how does one define a terrorist?

Post Reply New Topic

It all just evolution.

Someone who uses terror in an attempt to achieve their goals.

Freedom fighter- Person fighting for liberation against foreign/oppressive forces, whilst not becoming oppressive themselves.

Rebel- Member of organised/semi organised forces which oppose the government.

seems a bit of a cut throat attitude to me...

Its not my choice. Its just the reality of the world.

In reality, this could be true. V, in "V for Vendetta" was refered to as a terrorist but he ended up helping people. Its funny, the idea is normally misunderstood by those who only know the current system. Its not shocking, "adapting" to a new way is the hardest thing for a human to do in anything.

Terrorist is a "label" that "YOUR" side uses to describe someone with a different view. Even if that view is better, the label will help distort that and keep you from listening to the other side. Instead, you will just generalize the idea of "terrorist" and apply it to the person/group.

Ironically, the opposing side may refer to that same "terrorist" as a "freedom" fighter. We describe ourselves as "fighting for freedom" yet, the other side describes us as "oppressors."

Let me ask this question. I would describe the insurgents, who are attempting to destabilize an elected government by going into crowds of innocent woman and children and murdering them, as evil. Would you agree?

Yes I would characterise them as "evil". But since they are religious fanatics they would certainly characterise an atheist (me ) in the US as evil.

Yes, though, I would like to know what is provoking that as they didn't always do that (maybe they did - if so, they are nuts, if not, we have 2 sides to this). I believe America even has a history of using violence to overthrow a government. Yes, their beliefs aren't inline with ours, but they are fighting for THEIR beliefs, not ours. Instead of the melting pot we have in the west where people come to "join us," I think we are FORCING them into a new society, almost at a snap of the fingers. Whether its better or not, thats not the point, but they are fighting for their belief and anyone against that is an enemy. Is that evil? Yes, but have we learned from our mistakes of Vietnam? No. We repeated them and helped them become evil. We aren't all innocent, we do have a psychological impact on those people (we have provide a reason).

Again, whether our way is better or not, thats not the point, change is always going to be met with a challenge which is why more care is required then sending a bunch of troops at a problem. However, the way America operates, it DOES stick its nose into too many people's business and the psychological "force" they use creates opposition. No one likes force. Hell, they are always in Canada's politics and trust me, they are "ALWAYS" right

What do you believe the terrorists/insurgents are fighting for? Are they fighting for a free democratic Iraq? The people who they are murdering mostly probably did not want to be murdered. The big question really is why don't they just stop killing civilians, Iraqi army/police, and American soldiers right now? Honestly, then there would be no reason for America to stay other then to keep a small amount of trainers to get the Iraqi army up and running.

I realize the fact you feel that the US has created the opposition. But that opposition is not the majority (as it was not the majority in South Vietnam, and definitely not the majority when we abandoned SV). That/those opposition seems rather more oppressive then the potential current alternative as a ruler. They are sponsored by people from outside of Iraq with much wider interests then just some psychological problem with the US presence.

By having the US withdraw (assuming that is what you think the US should do), what would you hope to accomplish?

You wouldn't necessarily think so, based on my school text books description of the cold war.

V does not hurt any innocents, not in the film at least. The nazi government kills people for being different, and imposes its views of hatred upon its citizens.

I view V as a freedom fighter, fighting for a certain amount of freedom. To what end I do not know, but the government is downright twisted, evil and corrupt. In no instance should a government slaughter innocent citizens.

I guess you think it would have been perfectly fine to conscript more 18 year olds to send to the war in the Pacific so that they could die in slow agony with their guts ripped-out by shrapnel on some beach in Japan? In this age of liberal "equality" I can't really get to grips with why liberals still think men are expendable in that way. The US government had a duty to protect its citizens, and that's what it did. To be honest, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't much different to places like Dresden in Europe whose citizens were subjected to equally miserable deaths through conventional bombing. I think the chap in charge of the RAF at the time, bomber Harris as he was known, said something along the lines that all the cities in Germany weren't worth the life of one British grenadier. I guess the yanks felt the same way about Japan — understandably.

