Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Terrorists my butt....


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked

#1
njustice

njustice

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts
The fanactics who perform acts of violence against babies, children, woman and the innocent are NOT terrorist's.....they are COWARDISTS!!!

Stand up and be a MAN you COWARDS. Take your fight to the fields instead of hiding in the DEVILS crevices you have built for yourselves. A REAL man will face his problems head-to-head. Even the school yard bully has more HONOR than YOU. Grow up and finally become a man or will you continue to be a COWARD who continues to kill the innocent?


May the COWARDISTS be condemned to ETERNAL CONDEMNATION!!!


So.....should these fanatics be called COWARDISTS or terrorists? I vote for the former.....cowards they are and anything less than that does a grave injustice to the millions of victims who they have harmed. :whistling:
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
It depends what terrorists you are talking about, in the middle east where alot of the fighting is they are fighting using guerilla warfare methods which is a legitamate tactic used by every military force on the planet, when facing enemy with superior numbers and firepower give as little oppertunity to attack as possible, attack is secondary to survival.

Attacking woman and children is dishonourable but you cant tar that to terrorists otherwise you tar your own military with the same brush as they have Killed alot more than any terrorist organisation ever has when it comes to women and children.

But your topic doesnt lack alot of structure and its pretty inflamatory maybe you should edit it a bit.
  • 0

#3
sarahw

sarahw

    Malware Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
I had a conversatin with someone earlier, we talked about the definition of a terrorist. What defines a terrorist? The United Nations hasn't got a definition about what a terrorist is. There are over 100 definitions suggested so far.
Some are completely wild and out there.
It seems that if anybody resists against a government in force these days they are a terrorist. Many Nations are founded this way. Including The United Kingdom in 1066, the United States, The Bolsheviks in the former USSR. Are these nations founded on the pricipals of terrorism? Of course not.
If so. What would be next? Book burning? Do we rewrite history to satisfy current political ideology?





I'm not trying to be inflammatry, more rhetorical......

Edited by sarahw, 09 August 2006 - 05:28 AM.

  • 0

#4
sarahw

sarahw

    Malware Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
Njustice. If your talking about the Isreal Lebanon conflict, you would have to define the side you are talking about... Do you mean the Lebanese who have killed 65% military targets and 35% civilian? Or the isreal's 600 mostly civilians killed.

edit: source: Fox News channel. (pro isreali mind you).

Edited by sarahw, 09 August 2006 - 05:33 AM.

  • 0

#5
njustice

njustice

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts
I am talking about the terrorist org. out there who are using tactics to further their cause by car bombings, cafe bombings, train bombings, 911, etc...while it is true more innocents have been killed by the military mights of the world that is not my point of this thread. Terrorist org. are not part of any government military (that I know of) and in actuality are against any given government they oppose. Yes, they hide in the shadows to avoid being caught and tried for the injustices they do to the innocents and to avoid attack. Yet, it is OK for them to kill or oppress but not for their opposition. They wage war with a two sided tongue and a one edged sword. This to me is why they are COWARDS.
  • 0

#6
sarahw

sarahw

    Malware Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
The loss of any life whether civilian or military is a sad affair. Some are so opressed that they feel they have no further options availiable to them. It's a sad world, and unfortunatly it's not going to get any better in the current situation.
  • 0

#7
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Community Leader
  • 26,047 posts
  • MVP

Definitions of Terrorist on the Web:

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm

Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist


by default a terrorist is someone who uses fear to achieve a given goal (technically...in it's purest form...when your mom said "clean your room or i'll spank your butt"....she was a terrorist)
  • 0

#8
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Again who are you accusing, terrorsits is a big definition thats alot of people and most of them i daresay have a legitimate cause and dont car bomb people, if you talk about iraq they are more or less in a state of civil war both sides are called terrorists but were the yankees and confederates terrorists? Al-Quaeda attacked the twin towers but to me that is a pretty big target and in a war would be targeted by the other side terrorist or not its a symbol as well as a large financial institution which makes its a sensible target and in the long haul war you attack infrastructure like that as the military needs funding you attack the money you attack the military.

And two sides cant kill or opress these things usually arise from some sort of opression to start with, look at the Taliban for instance it was brought about in the days of the russian invsion of afganihstan and fought a guerilla war just like they do now that we are there. Hezbollah has some genuine greavnaces against isreal and is in many ways a porper militia and is fighting using fairly conventional tactics.

You seem to be railing against the idea of terrorists portrayed in propaganda if you actually look at the information available and try and view things with objectivity you see things arent quite so clear.

