the same time frame....seems pretty obvious who the bigger terrorists are to me , but doesn't excuse either of them
Show Posts
