posted August 19, 2006 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

Why don't you refute the answers I gave you?

---

posted August 19, 2006 01:26 PM            

Uau! You are acting like a twelve years old! How old are you by the way?

Let me remind you that no one forced you to promtly reply to my thread.
And in an inpolited manner I may add.
What does that do to your credibility on other threads?
Well let me tell you something mister... go to your room and stay there. no supper for you tonight.

PS: Have you heard about a thing called Logic?

------------------
RR
xx_pb@clix.pt replace the xx's with my initials

posted August 19, 2006 01:59 PM            

If you want a definition of terrorism, you should consult more
knowledgeable sources. This web site claims that some research
has turned up 109 different definitions of terrorism. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/define.htm

The State Department apparently defines terrorism as a politically
motivated attack upon non-combatants. However, pressed to label
special cases as either terrorist or non-terrorist in form, you
may find this definition inadequate.

If the intent of this post was merely to stur up some of the
most vocal and adament members of these forums, it suceeded quite
well. However, I would not consider that to be a worthy purpose
in its own right.

posted August 19, 2006 02:02 PM            

quote:

---

The State Department apparently defines terrorism as a politically motivated attack upon non-combatants

---

I like that definition, a lot.

And since my tax dollars helped pay for it, I shall be using it.

posted August 19, 2006 04:47 PM            

Some posts begin well and then go badly.
Some just go badly from the start.
As in this case.

Well Donald, I couldn't agree more.

As I said from the begining "But it's a honest question."

My point was to define what can be considered a terrorist act,
and if terrorism is just another form of combat by some that have no
other means to achieve what they feel is a purposefull goal.

If the intent of this post was merely to stur up some of the
most vocal and adament members of these forums, it suceeded quite
well. However, I would not consider that to be a worthy purpose
in its own right.

I agree with you one more time. My intention was not that Joe would participate
on this with the delicacy of an elefant on a China Store.
But we know Joe; he cannot help it.

Although this is a trend on the café that I would prefer no to exist.
I really don't think my time is expendable on this, however, and considering
the rudness of Joe from the first post, I had to reply.

I'm a little sick of the way he usually bullies what could be an interesting
and enlightening conversation, I gave him some of his medicine, and I suspect he didn't like it.
This is one of the reasons I haven't participated more in the café; to much noise.

Anyway, I've liked the definition from The State Department, and that might have been
a good way to start this discussion, not to ended, but that's life.

posted August 20, 2006 08:05 AM            

Terrorism and war are two different things. A state of war is
declared by the government of that country that is being attacked
by it's enemies. A state of war can be revoked when there is a
truice between the involved parties.

Terrorism on the other hand can not be placed under 'declaring a
state of terrorism'. There is no visible war between a country, it
civilians and well, let us call them 'the others'.

Acts of terrorism happen randomly. Take the example of Iraland or
Spain. Terrorist act from within the country itself. A war, unless
it's a civil war, is held on the borderlines between one or more
countries.

So...Israel is in a state of war with Lebanon and Palestinia. The
government of Lebanon and Palestinia cannot seem to control the
aggressive acts of Hezbollah and Hamas. Israelli government on
the other hand is controlling their forces entirely. A huge difference
if you ask me.

Of course it's much more complex (again) with Lebanon and Israel.
You have Iran funding Hezbollah. U.S. funding Israel. Europe funding
Lebanon. etc

When we hear the news here in Belgium, the media speaks about 'Hezbollah
warriors', not 'Hezbollah Terrorists'. It's all because of the great
brainwashing scheme in Europe coming from the Politically Correct
corner.

So conclusively: Terrorism => Random acts of violence to upset the
normal political, economical working of a country in order to achieve
a certain goal, mostly disrupt the society and spreading fear.

War -> declared state by the government by which civilians can be forced to
aid and act against the aggressor when the army doesn't suffice.

posted August 20, 2006 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

So conclusively: Terrorism => Random acts of violence to upset the normal political, economical working of a country in order to achieve a certain goal, mostly disrupt the society and spreading fear.

---

I'm not so sure that a non-political goal ("disrupt society and spread fear") have ever really qualified as "terrorism" at least as we use the word distinct from simply "criminal" (although I'd posit all "terrorist" acts are automatically crimimal).

Consider the history of modern-era violence which most would label terrorism:

• OAS, 1960s. Political Goal: retaining French sovereignty over Algeria.
  
• Black September, Munich 1968; Palestine Liberation Organization, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, airplane hijackings (1970s), shootings in Rome Airport. Political Goal: elimination of the state of Israel.
  
