KoKenZen

Any thoughts on that the us government is lableing people terrorist much the same way they used to label people communists and make complete political propoganda out of the word?

j8ear

It concerns me. It is a such a dynamically definable term. Used by whoever wants to discredit someone.

The US governement will label anyone (or organization) a terrorist, and they can freeze assets, sieze funds, yadda, yadda, yadda. All it takes is a declaration from the Feds....

It was illustrated interestingly in some of John Allen Mohammeds pleadings that since the enactment of Virginia's terrorist laws, and JAM's killing spree them qualifying as a terrorist offense...that the entire population of Virginia is then 'a victim' and no impartial jury could be seated to hear the case....

Of course the motion was summarily dismissed as rediculous, but if you think about it....it makes ALOT of sense. It's a good thing judges and law enforcement routinely enforce or uphold laws that work in their favor, and similarly dismiss things that don't...with some bewildering interpretation (meant to be dripping with sarcasm). Be careful what you wish for, and how you throw out labels, I guess.

hohum...

b

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

chavos

as with any hypberbolicly used label, there will be backlash. there are few "freedom fighters" at least in american eyes these days, but rely on it that at somepoint a rebel group using non-conventional tactics will be the darling of America for standing up to what ever baddie we don't like that day.

2wolves

The dividing line between patriot and terrorist is only determined twenty to 100 years after the fact.

If you're really into history check out the news papers of England during the American Revolution AND the war of 1812 to see what the monarchists thought of the political experiment in the colonies.

Radical liberal would have been a kind thought.

2Wolves

hobo

Terrorist is comepletely subjective. There are cuban terrorists that the US calls freedom fighters and has supported many times in the past. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is whether or not they have done something that is not in US interests.

The_Dude

the term is used way too often.

people needs to stop jumping the gun when they label an activity is by a terrorist or terroristic group.

and as for freezing assets just by declaring a group to be terroristic, it is scary.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Sparhawk

The ease with which conservatives label liberals as communists, as ridiculous as that argument is, confounds me. As is the oft-repeated "If you're not one of us, you're one of them" quote.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Dragonlich

The term "terrorist" is quite simple and clear: "people using terror and fear (the results of their actions) to further their own goals". That may not be the official term, but that's my basic interpretation of it. As a result, in my opinion, there is nothing good about terror, no matter who's side the terrorists are on.

And no, fighting against terror, or simply attacking a country or group of people isn't immediately "terrorism". As long as the goal isn't simply to terrorize, it's not terrorism, period. Israeli gunships trying to kill Hamas fighters are not instruments of "state terrorism", but Hamas fighters trying to blow up innocent civilians *are* terrorists. Had the Hamas guys attacked military targets only, they would not be terrorists, but freedom fighters.

Simple, right?

Xell101

Simple indeed, wierd ways of thinking that destroy the barriers between right and wrong and that make everything subjective are having quite an interesting affect on peoples thought processes. (me included, I feel corrupted)

KoKenZen

ohh yes by the true definiton the minute men where terrorists

KoKenZen

hmmmm well what about isreal horizontal drilling water from palistine to wash there cars with while watching the palistinians die of thirst

KoKenZen

gorge carlin once said if fire fighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime what do fredome fighters fight?

2wolves

Perspective is a wonderful thing. I don't recall using a broad brush to whitewash entire groups in that conflict so kindly do not attempt to put words into my post.

There are a number of episodes in the American Revolution which would meet almost anyone's definition of "terrorism." Not taught in U.S. schools of course but such things did/do happen.

2Wolves

Moonduck

"hmmmm well what about isreal horizontal drilling water from palistine to wash there cars with while watching the palistinians die of thirst"

Uh, there is no Palestine. And if it is 'occupied territory, it's Israel's to do with what they please. I find it more interesting that the Israelis have offered to help clean up the refugee camps, bring them into the modern era, and the Palestinian leadership refuses every time.

Pennington

Sorry for the threadjack, but I can't let this pass.

There is no Palestine
Before the zioist movement, the area that is now Israel was called Palestine. When Israel declared itself independet in 1948, there were areas of Palestine that remained in Arab hands. After the Six Day War, these lands were occupied by Israel, which refuses them the right to vote or to form govenment. The Arabs in these lands are obviously upset about the occupation and want to delcare independence. Since they can't very well declare that they are to be called Jordan or soemthing similar, they decide to use the term that has described thier land for centuries.

Basically, Palestine was there before the modern Isreal and now they are using the name to reestablish that state and identity in the areas of the old Palestine that are not apart of Israel.

And if it is 'occupied territory, it's Israel's to do with what they please.

Iraq is now occupied territory of America, does that mean we can indefinatly prevent those in Iraq from forming a government to maintain basic needs, such as food, water and power? Does that mean we can run tanks through Iraq and bulldoze homes 45 years after the war ends? Does that mean that we can do whatever the hell we please in Iraq without fear of punishment? I don't think so.

I find it more interesting that the Israelis have offered to help clean up the refugee camps, bring them into the modern era, and the Palestinian leadership refuses every time.

Israel and Palestine are at war. If the Palestinians allowed the Israelis to come in and "clean up", eg - remove military leadership and suspected terrorist/freedom fighters and destroy the palestinian independence infrastruction, then Palestine would never gain independece and would never get the right to return. No wonder the leadership refuses this "help."

Dragonlich

If this is indeed an objective description of what happens, then the Israelis are evil. However, would this make them terrorists?

Are these people washing their cars in order to "cause terror/fear" to achieve a certain goal? Are images of Israelis washing their cars with "Palesitian" water scary enough to drive the Palestinians out of their homes, or are these (hypothetical) images even designed to do that? If so, it *might* indeed be terrorism. If not, it's simply people washing their cars.

Oh, and this thread is about terrorism in general, not Israel/Palestine. So please stay on topic, Pennington. I could fill an entire thread with posts discussing the validity of your claims, but that should go into the designated Israel/Palestine thread.