Btw, it's reckoned over 200,000 US and Japanese, including many civilians, died in the battle for Okinawa, just one small island using coventional weapons.

Over here, we have terrorists elected to our parliament. People who, not so long ago, were murdering and torturing British troops in Northern Ireland are now MPs.

The leftwing political elite also worship a former terrorist called Nelson Mandela, who spent his formative years attempting to kill civilians with bombs.

The following link contains disturbing images and is not for those of a weak disposition.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html

I guess when the bearded mullahs finally take over the UK then ol' Osama will get a statue in the centre of Londonistan.

Make of that what you will.

OK, I never once said anything about withdrawing. I merely pointed out how it happened. You can't withdraw now.

Having said that, what are they fighting for? Well, I watched a movie called "The Last Samurai" and what THEY were fighting for was THEIR way of life. See, it seems any person with a "dime" thinks their life is the best so they force others to live like them. In this movie, these people wanted to preserve the way they lived. Now, would it help the global economy if they all stayed behind? Maybe, but they dont want to be part of it, they just wanted to be left alone and continue living in their village the way they have for thousands of years. For some reason, humans have a real tough time leaving people alone. If people wanted to stay in a tribe in the Australian outback, let them. Its THEIR land, too!

I believe that is what they could be fighting for. Their way of life. This is why they, and other countries, refer to America as an "imperialist" as its removing how THEY lived for how America thinks they should live. Right or wrong, change is difficult for many to except. If they are killing citizens, it could be as simple as "you're with us or against us" but I dont speak for them. This is just me explaining their reasons for killing. They could differ, they may be similar.

The thing, its highly naive to think a country with 'views,' that are thousands of years old, would just drop their way of life and pick up democracy. Some might, but then again, some won't. No one accounted for those who won't outside of military action.



You are right, he doesnt hurt citizens. HOWEVER, he is against the government and not many people knew why. This was why he was called a "terrorist." It was to place fear against him and create support for the government. Clearly it didn't work, but anyone labeled a "terrorist" by your nations government will automatically be hated by its citizens who listen but not objectively. This movie depicted and exaggerated how governments who oppress can work. Its very symbolic. The image of the "Leader" was displayed on a HUGE t.v. which could represent his status compared to those below him. oh i love it

V was fighting for a type of libertarian government, in my opinion, as he opposed all 'force.' He stresses people have 'choice' and encourages that people think "individually" ("is that what you think or what THEY would WANT you to think?"). I seriously watch chapters of this movie weekly. His views on humanity are near spot on with mine. At the end, 'Eve' has her mind 'blown' which is making me wonder if one can lose their minds 'virginity' and be 'completely free' as V said to her (Then you've no fear, you're completely free)

I guess you don't know anything about that. I guess you must enjoy the mass murder of people. I guess you should know that was a war crime. Them Japanese were about to surrender, the usa knew this. It was unnecessary to drop the bomb on those cities. It was just a ploy to show the Soviet the americans strength.

I can't get a grip of one how ignorant you're on the matter. Japan was already defeated, but you seem to show your ignorance on that matter. You need to stop it with your accusing me of being a liberal BS. I mean you're clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. So I will leave it with a quote from someone that would know better than your ignorant ass.

""In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Yeah but you do have to realise V for Vendetta is a movie, I wouldn't base real-life philosophy around something I seen off a movie. Though I do think our government might be headed in that kind of direction. Not just ours, but all UN nation's governments, as they'll all eventually become one giant Christian-fanatical neo-feudalist supernation ran by international bankers.

I would like to point out that I was very happy they hung Saddam, if indeed he was Saddam, even though our government may be inwardly corrupt itself, I see it like this; a voilent dictator who raped, murdered, tortured, and humiliated his own people, finally met his justice. Reguardless of the character of the people handling it, the bottom line justifies it reguardless. Though, I still think getting involved in the war in the first place was a bad move for us.