• Hezbollah, 1982-present, suicide bombers, paramilitary operations. Political Goal: Elimination of the state of Israel.
  
• Red Brigades, Bader-Meinhof Group, Red Army Faction Europe/Japan 1970s. Political Objective: replacement of liberal democracies with socialist-style governments.
  
• Irish Republican Army 1922-2004, mostly bombings. Political Goal: control of Nothern Ireland by the Republic of Ireland, replacing the control of the United Kingdom.
  
• Al-Qaeda, ca. 1990-present. Specialty: imaginative and spectacular violence. Politcal Goal: establishment of a caliphate over all "Muslim Lands."
  
• Aryan Nation, northwest USA, present, assasination. Political Goal: De jure segregation of the USA into Aryans and 'others.'
  
• Earth Liberation Front, present, bombings and arson. Political Goal: Legislated cessation of economic development ('exploitation') of the environment (flora).
  
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, present, assaults, vandalism. Political Goal: Legislated cessation of economic development ('exploitation') of the environment (fauna).
  

I think most instances of "spreading fear by random violence" has been not so much a goal as it was a byproduct of "criminal psychosis." Examples: Boston Strangler, Son of Sam.

My $0.02

posted August 20, 2006 10:39 AM            

If you win, history records you as a freedom fighter.

posted August 20, 2006 11:26 AM            

They were of course - luckily for us - unsuccessful. Nevertheless
I wouldn't have called them freedom fighters if their idea was to
bring back communism in Europe

Come to think of it.... we're are again very close to communism
in a way, since 'the right to free speech, to say what you think'
is these days not really a 'right' anymore, you more or less
comdemned if you do so.)

Look at the assasinations of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn or event
prior to that Salman Rushdi (sp ??)

If the political conviction one has in Europe is not Left wing ohboy,
you're in for a whole list of name-calling from neo-nazi to fascist to
racist. We Europeans must show more tolerance towards our 'visitors'.

Ohboy, we're again derailing this subject. Sorry Rui

posted August 20, 2006 01:30 PM            

Second, since the opportunity is lost once protective measures are
adopted, the attack is most likely to shift to other opportunities,
because the opportunity is about exposure and lack of protection,
not at all related to the target's merits as a legitimate combatant
unit or installation.

That puts the society and the authorities being attacked in a
quandary, If you take steps to try and protect all potential
targets, thereby eliminating opportunities, you fail because
this is not possible. If you try too hard, and still fail, you
are deemed oppressive by those you are trying to protect. If
you do not try, you are deemed powerless and helpless, and
people lose confidence in you.

Acts of terrorism do not gain many proponents, but it can help
sway a populance in its regard to its safety and the value it
places on its leadership. Within the borders of the U.S.,
we have apparently been successful at avoiding further terrorist
activity. But this is at least in part, because we have troops
and civilians in the middle east that are closer and more
immediate targets to such acts. We also see acts of nationalism
where attacks are being carried out against our military because
those people see our continued presence as a matter of occupation
rather than liberation.

But that raises another point, which is the immorality of turning
human beings into suicide bombers who are solely intent on
carrying out acts of murder, of killing for the sake of killing.
I also take exception to any philosophy, religion, or political
rationale that promotes the wanton, indiscriminate death of
others as either an act of fidelity, morality. or a service to God.

So it isn't only terrorism that we are confronting here. We are
seeing cultures in conflict, ethnic and religious intolerances,
power struggles as competing groups strive against each other, and
efforts to divert hatred towards the U.S. and Israel in an effort
to unify the muslem nations into one accord by promoting a holy
war.

posted August 21, 2006 09:26 AM            

I'm thinking about Irland and Spain, as an example of resolved terrorism.

But can this be compared to Israel/Palestine ?

What can be done on the long term to resolve this particular conflict?

Or are there some hidden agendas on related parts to whom the conflict is beneficial?

posted August 21, 2006 12:44 PM            

this is a tricky, gray area,
ie, If America, engaging in an act of liberation
does not win the support of the public, the result is 'terror' instilled into the minds
of the people thinking that America is there to kill, conquer and distroy, and therefore
while commiting what it believes is a benevolent act, instead the results are 'terror'
which in turn will invite response of terror.

sure, it is argued that they did it first!, but in whose eyes? often conflict is born
from past grievances, stalled only because the participant was not prior in a position to
respond.

the only way this never-ending cycle will recede is when the stronger take the stand to mend
old wounds, not conquer them, the weaker have too much to gain politically for anyone thinking
to believe that they will ever give in, war is simply too properous for the leaders.