PS while some good examples there 1066 was the invasion of the normans one of the many invasions of England, England is a weird place invaded by everyone for a thousand years till the all became so mixed up and powerful they became one nation. I think it is funny though that many americans rail against terrorism yet there nation really was formed by what today would have been called terrorism back then they fought in a way as to be considered as underhanded as a car bombing(talking the days of marching up in nice lines and shooting at each other)
  • 0

#9
sarahw

sarahw

    Malware Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts

1066


As a pom myself I should probably know more, the way i remember it is William against the romans. I might be way off.
  • 0

#10
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Community Leader
  • 26,047 posts
  • MVP

I think it is funny though that many americans rail against terrorism yet there nation really was formed by what today would have been called terrorism back then they fought in a way as to be considered as underhanded as a car bombing(talking the days of marching up in nice lines and shooting at each other)

indeed...us americans tend to forget that when we started the american revolution (revolutions are usually fought by so-called "terrorists", and they're only called that by the people they are fighting) WE as american's broke EVERY rule set forth for military engagement....you weren't allowed to hide behind a tree...heck you were supposed to stop a battle for tea...FOR TEA all shooting and stabbing stops...we didn't do that...we hid behind trees...we snuck up on the british and we even wore camoflauge (sort of)...while the british wore bright red and white suites and stood in perfectly formed lines...if the term had been coined at the time we would have been called terrorists for sure...

people (read as " The US") tend to condemn a groups tactics because of the way they effect us...or because we don't agree with why these people are fighting..."oh waht are they even fighting for that's silly stuff"... but if we as americans were put in the same situation we would (whether you like it or not) resort to alot of the same tactics..
  • 0

Advertisements


#11
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Community Leader
  • 26,047 posts
  • MVP
also..it must be noted that the term terrorist is highly over used in today's society (can anyone say buzzword?)... as alot of the people we call terrorists...aren't...even though they use similar tactics like car bombing and what not...alot of times the civilian casualties that come from these attacks were secondary targets...alot of times these carbombs were only used because of a lack of technology and supplies...but were targeting military forces..

now...people like the IRA , who rarely attacked a military force (if ever) were pure terrorists....they used sheer terror and fear to try to get what they wanted (and notice they didn't get it)
  • 0

#12
sarahw

sarahw

    Malware Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
The IRA was not dealt with severly. The british government knew where they all lived and could have solved the problem in no time, but didn't. Today's laws would see a different outcome.
When you have the world breathing down your neck, watching closely, you have to watch yourself. Killing woman and children is one thing but on the other, Guantanimo bay and Iraqi prisons are another
  • 0

#13
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
I dont know it was dealt with very severaly especially for the time, the SAS was VERY active in nirthern ireland if they did something really terrible and they could find the guy and they had enough evidence they were arrested or convicted but often the SAS would go in and take care of it.

Also your limited by the fact you cant just go in and arrest the ring leaders as they never got the hands dirty the IRA were very well trained in espionage they were a whole league above the terrorists we see now in the middle east(the real terrorists) they were intellignet and ruthless even now northern ireland in some areas is very dangerous its still standard procedure not to travel by road where possible and all helicopters are heavily armed in case they go down. The Northern Ireland terrorists were real terrorists but we also had the belief that if you compromised the values of our society then we wouldnt have had the right to be there and fight them those were in the days when it was out ideology against another now its no ideolagy against any, how things change.
  • 0

#14
Johanna

Johanna

    The Leather Lady

  • Moderator
  • 3,038 posts
When mothers and wives refuse to let their sons and husbands go off to war, the war is over. The Middle East's quest for peace will be frustrating, as long as there are people encouraging their young folks to die for "greater rewards" than life offers.

I was numb when the World Trade Centers came down. I used to stand on the observation decks and looked at the matchbox cars far below. My heart broke for the families who watched their loved ones die on live TV. But the people of NYC refuse, like the people of Israel, to let "what if?"s color their daily living, and continue to carry on. When we start giving in to the demands of terrorists, we lose more than land or ideology.
Johanna
  • 0

#15
njustice

njustice

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts
In my opinion the yanks and confederates were not terrorists groups. They were two military factions within ONE country who took their fight to the battlefield over the oppression of a race and the right to freedom. By definition Al Qaeda is "An international organization of loosely affiliated cells that carry out attacks and bombings in the attempt to disrupt the economies and influence of Western nations and advance Islamic fundamentalism." which IMHO does classify them as a terrorist organization. Their goal is to advance their religious idealogy and make it look like Israel and their allies are attacking Islam from what I understand. Hezbollah was formed to fight Israel's invasion into Lebanon and in my opinion were a legit military faction UNTIL they started their campaign of terrorist activities in Lebanon during the 80's on US CITIZENS!!! After Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 Hezbollah continued attacks on Israel and it's citizens, not their military, which in my opinion coupled together makes them a terrorists organization.

I do agree "things arent quite so clear" and "view things with objectivity", BUT, my opinions are also formed with common sense and skepticism to what I'm fed from the mainstream and other sources.

Take the current situation in the UK with the plot to blow up airplanes. The american news is saying that it has the "looks of Al-Qaeda" and "as many as 50 people are involved". I could take this as Gospel, but I know better enough to wait and see and still I will have some doubts to what is the outcome of our reporting. However, if some group was intending to blow up those planes then in my view they are the COWARDISTS I speak of. Using the term "terrorist" gives them credence and I will not "prop up their chests" in the name of political correctness or otherwise. I am NOT "railing against the idea of terrorists portrayed in propaganda" I merely am professing what I feel these cowards are to me and that is "COWARDISTS".



I would like to point out that I'm not a scholar or even close to an expert in political, social or religious matters. Nor am I trying to re-write history, just expressing my feelings on what a terrorist is to me and interested in your opinions on this.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP